UKIP and French National Front storm European elections

May 26th, 2014 at 1:13 pm by David Farrar

The Guardian reports:

Nigel Farage unleashed his much promised political earthquake across British politics as Ukip easily topped the poll in the European elections, marking the first time in modern history that neither Labour nor theConservatives have won a British national election.

The Liberal Democrats have suffered a near total wipeout and are course to lose all but one of their 11 MEPs, placing serious pressure on Nick Clegg to justify his leadership of his party.

In a stunning warning to the established political parties, which lined up over the weekend to say they took the Ukip threat seriously, Farage’s party was expected to win about 28% of the national poll. This was a near doubling of the 16.5% it secured in the last European elections in 2009 when it came second to the Tories and took 13 seats. Just 20 years ago, in its first European parliamentary election, Ukip managed just 1% of the vote.

Labour predicted that, when all the final results were assembled, they would have polled 25.7%, with the Tories on 24.5 % and the Green partyin fourth place.

Farage said the result justified the description of an earthquake because “never before in the history of British politics has a party seen to be an insurgent party ever topped the polls in a national election”.

This makes the 2015 UK election very difficult to predict. UKIP take a lot of votes away from the Conservatives and this hurts them as they have FPP. But if they manage some sort of arrangement, then their combined vote will be higher than Labour, Greens and Lib Dems.

Ironically the UKIP may end up defeating the main thing they want – a referendum on Europe. If there is a change of Government, then there won’t be one.

Meanwhile in France:

France’s Front National won the election there with a projected 25% of the vote, while the governing socialists of President François Hollande collapsed to 14%, according to exit polls.

It is disturbing to see neo-Nazis getting elected in France, Germany, Austria, Greece etc.

Tags:

209 Responses to “UKIP and French National Front storm European elections”

  1. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Message to elitist establishment media/ academic/ political bloc.

    Stop telling us what is good for us.

    We don’t want what you want.

    And if your party has a set of principles, then damn well stick to them.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. bringbackdemocracy (429 comments) says:

    The rise of UKIP is being paralleled in New Zealand with the rise of the Conservatives. Both parties stand for smaller government, more democracy, less secret international treaties and opposition to redefining marriage.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    UKIP take a lot of votes away from the Conservatives and this hurts them as they have FPP.

    UKIP took votes from the Lib Dems this time around.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Only a short time ago the Conservatives under David Cameron were calling the UKIP crazies and racists, but have now decided they might want to merge with them.

    Who could ever vote for a party so devoid of principle?

    The UK Conservatives are rotten to the core.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. RRM (10,104 comments) says:

    It is disturbing to see neo-Nazis getting elected in France, Germany, Austria, Greece etc.

    I keep telling you – we will see an anti-Muslim uprising in Europe within our lifetimes. History repeats.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    The prog liberals stomped their way all across Europe allowing millions of Muslims into their countries when the public were saying no! And then they stood on the Anders mine and wiped out a generation of Labour MP’s in Norway!

    You would have thought they would have learnt from that – but no – they kept the immigration tap on full – and now have the National Front to contend with. Idiots.

    Just look at the current facts ——– Jews have been leaving France at a higher year on year rate for the last 5 yrs or so. Their destination is Israel.

    The French government has been turning a blind eye to all the anti-semitism that is waged against the Jews from the 8 million strong Muslim population. Extreme violence being subjected by Muslims is not uncommon on Jewish school kids and their mothers going to and from school.

    Just like back in Germany and other european countries prior to WW2 – where the governments turned a blind eye also.

    The French prog/socialist/liberal government only has itself to blame for this.

    .

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. YesWeDid (1,056 comments) says:

    The ‘rise of the Conservatives’? Like up to 2% then back to 1%?

    Message to Redbaiter, the people do want ‘the establishment’ which part of National on 51% polling don’t you understand?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Richard Hurst (885 comments) says:

    Goodbye Europe.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    It is disturbing to see neo-Nazis getting elected in France, Germany, Austria, Greece etc.

    I don’t like it either, but the refusal to take people’s concerns seriously is what has lead to this.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Is this a continuing theme in European politics – send representatives to Brussels whom you would not trust to run your own country?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    It is disturbing to see neo-Nazis getting elected in France, Germany, Austria, Greece etc.

    Don’t worry, the neo-communists got way more votes

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    UKIP take a lot of votes away from the Conservatives and this hurts them as they have FPP. UKIP took votes from the Lib Dems this time around.

    They took a lot off of Labour, as well.  More so in Essex and the North. This cannot really be ascribed to a Tory protest vote.

    It is disturbing to see neo-Nazis getting elected in France, Germany, Austria, Greece etc.

    Yes it is.  Watch out for a move towards an even more protectionist, centrally controlled Europe.  Those parties don’t like ‘austerity’ either, not that Europe has practised that much!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Only a short time ago the Conservatives under David Cameron were calling the UKIP crazies and racists

    I think the term that really hurt was “swivel-eyed loons”.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Could it be that the UKIP simply takes votes off the Opposition?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    “Message to Redbaiter, the people do want ‘the establishment’ which part of National on 51% polling don’t you understand?”

    Get real, these are the same simple minded misinformed swing voter idiots who kept Helen Clark in power for 9 years. Easily lead sheep. Voting for a Nat party which is the most left wing govt NZ have ever had and all because they like John Key the way they liked Helen.

    What really matters is the core Conservative voters and the ones who don’t vote because their disgusted by the choices on offer.

    You’re the same kind of idiot as is in the UK Conservatives. They did nothing but disparage the UKIP for 5 years and are now lining up to kiss Farage’s arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    The spineless and Obama-like Cameron will be forced to pact with Farage and UKIP. The wishy-washy Lib Dems and socialist Labour are and will be the big losers. The UK will be better for it.

    By the way, the comrades are already sharpening the knives and looking for Milliband’s replacement.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/25/Exclusive-interv-farage-goodbye

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. freethinker (677 comments) says:

    Not an unexpected situation as politicians across Europe have been ignoring the wishes of their voters for a decade and now the chickens are coming home to roost and the backlash may well be substantial as few if any of the leaders appear to have the vision to understand what is required. Anti semitic and Muslim sentiment is based as always on the perception that an easily identified group is prejudicing the aspirations of the locals. A mass re migration of some and better integration by those staying and accepting the local customs etc may help but history has no precedents so we may be looking at some pretty nasty reactions whilst the re-balancing takes place. Almost every economic downturn produces this type of reaction to some degree.Human nature is such that we seldom change until some overwhelming situation forces it and Politicians/Beaurecrats and Big Business have missed the easier route to defusing the problem which now seems to be heading for an explosion.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    Sorry DPF, I’m going to use some strong language, I’m sick of your labeling :

    Wanting to become a minority in your ancestral homeland = moderate.

    Not wanting to become a minority in your ancestral homeland = extreme , mentally ill or as you describe it it “neo-nazi”

    In terms of our own politics, when will the socialist National party realise that screaming “WAYCISM” isn’t going to work anymore and blind us to the truth about what is is going on in our own country.

    Both indigenous people of this country and those who built thi country with their own hands know that not wanting to become a multi-culti cesspit, not wanting to be a minority in your OWN country, not wanting half the rest of the world here is NOT being racist.

    The sooner these ethnic cleansers in the National party (and Labour Party) are put on trial the better. And I will warn them now, if I am the judge their chances of getting off are very slim indeed.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Reddy is so quick to dismiss the views of the majority. With something like 80% of our country backing the consensus National/Labour position on, well just about everything, there is very little opportunity for the loopy ideas he espouses to have an impact here.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ryan Sproull (7,361 comments) says:

    Ironically the UKIP may end up defeating the main thing they want

    DPF becomes the first person in 2014 to correctly use the word “ironically”.

    10 points to DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Kimble
    Agree, they are taking them from all. But especially the Lib Dems. Notably they had good penetration into Labour held seats where the Conservatives have never made any traction before.
    Farages hero is Maggie Thatcher and he sees himself as wanting to deliver to the ” ordinary” worker the aspirations that she tried and succeeded in delivering. Labour , the Lib Dems and the conservatives are just seen as being part of the ingrained political elite and having nothing in common with the ” ordinary” person. Yep- the political “center” which is where the power is.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    What I meant was that the vote for UKIP was a vote against the establishment, which at any point in time could be the party in power.

    Which would not bode well for them, should they ever become the establishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Ryan Sproull (7,361 comments) says:

    Reddy is so quick to dismiss the views of the majority. With something like 80% of our country backing the consensus National/Labour position on, well just about everything, there is very little opportunity for the loopy ideas he espouses to have an impact here.

    A Labour Party friend of mine once explained the centrism of parliamentary politics to me. He said that on a street of 100 houses, two shops will move closer to the centre (and to each other) so that they’re the shortest walk for as many house dwellers as possible, even for those at the far right and far left of the street.

    (I replied that, the problem is, people start moving house to live closer to the shops.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    (I replied that, the problem is, people start moving house to live closer to the shops.)

    Yeah, now THAT is ironic!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Jack5 (5,286 comments) says:

    Could Winston Peters be shielding NZ from an electoral drift like this? Winnie as a lightning rod that attracts the potential vote, but once he has it, nods off and does nothing more with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    I’d be wary of forecasting any great influence for the UKIP, who have yet to win a seat in the House of Commons.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Could Winston Peters be shielding NZ from an electoral drift like this?

    Well, I DO like the image of WP as a human shield.

    Though if I had to choose one for myself, it is hard to go past (or through) Kim Dotcom.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Pat Condell foretold the shambles of the EC ” Dictatorship ” and the revolt against it.The core issue is the meaningful restoration of voters and sovereign rights of each member nation and their peoples,

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. stephen2d (99 comments) says:

    Can I ask what is making Le Front National a neo-nazi party??

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. spanish_tudor (84 comments) says:

    The Front National under Marine Le Pen – more moderate than the previous leader, her father Jean-Marie – is not a neo-Nazi party. Mlle Le Pen has moved the FN away from the racist and anti-Semitic policies of her father, and is far more democratically-inclined than he ever was.

    The FN now campaigns on social and economic issues, not racial ones – and they would like to see immigration reduced, not abolished (which was their previous stance under Jean-Marie Le Pen).

    In fact, many of the FN policies are a lot more palatable than the tosh we get offered up by the likes of the Greens.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    They share some characteristics of fascist parties, but have tried to tone down the overt racism since Jean Marie Le Pen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Did someone really ask what is making The National Front a neo-nazi party?

    They are obviously nationalistic, so the question becomes are they socialistic?

    Well, they ARE French. So, yes. Yes, they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Perhaps we need a Nigel Farange here to halt the drift towards apartheid and racial preference/privilege. I know from friends in the UK that they are very worried about the direction their country is heading in especially with excessive immigration and the very fabric of their society changed seemingly forever. When a Government stops listening to the people (as ours has done!) they start looking elsewhere (as I am doing!)!!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    We already have a Nigel Farange here – he’s called Winston Peters.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Heavens above!! Well he had better start looking much sharper after the recent ‘wobbles’ which make one wonder about him. He’s had plenty of opportunity over the years but seems to have squandered much of it. Is he really a ‘Nigel Farange’? Not good enough I’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    have tried to tone down the overt racism since Jean Marie Le Pen.

    Unsuccessfully.

    .

    At a cocktail party before an election rally in Marseille on Tuesday evening, days before the European elections in which the FN is leading the polls in France, Le Pen spoke of the “demographic explosion” in the world.

    “Monseigneur Ebola could sort that out in three months,” he said in front of journalists.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/jean-marie-le-pen-ebola-population-explosion-europe-immigration

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Scott (1,808 comments) says:

    The core issues seem to be national sovereignty and the desire to run one’s own country rather than to be dictated to by impersonal secular bureaucracies in Europe.

    Also the feeling that people are losing their country to uncontrolled immigration, particularly Moslem immigration which many believe is an existentialist threat to Western civilisation.

    In many ways it looks like the ordinary person fighting back for their own traditional values and rebelling against the secular/progressive/multicultural/all cultures are just as good as each other/gay agendas of the elites that have been in power for far too long in Great Britain and Europe and in this country for that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Maybe European voters just derive some perverse satisfaction from sending Eurosceptic MPs to Brussels to battle the bureaucracy there, while knowing that they wouldn’t support the same fringe parties in their domestic elections.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Paul10 (2 comments) says:

    UKIP did well because the government of the UK has consistently ignored the concerns of a great section of their population. This is just the inevitable result of bad policies from the central government and people are now voicing their dissatisfaction. There will be no Conservative-UKIP pact because I think this has now gone beyond on Europe. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband have responded to all of UKIP’s concerns by labeling them as a racist party. Yes, some of their support came from former BNP; yes, Farage is not a perfect leader in himself. However, if you look at what they propose their is a clear distinction between them and other parties in Continental Europe.

    Also, I think it is important to realise that the National Front are not Neo-Nazi. Calling someone who you don’t agree with Nazis is just stupid. There is a big difference between Nazism, Fascism, White Nationalism and right-wing Populism. To call someone a Nazi for supporting the NF just emboldens their message and is insulting to those people who would vote for such a party (not me). Golden Dawn in Greece is a true Neo-Nazi party and I believe it is the same thing in Hungary.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “…..The sooner these ethnic cleansers in the National party (and Labour Party) are put on trial the better…..”

    Right on the money EAD.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    Not only are the chickens coming home to roost,the fox is being let into the hen house.

    http://www.ansa.it/english/news/general_news/2014/05/23/nine-presumed-smugglers-arrested-in-mare_c0c31671-4d55-40fb-af63-6cc6384e1013.html

    Governments concerned about the human rights of illegal immigrants are being punished by their electorates. Rightly so.

    There’s a lesson in this for Aotearoa.

    In Ireland too there has been a big swing to the radical left , no more austerity, they say.(Recent arrest of terrorist leader no bar to the bastards!)

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-coup-in-capital-leaves-mainstream-parties-reeling-1.1808809

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-coup-in-capital-leaves-mainstream-parties-reeling-1.1808809

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,760 comments) says:

    Guess the Ukraine won’t be joining the EU anytime soon. At least the Ukraine just voted for a president who is an Oligarch use to cutting deals with Russia, beating an Oligarch use to cutting deals with Russia. Freedom and Democracy American style. At least the UK doesn’t have to worry about being flooded with 44,573,205 Ukrainians. Sorry, sorry, 42,227,200 Ukrainians and falling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nick R (522 comments) says:

    I’m not sure how seriously anyone should take the European parliamentary election. Very few people vote in them, and there is a track record of minor parties doing far better there than they ever achieve in national elections, probably because so many voters don’t think European elections matter much. Even well informed people can struggle to name their MEPs.

    The local council elections are probably a better guide for the UK than the European parliament. UKIP still did well there, but not as well as they did in Europe.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    UKIP did reasonably well in the council elections, but not well enough to control any council. This suggests that they will again struggle to win any parliamentary seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    Unsurprising. Pew found that the majority in nearly every country they surveyed (developed or developing) want less immigration. The main political parties have done the opposite for decades. Result: National Front & similar parties will get more support.

    http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Liberal socialists/ Progressives have been on the wrong side of history for 4 or 5 decades.

    Ignore the likes of Milky and his mates.

    They’re on the way out and they know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    There is absolutely no evidence that the ‘progressive’ consensus is on the way out.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    “……There is absolutely no evidence that the ‘progressive’ consensus is on the way out…..”

    Look at the polls milky……Labour and it’s progressives are out of touch. National’s too.

    Just look at the facts Milky —- Prostitution, smacking, gay marriage -and soon euthanasia- ALL have to be HIDDEN behind private members bills.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    I’m counting National as part of that consensus Harriet. I assume you were too lazy or stupid to read the earlier comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild,

    You’re right. The progressives still hold power in the Cathedral.

    “And the left is the party of the educational organs, at whose head is the press and universities. This is our 20th-century version of the established church. Here at UR, we sometimes call it the Cathedral – although it is essential to note that, unlike an ordinary organization, it has no central administrator. No, this will not make it easier to deal with.”

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.nz/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nukuleka (405 comments) says:

    Not sure that it’s very helpful referring to political groups we disagree with as ‘Neo- Nazis’. Perhaps if we were living in heavily Muslim areas of the UK or France some of us might be tempted to support the Le Pens and Farages of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    @ Nukuleka,

    The irony is that it is jewish groups who are most threatened by the Islamisation of places like France and elsewhere in Europe.

    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/127076/the-very-real-jewish-exodus-from-france

    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/I-see-no-future-for-Jews-in-the-Netherlands

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. hj (7,182 comments) says:

    I think this is about globalisaton: those who benefit and eliteswith utopian ideals who don’t live down there amongst the masses.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. James Stephenson (2,268 comments) says:

    We already have a Nigel Farange here – he’s called Winston Peters.

    Not far off it, as a (still) UKIP supporter I’ve been disappointed by the way Nigel appears to have fallen into somequite lazy populism about immigration, but I guess that’s what’s picked up some of the Labour vote.

    UKIP’s best opportunity to influence the election may be to have an electorate by electorate accomodation with Conservative and Labour MP’s willing to commit to voting for a referendum on the EU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    “I’ve been disappointed by the way Nigel appears to have fallen into somequite lazy populism about immigration,”

    God forbid anyone represent the majority. Worrying about demographic displacement and culture is for Israel, and non-European countries, not the respectable English.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. James Stephenson (2,268 comments) says:

    God forbid anyone represent the majority. Worrying about demographic displacement and culture is for Israel, and non-European countries, not the respectable English.

    There’s a good argument to be made about control of your nation’s borders, but lazy generalisations about “Romainian families moving in next door” are not the way to do it.

    However, if the UK didn’t make it so f-ing impossible to cast your vote from overseas, I’d still have ticked the UKIP box.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. SJM (84 comments) says:

    Ahhh, UKIP. Nice bit of media exposure that will hopefully put them into a position to get a few MP’s into Westminster. But we should put the EU elections in perspective, UKIP has got 3.6 percent of the voting power in a parliment that is essentially a talking shop, and UKIP came fourth in the council elections.

    It should be borne in mind that while UKIP is, correctly, against unlimited immigration, they dont seem to have a plan to exit the EU, the very thing that will allow the UK to halt unrestricted immigration. For that matter they seem to have become sidetracked by the idea of an in-out referendum on the EU, and little thought as to if they can actually win it.

    To win this referendum, if it ever happens, they need to show the public that their jobs and income are not at risk, which would require a well thought out plan to address that basic economic fact, but they dont have one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. OneTrack (3,375 comments) says:

    nukuleka – “Not sure that it’s very helpful referring to political groups we disagree with as ‘Neo- Nazis’. ”

    It’s a characteristic of lefties when they start losing an argument. Closely followed by screaming “racist”.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    It’s not that significant in Europe if it is confined to the UK and France.

    And the UKIP has yet to demonstrate the same capacity to win votes in UK elections (an also ran in the local council elections). The French Party has been around a while without impact on their national politics.

    They are of anti-foreigner sentiment.

    In France because of the pro secular mono-cultural nationalism and in the UK because of the immigration from Europe and the Moslem enclaves developing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. mike tan (499 comments) says:

    EAD:

    “Both indigenous people of this country and those who built thi country with their own hands know that not wanting to become a multi-culti cesspit, not wanting to be a minority in your OWN country, not wanting half the rest of the world here is NOT being racist.”

    I don’t get it, why are people who are so obviously racist so scared of the term? If you’re gonna be a racist own it.

    The indigenous people of this country have been here for hundreds of years, you only squeaked in slightly earlier than the others you are now looking down on from your ivory tower. Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Unity (643 comments) says:

    They are not indigenous mike tan. They came here in boats like the rest of us. There were others here before them – the Moriori for instance. They slaughtered and ate them or ran them off shore. They were almost extinct themselves by 1840 with over 30 years of inter-tribal wars. They were a Stone Age people and civilising them actually saved them from extinction in the end.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ChardonnayGuy (1,232 comments) says:

    At least the scumball fascist Nick Griffin (British National Party) lost his European Parliament seat. I agree about the horrific gains that the French National Front, Hungary’s Jobbik anti-Semites and the racist and neofascist Greek Golden Dawn have made. Unfortunately, when mainstream centre-right parties are electorally weak due to internal schisms (like France’s UMP and the British Tories), or the nation itself is a basket case (ie Greece!) or it has a problematic past history of domestic neofascism itself (ie much of Eastern Europe), these things happen. The only reason that Griffin’s pack of neo-Nazi nutbars didn’t do better is that neofascist organisations are as prone to ridiculous debates over jots and tiddles of ideology as their mirror images within the self-styled vanguard parties of the masses (ie Trotskyite marxists, who are so fissaparous it’s ridiculous). UKIP may have many bizarre proponents and the party undoubtedly needs a good purge to rid itself of possible raving right fellow travellers and BNP or English Democrat entryists, but it’s not as bad as the BNP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Manolo (14,179 comments) says:

    Delingpole on UKIP: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/26/UKIP-why-these-election-results-matter-and-why-the-political-class-will-tell-you-they-don-t

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Just saw Unity’s comment at 8.02 re people here before the Maori. Amazing that this myth persists.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Unity (643 comments) says:

    You may not like it, mikenmild, but it’s a fact. Even David Rankin, the Nga Puhi Chief says as much. According to him, and others, it was apparently in their ‘stories’ passed down. However, I don’t go by verbal stories as they change in the telling (Chinese whispers?). It’s actually written down in logs of seafarers of long long ago. Well before 1840.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    The myth that there were people here before the Maori was demolished long ago. No serious scholar maintains it today and there is absolutely no evidence that New Zealand was inhabited before the Maori arrival.
    I should be amused if you could cite ‘logs of seafarers’ that somehow provide it to be otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Aborigine are indigenous but Maori are not. They are immigrants like the rest of us, and arrived here about 600 years ago.
    “Indigenous (ecology), presence in a region as the result of only natural processes, with no human intervention”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Wrong, mikenmild. You didn’t read my post properly. There were written logs in ships that were here long before 1840 detailing the different types of people. You can’t dispute anything that was written down, unlike verbal stories that grow in the telling. Also, the Moriori were also here before Maori. Maori weren’t originally a race of people. That was a name later given to overall describe the many different tribes here.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    When do you think the Aborigines came to Australia, then? Wasn’t it about 60,000 years ago? Aboriginal simply means the original inhabitants of an area. Maori are the aboriginal people of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Unity, you have no sources for those outlandish claims so you might as well just give it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Well, how’s this for starters, mikenmild. I hope the link comes through.

    Maori TV’s interview with Martin Doutré – Part 1

    There is also information about to be printed in Elocal magazine which will surely be convincing enough for you. There will be more video links to come through shortly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Unity,

    trust Doutre can come up with the Archaeological evidence like occupation sites with artifacts you would expect to find with Celtic culture and civilization e.g pottery and shards, tools and weapons with also writings along these lines,

    http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=celtic+script&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=ZPGDU-wLyfGRBYjygeAC&ved=0CCYQsAQ&biw=1670&bi

    Doutre debunked here,

    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2009/05/celtic-boulders-and-unbalanced.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Unity
    You’re aware that Doutre’s Celtic nonsense has been thoroughly debunked. Oh, and he’s a holocaust denier for good measure.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Unity (643 comments) says:

    How about watching the videos then Mikenmild. I’m not sure if they are all loaded up yet but 6 will be done today. Doutre most certainly isn’t a holocaust denier (the German one I’m talking about). Perhaps you are talking about Tariana Turia’s ‘holocaust’ where no-one died and a small boy had his foot trodden on by a horse.

    However, there are ships logs and I’m trying to find a link to one but time is rather short at the moment. There is also the Ngapuhi chief, David Rankin who said the stories handed down have always said there were people here before his people arrived. Blue eyes, red hair etc etc is mentioned.

    There is the Waipoua Forest where archaelogists are forbidden to inspect for 75 years (moratorium put in place by the Labour Government). Why can’t we know our history? What is there that they are afraid of? It is most peculiar to say the least. No there is genuine fear about us knowing our true history – that is one reason why it has been re-written of late with invented Principles and alluding to a Partnership when only equality under the law was created – for everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    You should read ‘The Quest for Origins’ by Kerry Howe. It is a very short introduction to what is known about the settlement of New Zealand and covers off well the whole range of pseudohistories.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Here’s a brief introduction to Doutre:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2008/12/doutre-implodes.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    “When do you think the Aborigines came to Australia, then? Wasn’t it about 60,000 years ago? Aboriginal simply means the original inhabitants of an area. Maori are the aboriginal people of New Zealand.”

    Aborigines didn’t ” come” to Australia. They were always there. Being aboriginal comes from being indigenous.
    Otherwise how long do you have to be somewhere to be called indigenous ? Putting aside the part Maori in me, we came here in 1839. Is that long enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    You seriously think the Aborignes evolved in Australia? The most recent scholarship indicates an arrival around 50,000 years ago, and fossil remains date back about 45,000 years. But you know better?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Oh for fucks sake. You’re equating 50,000 years with 600? What a moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Unity (643 comments) says:

    How about this link then. I hope it comes through.

    http://www.elocal.co.nz/view_article~id~122%20%20%20%20%20%20%20.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    You’re the moron, All_on_Red, who claimed the Australian aboriginals ‘were always there’. The whole point is that the aboriginal peoples of both Australia and New Zealand were the first peoples to settle the respective land masses.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Unity, your disingenuous and sidestepping the issues raised. Labour forbade excavations at the Waipoua forest 75 year moratorium.?? Citations please.?
    But why would an alleged celtic culture confine their activities there.?? There would be more potential occupational sites surely scattered throughout out the country or is there yet gain the usual mantra of access forbidden or suppressed.?
    All_on_Red, Aborigines originally were thought like Maori to have come out of Asia ,but at a much earlier date.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    @ Mikenmild,

    That piece equates Joel Hayward as one too? I can’t remember if you said you’d read the History Now article about the appalling treatment of Hayward – subsequently published in the NZ Herald?

    http://www.joelhayward.com/thehistorynowarticle.htm

    btw. read about the British Intelligence intercepts of German Communications, the Red Cross reports and also pathology reports from the time – typhus, shooting and hanging were causes of death – no indication of gas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    I’ve read that thanks Bob. Hayward, in my view, was extremely ill advised in researching the holocaust, badly supervised and predictably got lots wrong. However, I don’t think he is some kind of neo Nazi.
    You doubt the existence of the gas chambers?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    1. There is no evidence of pre Maori settlement.
    2. There is no evidence that Moriori DNA differs from Maori.

    Indigenous means a (first) people and related culture that developed in a land area.

    Maori culture is distinct from that in the Pacific and this distinction emerged here.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    Polynesian Maori simply added their genetics to the mix which was already here. The “people before Maori” are just one part of the history and ancestry of Maori. Maori today are not the same genetic mix as they were in 1840, and the genetic mix in 1840 was not the same as that which dominated in 1200 or whenever it was.

    It doesn’t matter whether the earlier people were Celts (though they almost certainly weren’t) or Phoenecians or Taiwanese Hill Tribes or Chinese or South Americans or Martians or any blend thereof and possibly all of them. What matters is that the British made their Treaty with the people they found living here and in charge, and anyone who had been here prior to the arrival of the Polynesian contingent were subsumed by that contingent and became part of its gene pool.

    Or possibly got eaten. Or not. And who cares anyway? What on earth has this got to do with UKIP and the European Parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Unity (643 comments) says:

    stephieboy, did you not log onto the link I gave? There is plenty of information there and I wasn’t being disingenuous or sidestepphing issues. Waipoua Forest was of particular interest because there was much still intact. However, there are many other places less intact around the country and you could refer to Martin Doutre’s videos. He recently had a Maori TV camera crew following him around for a whole day and though Maori TV wouldn’t show any of what they filmed on their TV programme (I wonder why?!) the camera crew who were from overseas were absolutely amazed and told Martin he should write a book on it – that’s how impressed they were. However, he has a copy of what was filmed and is posting videos today (6 of them).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    What mattered, Boris, for the nineteenth century historians who first proposed these theories, was the idea that there had been people here before the Maori. The Maori had conquered them and so would be conquered in their turn by the Europeans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    You can’t equate 50,000 years with 600. You just can’t. The time and evolutionary difference is huge.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Exactly, Boris. We have been getting rather off topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    50,000 years is pretty much a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. muggins (3,832 comments) says:

    Remember Enoch Powell ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    ***50,000 years is pretty much a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.***

    That was what Stephen Jay Gould said. He was wrong though.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.co.nz/2008/12/recent-natural-selection-in-humans.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Look, we are really arguing about semantics but indigenous used to mean
    “Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native:” – Oxford Dictionary

    I am well aware the UN would like to change that. But Maori did NOT originate or occur naturally here.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    @ Muggins,

    Powell’s over the top rhetoric didn’t help matters. He was right though about the changes making parts of Britain unrecognisable.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570506/Police-covered-up-violent-campaign-to-turn-London-area-Islamic.html

    By about 2060 white British will be a minority?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    I agree on your definition All_on_Red. Maori did not originate in New Zealand and the Aborigines did not originate in Australia. Both are aboriginal peoples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Exactly Bob, 50,000 years for mankind is a long long time. And trying to compare it to 600 is just silly. What I do find amusing is that I am the Maori and I don’t think I’m indigenous but are being told I am by a bunch of White imports!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    As to the Maori claim to indigenous people status, they are regarded as such by the international community – the foreign neutrals have no reason to deny the obvious.

    And as to those who think there is a connection between indigenous people status and the Treaty claim – the Treaty claim is based on prior Maori occupation and terms for subsequent settlement under the Crown. So questioning Maori indigenous people status has no impact on the Treaty whatsoever.

    So go Brash off …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    All on Red, the Maori have never existed anywhere but here. Their culture formed here. They arrived as foreigners, just as the rest of us. They became Maori here, the rest of us became New Zealanders here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    But but but the Aborigines were created in Australia at the beginning of time by spirits who rose from beneath the earth.
    Since we all apparently came from Africa then aren’t we all aboriginal?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    We’re only aboriginal if we are descended from the original inhabitants of our part of the globe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    SPC
    I’m Nga Puhi. Umm what are you? You mix so many issues and points up.
    We were really only talking about how indigenous is defined but I guess that us poor Maori fellas should be grateful to learn how the ” international community” regards us. And that we should accept the label they put on us.
    Also many parts of MY culture has distinct and clear origins to that of Hawaiki where we are supposed to have immigrated from. So don’t tell me we BECAME Maori here. The name came from here but not our cultural origins.
    Not sure what’s up with the Brash snark.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    All on Red, I don’t care what iwi you have ancestry in, you still don’t get to speak for other Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Unity (97 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    Fine then ,but all you and Doutre have to do is produce the archaeologic evidence of celtic habitation especially artifacts like pottery, shards, weapons, tools and inscriptions from various sites that Doutre etc night of excavated . Whats the problem there.?
    You don’t need permission from the Maori to do that surely .?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    As for the Brash comment it was not addressed to you and refers to Unity’s links – where the idea that the Treaty and iwi claims are dependent on Maori being the original settlers is commonplace.

    And the Maori culture in New Zealand is clearly different to any in the Pacific, it only emerged here. Just as Aboriginal culture emerged in Oz, after they settled. Both cultures influenced by the land/habitat they settled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    SPC
    Oh I thought it was the “international Community” speaking for Maori?
    Maori culture evolved here. Parts of it existed elsewhere before we arrived.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    The UN recognises the Maori as an indigenous people, so do other indigenous peoples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    All on Red, Maori culture only evolved here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    And we’re back to the discussion I was having with Mikey about how the definition of indigenous has been changed by the UN.
    Phew, glad to see you’ve caught up then.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    The idea that the UN changed the definition of indigenous, so that Maori could be included, is one you invented.

    Maori culture is native to here, it evolved no where else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Semantics SPC, Maori origins and culture extend beyond when we first arrived in NZ. You’re clinging to the label “Maori ” and trying to say that only applies once we were in NZ.
    My point is that to be Maori it’s about culture and cultural heritage not from a timeframe once in NZ and a label put on us because of that. We have much in common with the peoples of Hawaii but certainly once here evolved slightly differently.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Definition
    indigenous used to mean
    “Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native:” – Oxford Dictionary

    Now look at wikitionary
    “indigenous (not comparable)

    (chiefly of living things) Born or engendered in, native to a land or region, especially before an intrusion.”

    See the difference . Originating or occurring naturally has become born or engendered in. It’s a great example of how the left use and change language for their own purpose. Yes, it’s semantics but….
    Enough said- must feed the whanau:-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    The term indigenous implies obviously that there were no peoples before the arrival of the Maori and the Aborigine.
    Martin Doutre and others trying to undermine this by their white celtic fantasies which is a belated and blatant attempt to delegitimize TOW claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    All on Red, the American Indian is indigenous across the American continent from near the Arctic to near the South Pole. In a number of countries and the local Indians have different names, just as the indigenous peoples of the Pacific do in each area. In each area the Indians and the Polynesians evolved to be different. In the case of Maori who evolved here, the matter is complicated by different origin myths for the canoes etc.

    As for context those Indians in the South who came down from the North, after their ancestors crossing from Asia to Alaska, they are no less indigenous in the South for there being Indians further North still.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    If anyone wants to follow the debate between scholarship , NZ Pre History on one hand and Neo Nazism and White Celtic Pseudo Archeology and History, then go no further than here ,

    http://books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter/

    Here Scott Hamilton ,writer,reviewer ,Ph D in Sociology unpacks, critically scrutinizes the claims of Holocust denier, 9/11 Truther and avowed Conspiracy Theorist Martin Doutre about the myth of a Pre Maori white Celtic civilization.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    SPC
    Agree about the American Indians but because they have been there longer than 600 years . Look we just have a different view because of timeframe. My view is that to be called indigenous you have to be there a long long time.600years just ain’t long enough. 40,000? Well yes because that is long enough for serious evolution to take place, not just adaptation, like Maori did here, but actual evolution as Homo Sapiens , so then you are ” originating or occurring naturally”

    “According to the prevailing New World migration model, migrations of humans from Eurasia to the Americas took place via Beringia, a land bridge which connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The majority of authorities agree that the earliest migration via Beringia took place at least 13,500 years ago, with disputed evidence that people had migrated into the Americas much earlier, up to 40,000 years ago.[citation needed] These early Paleo-Indians spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes. According to the oral histories of many of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, they have been living there since their genesis, described by a wide range of traditional creation accounts.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

    Ps , lots of stuff on Wiktionary definition on indigenous on how the UN views it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    The Far-Right are coming, the Far-Right are coming….

    Nigel Farage of Great Britian’s UKip Party has refused to work with the Front National. He reiterated his stand today, stating that a deal with Le Pen’s party “isn’t going to happen.” Farage added, “We’ve got to find a group of people that we think are part of our political family with views that are consistent with classical liberal democracy.” (emphasis added). The Front National manifestly is not such “a group of people.”

    Classical liberal democracy? Who are these rubes?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Unity (643 comments) says:

    I see we are still off topic on this thread. Earlier I was as guilty of this as anyone. However, now that you have posted that article by Scott Hamilton I’m totally amazed that you can accept what he has said. What on earth would he know? Did you really read it? Most of it was shooting the messenger and denigrating others, and then there was a part near the end where he mentioned huge numbers of Europeans supposedly having come. Who on earth said that? I would have thought that at the most there would have been small pockets here and there. He then refuted his gross exaggeration by saying the forests were still intact so they couldn’t have come. Who knows how these people came. They may been shipwrecked or even dumped off from sailing ships.

    However, I think this subject should be discussed elsewhere. It doesn’t really relate to this thread. I believe all 6 of Martin Doutre’s videos of his interview with Maori TV have now been uploaded for all to see so you can make your own minds up. As Maori TV are paid for by us I would have thought they should have shown impartiality but they didn’t. All State broadcasters are supposed to be impartial.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Impartiality doesn’t mean they need to screen loonies’ videos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Unity- Where are the links to the videos?

    On MTV or somewhere else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    I’ll try again. There were peoples living in New Zealand prior to the arrival of Polynesians. You could call those Polynesians the Polynesian ancestors of modern Maori. The peoples who were here before them were the OTHER ancestors of modern Maori. There is plenty of mention of them in Maori oral history, including plenty of references to some of them being white. Being white doesn’t mean they were Celts; they might have been, of course, but that isn’t very likely. You don’t have to be Celtic to have pale skin and blonde or red hair. As with any clash of cultures on first meeting, not everything was nice and friendly. Some of the earlier peoples were killed, enslaved, or eaten. The rest were subsumed. Maori in the 1800s were the descendants of those Polynesians and those earlier peoples who interbred.
    Thus the argument made by some supremacist types that “Whites were here first, therefore Maori are not Tangata Whenua” doesn’t even pass logic, because Maori at the time of European and British arrivals in the 1800s were the product of the blending of the earlier peoples with the later arriving Polynesians. I don’t know what’s difficult to understand about any of this. It isn’t case of “Maori or White”; it’s “Maori are made of many parts, some of which were probably white.”
    Since the arrival of British and European people in the 1800s Maori have come to incorporate yet more genetic diversity, but that hasn’t stopped them being Maori – or has it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    There is actually no evidence for any human habitation of New Zealand before the arrival of the Maori. None. Zilch. Zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Who said the earlier people were Celts? There are quite a number of other possibilities given carvings found here that are exactly the same as those found in countries on the other side of the world – Egypt and Scotland to name but two. Even our Koru (fern scroll) is in a cave in Scotland and dates way way back.

    Also Boris, it’s surely probably pretty hard, and also insulting to their main ancestry, to call themselves ‘Maori’ when they only have a minute portion of Maori blood. However, many are doing it so I guess if you feel ‘Maori’ you are ‘Maori’ even if you don’t look it at all.

    We are still off topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    mikenmild, you’re not following me. I am not arguing that there were people here before Maori. However Maori themselves record through their own history that there were people here before Polynesians arrived; you know, Kupe, the Great Migration, lots of waka, brown tattooed folk, that lot. Before them there were other people. They all contributed to what and who we know as Maori. Even before the white man arrived in the 1800s Maori were never 100% Polynesian. Maori = Polynesian + whoever else was here before them. So you are right, there is no evidence of human habitation prior to the arrival of the Maori, but there’s plenty of evidence of human habitation prior to the arrival of Polynesians.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, I forgot to post the links to the videos. Happy watching. I haven’t watched them myself yet.

    Part 1 – http://youtu.be/mR7bhbXZ_AE

    Part 2 – http://youtu.be/FSgvmf_5Ktc

    Part 3 – http://youtu.be/EJIvEWGlwXE

    Part 4 – http://youtu.be/s2yfSf-YWaU

    Part 5 – http://youtu.be/OBBGmR6ZN1k

    Part 6 – http://youtu.be/i4ze03n-x0w

    The Polynesians or Taiwanese or wherever they came from, weren’t called Maori when they first arrived. It was a name given much later to all the natives when they were in New Zealand. They hadn’t all come from the same place and were never a cohesive race as is seen by the way they constantly fought and ate each other. They could never have ruled our country because they could never agree on anything. They still can’t. It was the peaceful ones amongst them who agitated to come under the umbrella of Queen Victoria – for protection from the constant violence and because they gradually could see a better way of living from observing the settlers.

    We’re still off topic!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Thank you kindly Unity.

    I will make sure I watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Boris
    Oh, I understand you okay, it’s just that you are completely wrong. Maori are all descended from Polynesian voyagers who came here from the eastern pacific around 800 years ago. There is no evidence of any other inhabitant being here before that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    Hmm, tell that to Waitaha, whose history goes back 69 generations. That works out to about 600AD.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Oral histories are notoriously unreliable. Typically, they go back to gods or other mythical creatures. For example, the Merovingian kings of France believed themselves to be descended from Neptune.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    69 generations isn’t a big number to count or keep tabs of, particularly when the details are recorded in carvings. To say that Maori didn’t have a written language isn’t strictly correct in that sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Well if you are going with the Barry Brailsford nonsense…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    No, I spoke with Waitaha directly instead. They’re not very happy with Mr Brailsford for hijacking their history and flying it to Celtica.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    So, apart from some mysterious ‘Waitaha’ elders and their alleged genealogy, what other evidence have you seen to contradict the generally accepted archaeological record?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Unity, just keep on producing the archaeological evidence in the form of arrowheads,bows ,axes, pottery ,shards, stone inscriptions etc that point conclusively to a pre Maori Celtic presence in N Z.
    Martin Doutre must have plenty of this.Or is it all a Conpiracy from Doutre,Holocausr denier,9/11 Truther and Zionis Jew Internationak Conpiracist.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. wikiriwhis business (4,209 comments) says:

    “Or is it all a Conpiracy from Doutre,Holocausr denier,9/11 Truther and Zionis Jew Internationak Conpiracist.?”

    Just look on the US dollar note where it says New World Order.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Great wikiriwhis, don’t forget to add Denver Airport into that too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Wiki, the US dollar bill folding tricks.?

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/U.S._dollar_bill_folding_tricks

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    NWS US dollar bill = “Novus Ordo Seclorum” New Order of the Ages

    New World Order translates “Novus Ordo Mundi”?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    Waitaha history recalls the burning of the South Island lowland forests, which according to radiocarbon dating of remaining stumps and roots predated the arrival of Polynesians by around 300 years. That’s a mighty coincidence of invented memory if it isn’t true.
    Also as stephieboy points out there are other artifacts which don’t fit with Polynesian tradition, or if they had them before they arrived they abandoned them immediately after. I don’t believe there were Celts, but there were bits of pottery, which Polynesian Maori never made, and there are still rock drawings which they don’t do either.
    I don’t know why you have such a problem with the idea of 1800s Maori having ancestors other than Polynesians.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Citing a genealogy back 69 generations is not evidence that this was here, rather than somewhere else.

    Knowing it would trump those who just listed their iwi pedigree here in Enzed, and infer an older more ancient knowledge than others, which could later be confused with or presented as a longer presence here.

    Possibly Waitaha only had a different origin and had a separate area of settlement at first to maintain this distinction.

    But we have yet to see DNA evidence of any distinction from Polynesian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Which burning of forests in the South Island Boris? Was there only one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    That’s not to say that there aren’t any puzzles left about the settlement of New Zealand. There was the dating of rat DNA to far earlier than known human settlement. If you are going to push back your date for settlement to beyond a thousand years ago you would really need to come up with some archaeological evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Oral tradition could well confuse discovery with later settlement. Earlier discovery (thus rat bones etc) is probable.

    And some would try and demonstrate connection back to an ancestor who discovered an island, as much as those who later settled it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Archaelogical finds over the years have apparently been given to Maori. I wonder what they did with them.

    It’s long been known that when people get sarcastic and give put-downs, they are either losing the argument or worried that things might be true. As Boris said – I don’t know why you have such a problem with the idea of 1800s Maori having ancestors other than Polynesians. I would actually love to know every tiny detail about my ancestors. I would like the true history of this country to be there for us all so we can celebrate it and pass it on to the coming generations. What’s the point in a reinvented history. What’s wrong with being honest? Our country can’t be a happy one if living with deceit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    If Maori had non Polynesian ancestors there should be some record in the DNA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    ‘What’s the point in a reinvented history.’
    Ask the pseudohistorians who maintain there were people in New Zealand before the Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    “Oral tradition could well confuse discovery with later settlement.”…yeah, that’ll be it. The poor sods were so feckin dumb they couldn’t tell the difference between where they left from and where they ended up at, when they created the songs that held the history which they would pass on down through the generations.
    I challenge any other person of white European descent to accurately chart their own family history and lineage back past about 250 or 300 years, even with the benefits of the advanced data recording technologies of the time – you know, quills and parchment and so forth.

    “But we have yet to see DNA evidence of any distinction from Polynesian.”

    Even within Polynesia there are distinct and different trails of human travel and spread revealed in DNA. Mitochondrial DNA from contemporary Maori gave us the link to the hill tribes of Taiwan, who are ethnically distinct from the Han Chinese. Some North Island East Coast tribes possess Portuguese genetic markers. Maori Battalion soldiers in North Africa in WWII found such similarity between their language and that of certain tribes in both Egypt and Libya that they could communicate freely. The Egyptian swamp hen and the Pukeko are the same bird. Raupo similarly occurs in wetlands near the western coast of the Red Sea. There are countless more of these archaeological indicators if you only care to go looking with an open mind.

    In any conflict or clash of cultures the first casualty is the truth, and the history books are written by the victors. Even today the story of MoriOri, as happily taught to generations of New Zealand school children by Maori teachers as well as Pakeha, is being overwritten, proclaimed as a lie or a myth or a misunderstanding.

    “Which burning of forests in the South Island Boris? Was there only one?”

    All of lowland Canterbury from Kaikoura to Oamaru and inland to the foothills was forested until as recently as 1,000 years ago. Enough of it was destroyed in one conflagration that weather patterns were altered, according, once again, to Waitaha, who made attempts at replanting which failed for lack of rain.

    And so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    None of those ‘archaeological indicators’ are actually archaeological indicators. And there is no evidence that the burning of forests pre-dated archaelogical estimates for the arrival of the Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    Says who? You’ve never actually personally investigated anything which could be remotely described as anything close to ‘evidence’ beyond a cursory Google, now have you? Set in your thinking and not interested in anything which questions or challenges it?

    I do note that you now acknowledge the burning of the forests. If they had been burned post 1300AD there would still be timber remnants above ground, which there are not.

    “pre-dated archaelogical estimates” – hillarious. Rat bones from 2000 years ago don’t count for squat, I guess. Estimates? Depends on who you talk to, and even then they all build in a very comfortable margin of backside-covering error.

    There are the adze marks on a tree stump discovered under a building site in Auckland which date to 2,500 years ago.

    There are the human footprints discovered under a layer of volcanic ash dated to 20,000 years near Taupo – not in the modern epoch, granted, but the history of the world is not necessarily exactly as is told by everyone who tells it.

    You haven’t addressed the MoriOri question yet, is that because you can’t?

    There’s a brilliant scene in the remake of Planet of the Apes, where the progressive young scientist Ape questions the orthodox scientific view that flight is impossible. The grumpy old conservative scientist Ape ridicules the questioning. The younger scientist is then shown how to make a paper dart by the captured human, and throws it for the benefit of old grumpy. “What is that?” asks old grumpy. “It’s a toy. It floats on the air,” the young progressive tells him. Old Grumpy seizes the dart, his face contorted with hate and rage. He crumples it into nothing, and snarls “impossible.”

    Human habitation of New Zealand prior to the 1200AD arrival of Polynesian Maori? Impossible. The science says so. Snarly face.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    What Moriori question?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    I don’t necessarily take what is written here as gospel, and I don’t expect that mikenmild will even read it, but it’s an interesting perspective and has a few snippets which I can actually personally reconcile with some corroborating information.

    http://www.elocal.co.nz/view_Article~id~1076~title~DNA_to_Rock_the_nation_Part_1.html

    http://www.elocal.co.nz/View_Article~Id~1108~title~Changing_Our_NZ_History._DNA_to_Rock_the_Nation_Part_2.html

    http://www.elocal.co.nz/PrintArticle.aspx?articleid=1148

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    “What Moriori question?”

    “In any conflict or clash of cultures the first casualty is the truth, and the history books are written by the victors. Even today the story of MoriOri, as happily taught to generations of New Zealand school children by Maori teachers as well as Pakeha, is being overwritten, proclaimed as a lie or a myth or a misunderstanding.”

    That one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    “What Moriori question?”

    “Kai ahau ata”? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    You would have to be more explicit. Are you talking about the myth that the Moriori were original inhabitants of New Zealand and until overrun by the Maori?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    See now that’s precisely what I’m referring to. I’m in my late 40s and through both primary and secondary school that was indeed the accepted recent history of pre- and trans-European New Zealand which was taught to us, and all who went before us, without shame, by Maori and Pakeha teachers alike.

    Yes, MoriOri were here first. Yes, Maori invaded, defeated, enslaved, slaughtered, and cannabilised them. No-one much batted an eyelid about it. Such was the way of the world, and to the victor the spoils.

    Today it would seem that the story either doesn’t suit some vested interest’s desired version of history, or isn’t seen as being sufficiently PC, so for the latest generation of young New Zealanders it has been repackaged, and is now officially a “myth.”

    Well I ask you if it wasn’t a myth for anyone my age and older, Maori or pakeha alike, what has suddenly changed? How is it that history can suddenly become so different?

    You can scream ‘myth’ till you’re blue in the face, but that won’t change the reality that this is the story of New Zealand relayed to the missionaries by Maori themselves, and passed on to better than a century of citizens growing up.

    But perhaps you’re too young to know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    That story was indeed once taught in schools, but there is no archaeological or DNA evidence to support it. It is largely an invention by nineteenth century historians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    I seem to remember that the Moriori were an earlier arrival of the same people that called themselves Maori and were driven off the mainland to Islands. The last of them being slaugthered by Taranaki Maoris around 1835 when they hijacked a ship and popped over to Chatham Island. Makes a bit of a mockery of all this shite that we Pakeha owe the Maoris cash for whacking them in a war to be honest! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Yes Johnboy, many of the nineteenth century theories about the origins of the Maori went along the lines of ‘they did it to others so we were right to do it to them’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    Bollocks milkey old chap. The nineteenth century theory on the Moriori was that they were Melanesian as opposed to the Maori being Polynesian hence a different, earlier race that were conquered by the Maori.

    I have just pointed out that they were just an earlier lot of Maori that got thrashed by another lot of Maori. Conquer and kill then eat being the plan.

    We did the same to the Maori as they did to each other and it’s been costing us a fuckin fortune since.

    I can’t see that they are worth the money really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    Wikipedia for dumbos like milkey! :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Boris, is there any actual earlier date for the Moriori presence and evidence of it?

    The fact remains that South East Asian male DNA and Taiwanese female line DNA is predominant in Polynesia – including Maori and Moriori. So there is no evidence of another peoples DNA in modern Maori or Moriori descendants.

    The reason is obvious, settlement requires the presence of women. Without which arrival is discovery or shipwreck – thus any impact is temporary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    “That story was indeed once taught in schools, but there is no archaeological or DNA evidence to support it. It is largely an invention by nineteenth century historians.”

    – which 19th and 20th century Maori were happy to accept and regurgitate on the word of the white man, despite it never having been part of their own history or teachings? No, you’ll have to do better than that, I’m afraid.

    “Monica is not the only person who believes that there were people inhabiting New Zealand prior to the arrival of Kupe and his descendants around 1250AD. “There were many other races already living here long before Kupe arrived. I am his direct descendant and I know from our oral history passed down 44 generations,” Ngapuhi Chief David Rankin told elocal.

    “In the Waima ranges, there was a pipi shelter on the mountains, and the kuia used to talk about the fair skinned people up there. A lot of people identify as Paniora (translated as Spaniard), indicating that the Portuguese and Spanish washed up on ancient ships in Northland.”

    “Really, Maori didn’t navigate here, we came on a tidal drift. Te Tai Tokerau is actually the tidal drift from the Tokelau Islands. When my ancestors arrived at the shores of Aotearoa, there were people here to greet them. The question is: who are those people? It goes hand-in-hand with our oral history.”

    I guess Dave don’t know shit neither, if you disagree with him. I know who I feel inclined to believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Boris, those Spanish and Portugese (and Dutch) sailors who arrived here came after the Maori settlement.

    David Rankin’s belief in stories told to his ancestors is not evidence of any prior settlement.

    Settlement requires females – who brought females here before the Polynesians? There is no evidence of it in the Maori DNA.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Good work, Boris. I’ve heard all of this before and I too learned about the Moriori at School. Elocal printed a very good interview with David Rankin but I’ve not been able to locate it.

    I’m amazed that this discussion has been allowed to continue seeing we are off topic.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    “Boris Piscana,

    ” Also as stephieboy points out there are other artifacts which don’t fit with Polynesian tradition, or if they had them before they arrived they abandoned them immediately after. I don’t believe there were Celts, but there were bits of pottery, which Polynesian Maori never made, and there are still rock drawings which they don’t do either.
    I don’t know why you have such a problem with the idea of 1800s Maori having ancestors other than Polynesians.

    You have rather deviously misrepresented what I actually said..I never said there were ” artifacts that don’t fit the Polynesian Tradition.”I in fact asked for the evidence in the form artifacts including pottery that shows a pre Maori presence. Therefor kindly oblige with the same links, photos , references.
    It’s unquestioned that the Moriori share the same DNA as do the Maori therefore are Polynesian and not as e’g ethnologist Eldon Best speculated, Melanesian .A far more plausible theory is that a group of Maori made there way there in about the 16th or 17 the centuries from the mainland developing isolated a separate but related culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    A peach and a nectarine have the same DNA as well. Bet you didn’t know that. They are arguably not the same as each other however. How does that work?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    “Boris, those Spanish and Portugese (and Dutch) sailors who arrived here came after the Maori settlement.

    David Rankin’s belief in stories told to his ancestors is not evidence of any prior settlement.

    Settlement requires females – who brought females here before the Polynesians? There is no evidence of it in the Maori DNA.”

    Well of course either you accept that Maori’s non-Polynesian ancestors included women or you don’t.

    The there was the skull of a European female found up a river in the Wairarapa dated to 300 years ago; maybe she was just a really good swimmer?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/564251/Mystery-European-died-in-NZ-long-before-white-settlers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    Boris Piscana, the myths surrounding the Wairarapa Skull are covered below . The more plausible explanation is that it was one that was part of a common practice among early and Victorian colonizesr to collect skulls for ornamental purposes e.g for adorning study desks. The Wairarapa skull is not evidence of a pre Celtic Civilization and am still awaiting evidence of artifacts, metal tools and weapons . buildings , roads, worship centers, skeletal remains etc, etc that you would expect to find throughout the country,

    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2008/08/victory-for-white-tangata-whenua.html
    PS a link to those stone fruits please.?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    What I find fascinating are the underlying motivations behind those desperate to invent a whole new story of the settlement of New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    milkenmild, the link below might help in that regard,

    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2008/12/doutre-implodes.html

    Simply put its an attempt to try and repudiate and undermine Maori Treaty claims by positing the existence of a pre Maori Celtic civilization .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Yes, so we see a revival of long-discredited nineteenth century theories that were themselves designed to justify European conquest.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    (Bangs head on wall)

    OK…firstly I don’t believe there was ever a Celtic civilisation in New Zealand prior to the arrival of Polynesian Maori.

    Secondly, I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would try to argue that Maori would somehow cease to be Tangata Whenua if it turned out that some of their ancestors had paler skin than some of their other ancestors.

    Thirdly the Treaty was between the British and the Maori, on the basis that Maori were here before the British, not because they were necessarily here first of all. That never came into it and is irrelevant.

    Fourthly European conquest required no justification during the period in question. It was simply the way the world worked at the time. As it happens, however, Britain was beginning to be influenced by a number of progressive thinkers in the first part of the 19th century, and that, coupled with a general reluctance towards the acquisition of any more new colonial territories, within the Government and in particular the Colonial Office, led to the stipulation that British sovereignty over New Zealand should only be with the agreement of Maori, hence the Treaty which was of course a world first.

    Fifthly and I obviously haven’t made this point well enough, but please bear with me while I try again; Skull Lady may well have been an ornamental if gruesome Victorian candle holder, but it is equally possible that she was an early New Zealander. The fact that her skull defines her as Caucasian rather than Polynesian DOES NOT PRECLUDE HER FROM BEING MAORI (apologies for shouting) because regardless of her ethnic or genetic origins, she may have been an ancestor of the local people of the area. Being Maori does not necessarily equate to being 100% unadulterated Polynesian, which has been my point all along.

    Sixthly given that we all crawled out from under the same rock in Africa however many millennia ago it was, and that no-one at all evolved anywhere else let alone the Pacific, it is not surprising that common genetic indicators should be found with increasing frequency in peoples as their proximity increases to any particular locality. Frankly I’d be more surprised if south- and east-Asian as well as South American DNA wasn’t prevalent throughout Polynesia.

    Remember there are only three subcategories of homo sapiens sapiens, these being Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid. Negroids are sub-Saharan Africans. Mongoloids are South-East Asians. Caucasoids are everyone else, and they come in a wide range of hues, generally becoming paler the further from the equator you go. Given that it is much quicker to cross a continent than the time it takes for skin to permanently darken, it is entirely possible that peoples of a paler hue could have come to these islands by any number of circuitous routes, eventually adding their traits to a mix including any darker peoples who might have come along subsequently.

    There’s nothing impossible about it, there’s nothing preclusive about it, there’s nothing wrong with it, and it doesn’t mean that Maori aren’t Tangata Whenua. Personally I would think that extending the history and identifying further elements of the genealogy of Maori actually strengthen the claim to indigenous status rather than the reverse.

    All that said I would still very much like to know what it was that they found in the Waipoua Forest which was so jaw-dropping that all the reports got embargoed in the National Archives until 2063.

    But then I’m curious like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    ‘All that said I would still very much like to know what it was that they found in the Waipoua Forest which was so jaw-dropping that all the reports got embargoed in the National Archives until 2063′

    What, like the following ones?

    Waipoua Forest on-site visitor survey, 1990-1991 and a review of visitor flows and numbers through the forest / survey design, Glenys Mullooly ; analysis & report, Shona Gibbs ; analysis assistant, Takiri Puriri.

    Shona Gibbs; Glenys Mullooly New Zealand. Department of Conservation. Northland Conservancy.

    Whangarei, N.Z. : Northland Conservancy, Dept. of Conservation 1992.

    Available at GENERAL LIBRARY New Zealand & Pacific Level G (333.78 W14 )

    Request
    Locations
    Details
    Reviews & Tags

    Find more
    Virtual Browse

    cover

    cover

    Material Type:

    Book
    Save to My Library Account

    Waipoua Forest visitor survey, Autumn 1994 : focusing on visitor flows, satisfactions and tourist industry expectations / survey design, Department of Conservation ; interviewing, analysis and report prepared for Department of Conservation, Northland Conservancy by Julia Laing.

    Julia Laing New Zealand. Department of Conservation. Northland Conservancy.

    Whangarei, N.Z. : Northland Conservancy, Dept. of Conservation 1994.

    Available at GENERAL LIBRARY New Zealand & Pacific Level G (333.78 W14 1994 )

    Request
    Locations
    Details
    Reviews & Tags

    Find more
    Virtual Browse

    cover

    cover

    Material Type:

    Book
    Save to My Library Account

    Proposed Kauri National Park Waipoua Forest, Northland [electronic resource] : investigation report by the director-general of conservation to the New Zealand Conservation Authority pursuant to section 8 of the National Parks Act 1980.

    New Zealand. Department of Conservation. New Zealand Conservation Authority. New Zealand.

    Wellington, N.Z. : Publishing Team, Dept. of Conservation c2012.

    Available. The library has access.

    View online
    Request
    Locations
    Details
    Reviews & Tags

    Find more

    cover

    cover

    Material Type:

    Book
    Save to My Library Account

    The Waipoua forest : the last virgin kauri forest of New Zealand.

    W. R. McGregor (William Roy), 1894-1977

    Auckland : s.n. 1948.

    Available at OFF-CAMPUS STORAGE Biological Sciences (634.9 M14 ) and other locations

    Request
    Locations
    Details
    Reviews & Tags

    Find more
    Virtual Browse

    cover

    cover

    Material Type:

    Book
    Save to My Library Account

    Waipoua State Forest archaeological resource book / compiled by Ian Lawlor.

    Ian Lawlor New Zealand Forest Service. Auckland Conservancy.

    Auckland, N.Z. : N.Z. Forest Service Auckland Conservancy 1984.

    Available at GENERAL LIBRARY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS NZ Glass Case (995 U58 1984/15 )

    Request
    Locations
    Details
    Reviews & Tags

    Find more
    Virtual Browse

    cover

    cover

    Material Type:

    Book
    Save to My Library Account

    Environmental impact assessments on 1080 associated with possum control in the Waipoua Forest Sanctuary, Northland / C.T. Eason, D. Batcheler and G.R. Wright.

    C. T. Eason (Charles T.) D Batcheler; G. R Wright Forest Research Institute (N.Z.). Forest Animal Ecology Section. New Zealand. Department of Conservation. Northland Conservancy.

    Christchurch N.Z. : Forest Animal Ecology Section, Forest Research Institute 1991.

    Available at GENERAL LIBRARY (632.692099512 E13 )

    Request
    Locations
    Details
    Reviews & Tags

    Find more
    Virtual Browse

    cover

    cover

    Material Type:

    Book
    Save to My Library Account

    Waipoua State Forest (Kawerua coast) : archaeological site survey 1977-1980 / John Coster, Gabrielle Johnston.

    John Coster Gabrielle Johnston

    Auckland, N.Z. : Auckland Conservancy New Zealand Forest Service 1980.

    Available at GENERAL LIBRARY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS NZ Glass Case (995 U58 1980/13 )

    Request
    Locations
    Details
    Reviews & Tags

    Find more
    Virtual Browse

    cover

    cover

    Material Type:

    Book
    Save to My Library Account

    Waipoua Forest Sanctuary road / F.J. Newhook.

    F. J. Newhook (Francis John) Nature Conservation Council (N.Z.)

    1985.

    Available at OFF-CAMPUS STORAGE Biological Sciences (634.9099512 N54 )

    Request
    Locations
    Details
    Reviews & Tags

    Find more
    Virtual Browse

    Multiple Versions

    Material Type:

    Multiple Versions

    Waipoua kauri forest.

    James Witten-Hannah 1922-
    Multiple versions found
    To view, click on the title, or the link to the right

    There are 2 versions of this item

    cover

    cover

    Material Type:

    Book
    Save to My Library Account

    Gradients in the Kawerua scrublands, Waipoua Forest, Northland, New Zealand / Alastair R. Jamieson.

    Alastair R. Jamieson (Alastair Robert)

    1989.

    Available at GENERAL LIBRARY Thesis (THESIS 90-047 ) and other locations

    Request
    Locations

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    Seriously, there’s a wealth of material on that area. It’s probably one of the better surveyed archaeological regions in NZ. A few pages in one report are embargoed, but if you do a search of any archive of documents will find that all manner of material is embargoed. Take a look through the Turnbull catalogue and you’ll find nearly every second item is off-limits until a certain date or until permission has been attained from someone or other. Usually the date is chosen by someone who has given information that they think will embarrass the living.

    But conspiracy theorists are good at making the most minor lacunae into evidence of vast and sinister machinations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    ‘Remember there are only three subcategories of homo sapiens sapiens, these being Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid.’

    And where did you get this curious nugget of information?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    As far as the notion that the Moriori were a pre-Maori people goes, Boris, that one was put forward in the late 19th and early 20th C by Elsdon Best and Percy Smith, who were relying on their dubious interpretations of some dubious oral history, but was refuted in the 1920s by HD Skinner’s book The Morioris of the Chatham Islands. Skinner was the first trained scholar to visit the Chathams and check out Moriori material culture and skulls. His book is loaded with evidence that, contra Best and Smith, Moriori were a Polynesian people. The notion, then, that the disappearance of the notion of the Moriori as a pre-Maori people of the whole of NZ from academic discourse is some sort of recent event, wrought by sinister PC types, is simply false. If you go back and read Keith Sinclair’s classic History of NZ, which was published in the very un-PC ’50s, you’ll see he specifically rules out Smith and Best’s speculations. There has been a lot of archaeological work done on the Chathams since the ’20s which reinforces Skinner’s findings – Doug Sutton led a University of Auckland team that did major excavations in the ’70s, for example. Michael King’s 1990 book The Moriori: a people rediscovered, which was written in collaboration with the Moriori people, is a good introduction to their fascinating story. King doesn’t shy away from describing the 1835 invasion of the Chathams by Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama and its genocidal consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    There is one amusing aspect of the continued misuse of the theory that Moriori were a Melanesian and pre-Maori people. According to Best and Smith, who as I say cooked up the theory, it was not only Moriori but Tuhoe who were pre-Maori inhabitants of these islands. They supposedly took off to the Ureweras to get away from Maori, whilst their cousins took off to the Chathams.

    If the conservative Pakeha who cite the Best-Smith theory about Moriori to deny Maori indigenity and land rights were to be consistent, then, they would have to honour Tuhoe as indigenous, and demand the return of Tuhoe land. They don’t do this, of course, because Tuhoe are their bête noire, and because they don’t even understand the details of the long-discredited theory they invoke.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    If anyone wants to take a look at the advocates of the Celtic NZ theory in all their glory, there’s the debate which follows this open letter I wrote to them back in 2009. During the debate Martin Doutre, the best-known proponent of the ‘whites were here first’ theory, not only admits to but revels in being a Holocaust denier, 9/11 Truther, and admirer of neo-Nazis like Kerry Bolton and David Irving.
    http://books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter/

    Nice bunch of blokes. Since that 2009 chat one of the key members of their circle, Allan Titford, has been locked up for 24 years on rape and child abuse and arson charges. Naturally, that’s also part of the conspiracy against the white race…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    “‘Remember there are only three subcategories of homo sapiens sapiens, these being Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid.’

    And where did you get this curious nugget of information?”

    Oh for goodness sake, go and count them. It isn’t rocket science. Look at a map and count on your fingers. If you’re still curious, do your own research.

    “The notion, then, that the disappearance of the notion of the Moriori as a pre-Maori people of the whole of NZ from academic discourse is some sort of recent event, wrought by sinister PC types, is simply false.”

    Hmm, well, I was being taught it in the 70s and 80s, at mainstream state schools.

    As for MoriOri, you speak of genocide and refer to them in the past tense. How could King have written anything in collaboration with a people who no longer exist? – unless of course a people can be subsumed and have new and different geneaology included and still exist as that same people, which again, has been my point all along with regards to Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Unity (643 comments) says:

    You put it so well, Boris. I don’t know why they keep banging on about Celts either although some scrolls, especially the same as the Koru are identical to some found in caves in Scotland and carved many centuries ago. I still wouldn’t rule out Celts, Egyptians and other Europeans being here prior to Maori. But, like you said, does it really matter? The point is that we all came here from somewhere else by boat (in those early times) – some earlier than others. If Maori are indigenous then so am I.

    However, with regard to Waipoua Forest, I find it very concerning that archaelogists aren’t not allowed to dig there for 75 years (from the time Labour put the moritorium on it). There is definitely something there that will prove something one way or another and I would say, Maori are the ones to be most concerned, otherwise they wouldn’t worry about us knowing it all. Apparently quite a number of pages are missing from the ones currently in our archives so they must be sensitive. It’s quite beyond me why the secrecy. Surely we can know our history.

    This site has now been well and truly hijacked by pre-Maori history.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    And folks who latch on to conspiracy theorists like Doutre because of an antipathy to Maori culture need to remember that the pseudo-historians also make other aspects of the past into a joke in their writings. Doutre, for example, not only talks nonsense about NZ history but writes bizarre articles about Stonehenge was really a supercomputer built by the Ancient Egyptians:
    http://www.celticnz.co.nz/US9.html

    And the oddballs at E Local are now claiming all sorts of strange things about natural history – they think the moon is actually a hollow object made by extraterrestrials, for example:
    http://www.elocal.co.nz/view_Article~id~805~title~ELocaL%20COMMUNITY%20MAGAZINE%20-%20View%20Articles.html

    I’d like to think this stuff was too demented to be taken seriously – but I’m perpetually disappointed by some of my fellow citizens ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    ‘that archaelogists aren’t not allowed to dig there for 75 years’

    Archaeologists have been and no doubt will continue digging there. Check the long list of publications I provided, or have a look at the Archsite profile of the area. A passage in one report has been embargoed, that’s all. It’s extraordinary how these urban legends grow…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    ‘How could King have written anything in collaboration with a people who no longer exist?’

    Boris, the Jews also suffered genocide. They’re still here. Do you live in Auckland? If so, go down to Clendon park one Saturday in summer and say hello to the Hokotehi Moriori softball club, which plays there. If you feel like a holiday, fly off to the Chathams and stay as a guest on the Moriori marae at Kopenga (they now take paying guests).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    HD Skinner’s very fine book on the Moriori isn’t online, but here’s a review from the American Anthropologist in 1925, shortly after the first edition of the book was published, which notes the way it disproves the theory of Moriori as a Melanesian pre-Maori people: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1925.27.2.02a00110/pdf

    The Best-Smith theory about Moriori was dead in the water nearly ninety years ago amongst scholars. Time for some folks to catch up.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Unity (643 comments) says:

    If push came to shove I would believe Martin Doutre well and truly over anything that Scott Hamilton comes up with. I have learned things over many years (not being a spring chicken) and so much of it is actually written down, unlike Maori history and Scott Hamilton’s theories are very new. The education system of many years ago taught us factual history because there was no reason to reinvent it so as to enrich one people financially at the expense of everyone else.

    Elocal are very brave publishing what they do publish especially as our left-wing media won’t have a bar of it even though some Editors do allow letters pointing out how our country is moving towards apartheid. Preference based on race is apartheid. We are becoming separatist and the strange thing is that ‘Maori’ today are nothing like ‘Maori’ of the 19th century as we have all blended and intermarried so they are composed of ‘other’ ancestry which now makes them of mixed race. All the more reason for us to all be equal under the law – New Zealanders.

    I also find it ironic how people who come up with something unpalatable to certain others, are then denigrated and made to look like nutters. You grossly exaggerate anything to do with Martin Doutre, Scott, and there are many who find what he has to say absolutely correct. He goes to extraordinary lengths to prove what he says is true. He has archaelogical training so knows what he is looking at and how it works. There is nothing at all nutty about him. It is absolutely insulting to imply he is. However, believe what you will but you won’t convince me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Are there any surveyors amongst us? If so, perhaps he/she would like to comment on the following –

    http://www.celticnz.co.nz/Opito/OpitoStandingStones1.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    And along comes Unity to demonstrate the intimate connection between the peddlars of pseudohistory and the ‘one law for all’ crowd. It’s a politically motivated argument that has nothing to do with the actual evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    ‘If push came to shove I would believe Martin Doutre’

    So you’d believe that Jews faked the Holocaust, that 9/11 was an inside job, that Stonehenge was built by a white race that came from Egypt and functioned as a supercomputer, and that Celts got all the way from Europe to New Zealand four thousand years ago and built a massive advanced civilisation here? Your call, old boy.

    ‘Elocal are very brave publishing what they do publish’

    I agree. Anyone who publishes claims that the moon is a hollow spaceship, that extraterrestrials live amongst us, and that the Catholic church held Satanic black masses during the reign of Pius II – to mention three of their many wacky claims – is certainly brave. Whether they are wise is another question.

    ‘He [Doutre] has archaelogical training’

    He has no tertiary training in any subject, as he freely admits.

    ‘There is nothing at all nutty about him’

    Well, let me quote the man himself:

    ‘As for David Irving, it was generally accepted worldwide that he was the most astute, prolific, all-round scholar and historian on the subject of WWII, at least up until May, 1988, when he made a very bad career choice. At that time he was called upon to give expert testimony, under oath, in a court case and stated that he could find no documented evidence of “Hitler’s Final Solution”. For this unforgivable admission, he fell foul of the Zionists who, thereafter, focused their hatred on him and have been unrelenting in trying to destroy his credibility ever since.’
    http://all-embracing.episto.org/2008/12/10/doutres-last-words/
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2008/12/doutre-implodes.html

    I guess calling that nuts would be the kinder option.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Scott Hamilton has no firmer grasp on reality than any other left winger.

    His website has many false claims and when people have placed comments there impersonating other people, he has let them stand.

    Not the act of anyone who values personal integrity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    As some light relief, here’s one of those very courageous E Local exposes of the coverup of history – not of ancient white history, but of the history of extraterrestrial contact with New Zealand. That superbly detailed portrait of two little green men looks almost as convincing as Martin Doutre’s maps of ley lines and ancient Celtic observatories:
    http://www.elocal.co.nz/view_Article~id~503~title~ELocaL%20COMMUNITY%20MAGAZINE%20-%20View%20Articles.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    So you doubt his claimns about Doutre, Reddy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    I doubt every one of his claims.

    In my experience he’s very easily persuaded to advocate for a point of view he finds convenient to his political stance, even if the evidence for that point of view is weak and or zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Unity (643 comments) says:

    You completely misunderstood what Martin Doutre said about Irving, Scott. He said Irving denying the holocaust was a very bad career choice. Now where do you get that Martin Doutre agreed with that? He was saying Irving was widely acclaimed before that remark, made the mistake(?) then suffered thereafter. No-one could blame the Zionists for forever venting their fury on him thereafter and I’m sure Martin Doutre understands that. You read something in there that wasn’t there. Is this perhaps how you have read other facts?

    Elocal are impartial (as all newspapers should be but aren’t) so they publish all sides to stimulate debate. It doesn’t mean they always believe what they publish.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    ‘Elocal are impartial’
    Ha!
    Here’s a current sample:
    ‘Although we think of Maui as a Polynesian god or hero, it turns out Maui may have come from further afield than our Polynesian seas. It wasn’t until the aforementioned Dr Barry Fell broke the code of secret inscriptions found in caves in west Irian Jaya (west New Guinea), that Pacific historians began to question the true history of Maui.
    According to Dr Fell, the inscription stated that a fleet of six ocean going vessels had been selected from the Egyptian naval fleet. The 300 crew was drawn from Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Greeks and Libyan seafarers and the ship’s complement consisted of men and women. The admiral of the fleet was Rata, and his navigator and astronomer was Captain Maui, a close acquaintance and student of the Greek philosopher and mathematician Eratosthenes.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    If only milkey’s team of choice were as staunch in their faith as him! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    I’m afraid you’ll have no luck salvaging Doutre from the mire of Holocaust denial and anti-semitism, Unity. He clearly says, in the passage I provided and in others, that there is a Zionist conspiracy against Irving, and he claims, in complete contradiction to the facts, that Irving was a highly regarded historian until this conspiracy kicked into action. In reality Irving, like Doutre, lacks any qualifications in history and has never had a reputation as a reputable scholar, let alone as the leading authority on World War Two. And of course the state of Israel and its supporters have not conspired to bring about Irving’s disgrace and imprisonment: to believe this is to buy into an anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

    And Doutre was not claiming that Irving’s Holocaust denial was some sort of blunder. He was endorsing it, and lamenting the fact that the world does share Irving’s views. In the same debate at Scoop Review of Books he praises Joel Hayward, a Holocaust denier who was work was disowned by Canterbury University, where he had studied, as another heroic truth-teller victimised by the Zionist conspiracy, and also endorses Kerry Bolton, NZ’s best-known neo-Nazi, as a thoroughly good bloke.

    Here’s what Doutre says about Bolton:
    ‘Kerry is just a nice, quiet, articulate and down to earth bloke who is very friendly and approachable. I think he works as a librarian. Kerry has a developed conscience and, like so many other New Zealanders, detests the deliberate campaigns of social carnage that has been unleashed on New Zealand during the past 35-years or so.’

    Spend a minute googling and you’ll find articles by Bolton praising the wonders of the Third Reich and denouncing the perfidies of the Jewish conspiracy all over the net. Here’s one, published at an openly neo-Nazi website, which talks about what a nice chap Adolf Hitler was:
    http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/08/breaking-the-bondage-of-interesta-right-answer-to-usury-part-4/

    The truth is that Doutre shares the views of folks like Irving, Bolton, and Hayward. And Franklin E Local has been quite happy to give space to the opinions of Bolton, and treat him as some sort of serious scholar, rather than a raving Nutzi:
    http://elocal.co.nz/View_Article~Id~855~title~UNSETTLED_Part_7._Puzzling_Over_Parihaka.html

    I think that, if it were an ‘objective’ publication, Franklin E Local would give some space to trained scholars, rather than totally untrained anti-semites and Holocaust deniers like Doutre and Bolton.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    I do like the idea that E Local’s publication of bizarre claims about black masses in the Vatican and alien technology being hidden by earthly governments is some attempt to contribute to ‘balanced’ discussion. I guess I should be more grateful to E Local for gifting me important information like the fact that human evolution is an elaborate plot by extraterrestrials:

    ‘Human beings are simply pawns in a great game, being played by alien minds, which control mankind’s every move. These alien minds come from another universe, one with five dimensions. Their laws of chemistry and physics are completely different from ours. They have learned to shatter the time-space barriers that restrict us. These super-intelligent entities are so different from us that to apprehend them or to describe them in human terms is impossible. These entities seem to be totally free from physical restrictions such as bodies, and they are more like pure intelligence. They seem to have the ability to be anywhere in the universe in a matter of seconds. These aliens are everywhere – in the sky, on the sea, on earth. They have been here for countless eons and they have probably controlled the evolution of homo sapiens.’
    http://elocal.co.nz/View_Article~Id~778~title~ELocaL%20COMMUNITY%20MAGAZINE%20-%20View%20Articles.html

    This sort of stuff is probably as alternately amusing and irritating to biologists and astrophysicists as the nonsense about ancient white civilisations is to scholars of the past. And yet E Local never feels the need to let trained scholars of any subject to blemish its pages. Objectivity, eh Unity? ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    Unity seems to have missed Doutre’s conspiracy theorising about 9/11, so here’s a link to the great man’s nutty article on the subject:
    http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon911/pentagon911.html

    As you can see, Unity, Doutre insists that a jet airliner could not possibly have hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

    If he can’t even recognise something that happened before hundreds of witnesses and on film, what chance is there for him to reconstruct the events of the past?

    You denied that Doutre has ever said anything nutty. You can see why I disagree.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Yes, pretty devastating stuff

    It’s something that suggests an irrational fascination with alternative theory.

    Nevertheless, are you sure you are immune from leaping to judgment yourself?

    I don’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Unity (643 comments) says:

    That’s just it though, Scott. We have never ever seen any footage of a plane flying into the Pentagon. There must be many closed circuit cameras around that building so why have we never ever been shown any footage. I challenge you to produce some because I’ve been searching for it for a long time. The hole in the Pentagon was very small if a plane flew into it and looked more like a missile had hit it. Now don’t go accusing me of conspiracy theories. I’ve just kept an open mind and until I see something to the contrary, it will remain that – an open mind.

    However, I’m not sure we should be going down this road as I’ve mentioned several times above. This is not the blog for this. We supposed to be debating the European elections.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    There are numerous clips, many from private security cameras, that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, Unity, but I guess that they, like so much else, must be the work of that vast conspiracy PC academics/Jews/Maori radicals. Thanks for letting me know that you are a conspiracy theory fruitloop rather than a relatively rational, and thus rescuable, chap sucked in by Doutre. By all means continue to enjoy E Local, the house journal of Kiwi fruitloops.

    There’s no question, RB, that leftists as well as right-wingers can fall for and promulgate 9/11 and Holocaust conspiracy theories. I’ve tried to attack this sort of stuff when it has reared its head on the left in recent years, for eg http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2009/11/from-anger-to-paranoia-case-of-brian.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Unity (643 comments) says:

    There you go again, Scott. You rush to condemn and put labels on people. You listened but you didn’t hear what I said about having an ‘open mind’. I’m not sure what part of that you don’t understand. ‘Open mind’ does not compute to a conspiracy theorist or whatever by any stretch of the mind. We saw over and over again on our TV screens the two planes plunging into the Twin Towers (so not doubt at all, even though 3 towers came down) but never ever have I seen anything plunging into the Pentagon apart from the narrow hole that looked like a missile had entered. There would have been many people about so why no footage – even just one clip?!! Until I see something visible that confirms a plane flew into the Pentagon, then I will just keep an ‘open mind’. No conspiracy theorist there, just someone who needs to see to believe!!

    I was going to ignore you but you would have then taken that as confirming you were right. If you base your theories on what I’ve seen, then nothing you say can be taken seriously whatsoever.

    Just to keep you interested, have a look at the following –

    For references to vast burning of forests in the pre-Maori era (for agriculture), see:

    http://www.celticnz.co.nz/hot_mail4.htm (See references to Prof. Mike Elliot’s work).

    I’m still keeping an ‘open mind’ though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    Unity, there are numerous clips of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (check out youtube for a few of them). There are hundreds of eyewitnesses of the event. There was debris all over the place.

    Anyone who can’t recognise the most famous and most-documented event in 21st century has no hope of making sense of the history of previous centuries. You mentioned earlier you were getting on in years. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re suffering dementia. But Doutre and his fellow Holocaust-denying Truther nutters at E Local have no such excuse.

    The worst thing about loons like you and Doutre is the way you try to drag serious scholars into your delusions by citing them, when they have nothing to do with your views. Paul Moon has suffered this in the past; now poor old Mike Elliott seems to be getting the treatment. He has never and will never say that forests were cleared many thousands of years ago in NZ, by an ancient Celtic or any other civilisation. He merely disagrees with Wilmshurst and Anderson by a couple of hundred years, when they debate forest clearance dates. His views are perfectly in line with other respectable scholars, like Doug Sutton, who has argued for a slightly older first settlement date of NZ. Whether one goes with the Wilmshurst/Anderson estimate of forest clearance about nine hundred years ago or the Sutton/Elliot suggestion that fires might have been made around 1200 years ago is immaterial to Doutre’s mad claim that Celts built a vast civilisation in NZ at least four thousand years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. wikiriwhis business (4,209 comments) says:

    “There are numerous clips, many from private security cameras, that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon,…”

    The third tower never got hit but it went down.

    If you thjink New World Order govt is a theory it’s written on the US dollar, announced publicly by Joe Biden last year and just yesterday he encouraged West Point graduates to support the NWO.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/biden-challenges-graduating-af-academy-cadets-to-create-new-world-order-1.285882

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Dementia kicking in. Scott who??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Scott Hamilton (343 comments) says:

    Just insist that all the clips of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon that investigators showed to the public were Jewish/Maori/PC academic fakes and you should be right, Unity. There’s nothing that a conspiracy theory can’t explain away…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. mikenmild (12,443 comments) says:

    Scott
    Thanks for the link to Episto. Very good stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. stephieboy (3,535 comments) says:

    wiki, here as per earlier post is the correct translation of NOA as per US dollar bill = “Novus Ordo Seclorum” New Order of the Ages

    c. f Novus Ordo Mundi” translates as NWO New World Order .

    All you could possibly want to know about Flight 77 including visual evidence of the wreckage and flight path.

    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2

    and a significantly important detail, an analysis of the mortuary and DNA report of the flight victims identification,remains

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060907034559/http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote