TRAD DERANGEMENT SYNDROME (LEO WON'T BAN THE TLM)

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. Unless you're a troll, of course.

The days of the Traditional Latin Mass - the Mass of the Catholic Martyrs and Saints - are numbered. The Antichurch of Antipope Leo will not tolerate the Mass of Ages for much longer, simply because it is the worship of God in truth: it opposes the sham of the new Mass and the new religion of the postconciliar Ape of the Church. 

As a permissive act of the divine Will, the eventual (but temporary) banishment of the Old Mass will be A Good Thing. An Excellent Thing actually, for those Catholics who will then be forced to abandon their uncomfortable pozzy of cognitive dissonance, their tame acceptance of the Vatican's pseudo authority which forbids them to practise their faith. Especially will it be Excellent for the conciliar hierarchy who rolled over and wagged their tails when Antipope Jorge Bergoglio issued his diktat Traditionis Custodes. Most of these men are in their declining years with little time left to repent.

It's nothing short of astonishing that almost without exception these princes of the Church acquiesced in Rome's arbitrary confiscation of "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven" (Fr Faber). And what about the faithful Catholics in the pews?They thought that if 'the pope' had done that to the Latin Mass, and cardinals, bishops and priests had said nothing, it must be okay. Just as they'd thought the same about Communion in the hand, Mass versus populum and the other abuses foisted on them by Paul VI's liberal, Freemasonic regime. 

The exception that proves the rule

So that when the demonstrably heretical 'Pope Francis' heinously abrogated the Mass - the priceless treasure of the Church - Catholics took it lying down. And now Trad Inc tiptoes around Rome, with 'traditional' prelates like Müller and Burke going cap-in-hand to a bunch of heretics for permission to let Catholics be Catholic. 

And bishops like William Medley in Kentucky have the preposterous cheek and ignorance to suggest that the Traditional Latin Mass can be replaced by the Latin version of the Novus Ordo. If it weren't blasphemous, one might speak of putting lipstick on a pig. Or recall Marie Antoinette, quoted (falsely) as saying "Let them eat cake". The question now for all Catholics, clerical and lay, to ponder is, which Mass expresses the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic faith of our fathers? The Old Mass, or the New? It can't be both: there is only one truth, and it never changes because if it did it would no longer be truth. 

A Pope would discern what's what and rule accordingly. He would either lift all restrictions on the illegally suppressed Old Mass or ban the New. But an antipope does neither. Instead he exhibits the vice of effeminacy so rife in the conciliar cult which often shows itself in liking to be liked. An antipope lets his mouthpieces (like Cardinal Victor Fernandez and the singularly rebarbative Cardinal Arthur Roche) attract the animosity while he charms public sinners, and travels the world politicking and posing for photo opps. He hides behind Roche, who declared on July 28 that “Pope Leo is not going to change Traditionis Custodes, and he’s not going back to Summorum Pontificum. As Prefect for the Dicastery of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Roche ought to know what he's talking about. 

And the Spanish publication La Razón claims Pope Leo XIV is against the Traditional Latin Mass and that Roche’s January document was written at the Pope’s requestwas written by Roche and the team of his Dicastery at the request of the 'Pontiff', who subsequently reviewed it. ‘Not a single comma was changed.’

• And there's Medley in Kentucky, swopping the TLM for the NO in Latin
  
• In Charlotte, North Carolina, Bishop Michael Martin has reduced traditional Mass locations; any continuation of the Old Rite will be 'transitional'
• In Detroit, Archbishop Edward Weisenburger announced that permissions for TLMs in parish churches could not be renewed
• In Knoxville, Tennessee, diocesan authorities implemented a transition away from the 1962 Missal and toward celebrations of the Novus Ordo in Latin 

The modus operandi in the scenarios quoted above is literally fiendishly cunning: the criterion for permission from Modernist Rome to continue the Traditional Latin Mass is proof that its communities demonstrate a growing adherence to the New Mass. In other words, if Catholicism doesn't auto-destruct it will be destructed anyway. By 'Pope Leo XIV' and his synodal sect. 

But Trad Inc still persist in their fond belief that 'Pope Leo XIV' is Catholic and ignoring the enormous, bright pink elephant in the Church that is the new, synodal religion sponsored by the Santa Marta Mafia. 

Hope is a beautiful, theological virtue but wishful thinking is no virtue at all. Best let the Antichurch have its wicked way, eradicate the Latin Mass and thus save the "conservatives" in their cosy Ecclesia Dei enclaves from any further sinning against charity by excusing themselves from the fight for Christ and His Church. 

"He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth" (Mt 12;30)

From Riaan Van Zyl at Integrity Magazine:

 

Earlier this week, on a podcast with Stephen Kokx, I briefly made a statement which I think might have made some viewers uncomfortable. Not only was there not enough time left to really explore what I meant, but, as usual, my passion trumped my eloquence, and afterwards I wished I had expressed myself better.

 

Before I continue, I do want to give credit where credit is due by making it clear that it was a post on X (and a short video) by St. AnthonyPadau Radtrad that triggered the train of thought that led to this essay.

 

We will get back to his post shortly, but as I often have to do at the start of these essays, I want to ask you to make a cup of tea, relax, and hear me out until the end. Please do not read this intro, cuss, and then unsubscribe or jump into the comment section scolding me.

 

Despite the headline, I want to make it clear that I do not have some sadistic desire for good, decent Catholic folk who are doing their best to practice their faith to be deprived of the Traditional Latin Mass they attend, if they are even lucky enough to have one to attend.

 

I have always appreciated that my readership includes a broad spectrum of held beliefs and convictions: from those who still attend the Novus Ordo, to those who attend indult Masses, former Ecclesia Dei communities, SSPX, SSPX-Resistance, sedeprivationist communities, and finally even hardcore home-alone sedevacantists.

 

I have always held the sincere belief that the majority of my readership shares a love of Christ and the Catholic Faith and are all trying their best to defend the rights of Christ and His Church.

 

But these are terrible times we find ourselves in, where Catholicism has literally been criminalized by the usurping heresiarchy in Rome, and everyone is doing the best with where they are at, both geographically and spiritually. Therefore, please, if you do attend an FSSP TLM or a diocesan Latin Mass, do not think that I want you to find yourself out in the liturgical cold. I realize all too well that if what I am about to discuss happens, then many will have no Traditional Mass to go to.

 

That being said, the other side should also be considered very carefully: eventually, they are going to completely halt all access to the TLM within the Synodal Church, that is certain. It is not ‘if’, but ‘when’. So, instead of getting angry at me, maybe it is time to make peace with this looming reality, if you have not yet, and prudently make decisions accordingly.

 

Now though, I appeal to your charity and patience to hear me out.

 

On July 31, the above-mentioned X user posted the following short message:

“I am ready for the Novus Ordo to close down their Latin Masses. It will force the indults to accept their own religion.”

 

At first glance, this might seem harsh, but the more I thought about it, the truer it rang. Again, if you are one of those who recognize that the Synodal Church and its hierarchy are not Catholic but still have to attend a Synodally-sanctioned TLM because you see no other way, this essay is not about you. Although, as I already said, best you start preparing for the inevitable coming ban on the TLM.

 

Who this essay is for, though, or maybe about, are those who, on the one hand, want to recognize the heretical popes and their sodomy-promoting, idol-worshipping, communism-advancing false Synodal religion, while at the same time also want to not only indulge in their fantasies of being “Traditional” Catholics, but also want to gaslight, discredit, ostracize, persecute, and mock real Catholics who had to make costly decisions and sacrifices to say, sorry, but we cannot be part of the Synodal Church and its false religion; we want to be Catholics in the Catholic Church. Who had to say: “Go ahead and excommunicate us from your fake and gay “church”, we choose Christ and Catholicism”.

 

It is because of these people’s luxurious hypocrisy that I thus say: the Synodal Church must outlaw the TLM sooner rather than later. Not only that, it must “excommunicate” any synodal priest or synodal layperson who dares to say the Traditional Latin Mass or attend it anywhere. Harsh? Here is why.

 

For decades now, the permission from the apostate heretics in the Vatican for diocesan TLM communities and the former Ecclesia Dei institutes to exist has worsened the crisis and, in effect, paralyzed many Catholics with confusion, because it was seen as “proof” that the postconciliar “Church” still has room for Catholic Tradition. (Read this last sentence again. If something must make “room for Catholic Tradition”, it means it itself is not Catholic, but something new and different!)

 

On the one hand, the laity got comfortable with the idea that they had to ask “permission” from heretics to be Catholic, and, on the other, it emboldened Trad. Inc.-type influencers, fence-sitting clergy, and “conservative” prelates like Burke and Müller to not address the root problem, but rather pontificate from their hypocritical high horses.

 

Admittedly, these communities do serve as some kind of refuge for those who find themselves in the apocalyptic wasteland that is Synodality, but the price for these pockets of pretention is extremely high. It means avoiding the questions at the heart of the Great Deception: if the Synodal trash heap masquerading as the Catholic Church truly believes that Vatican II represents the authentic and irreversible direction of Catholicism, then why should it continue to preserve islands of resistance within its own structures?

 

If Vatican II truly was a genuine development in Catholicism, then surely the TLM belongs to the past? But if the TLM expresses the perennial faith handed down for almost two millennia, then surely it cannot be treated as a mere tolerated exception?

 

The Traditional Latin Mass cannot be both the historic expression of the Roman Church and a privilege granted at the discretion of apostate bishops and infiltrators in the Vatican. One of these views must give way.

 

If the preconciliar Church taught one thing, and the postconciliar church taught a contradicting one, they cannot both be the Catholic Church.

 

If A equals X, and B equals Y, then A cannot be equal to B. It is not hard to understand. Yet that is exactly the sorcery the Synodal Church has been imposing on the faithful who would rather attend these little “permission” Masses than face the difficult truth.

 

The postconciliar hierarchy has repeatedly insisted that the Council cannot be questioned, as recently as during the SSPX debacle, and that its reforms are here to stay. This would mean that this new anti-Catholic religion, with its new liturgy, ecumenism, heretical religious liberty, and the new pastoral approach of demonic relativism, is as legitimate an expression of Catholicism as the religion to which St. Pius X or St. Alphonsus Liguori adhered. The Synodal hierarchy has been remarkably consistent in defending the Council as the defining event of “modern Catholicism.”

 

By allowing these communities to exist as long as they accept the false authority of the Synodal Church, Rome has not only caused great dissonance and confusion but capitalized on it: in this “abusive relationship,” the victim - the laity - is granted some traditional optics in exchange for obedience to a new religion that wants to destroy Catholicism and usher in the Antichrist.

 

Due to this arrangement of compromise, we today have a large group of confused Catholics who identify as “Traditional” while remaining comfortably within the structures of the postconciliar harlot.

 

Do many sincerely believe that they are preserving the faith of their fathers while remaining obedient sons and daughters of the Church? Absolutely. They criticize the collapse of Catholic culture, lament doctrinal confusion, oppose many modern theological trends, and speak warmly of the Church before the Council, but continue to recognize the authority of the men responsible for governing the very institution that has been demolishing Catholicism for 60-odd years.

 

This is not only an unsustainable situation but also an unacceptable one.

 

If they recognize that the religion issuing from Vatican II contradicts previous Catholic doctrine, then why continue to lend legitimacy to it by obeying the usurpers and infiltrators who are the architects of this synodal beast?

 

On the other hand, if you recognize this as the legitimate Catholic Church, stop criticizing its hierarchy, reforms, new anti-Catholic doctrines, heterodoxy, and new liturgy, and submit yourself totally to it.

 

The continued existence of officially recognized Traditional Latin Mass communities is only worsening this dilemma by providing a false middle ground that softens the force of the underlying questions. Catholics who are caught in this erroneously think they have found a stable balance between fidelity to the past and obedience in the present. This mentality tragically makes them complicit in the war on Catholicism and Catholics.

 

Because of this compromise, the uncomfortable questions can always be postponed because the “old” Mass is still available somewhere, somehow, never mind the fact that you have to swear fealty to a false religion to get your permission slip to attend.

 

As long as that remains true, many will never examine the real problem: that the Synodal Church should be fled from, and that they will eventually go down with the ship at the expense of their souls.

 

This brings us to the other, dangerous part of the problem: those like Trad. Inc. and the conservative Synodal apologist who, with great sanctimonious smugness, want to straddle both Catholicism and the Synodal religion while calling the shots.

 

If the TLM is finally completely erased in the Synodal Abomination, it will be like the opening of a festering, pus-filled sore. These peddlers of compromise and hypocrisy will then have to choose. Their masks will necessarily have to come off. Either they choose the Synodal Church, all its doctrines of devils, its anti-popes, and its Neo-Protestant liturgy, or they fully reject it and throw their weight in with those fighting for Christ, Catholicism, and the Catholic Church.

 

 

but Latin is not their reason for abolishing the TLM; it's the Catholic faith

This will not be comfortable, but at least it will force Catholics to get serious about their faith again. Catholicism will then once again become something costly and precious. It will become the guiding principle around which Catholics will organize their lives, and not a religion of convenience and the least resistance.

 

The compromise, though, cannot continue, as it only postpones the conflict without resolving it.

 

Removing “permitted” Traditional Latin Masses from the equation will end the lunacy of having a group who have been able to criticize the postconciliar crisis while remaining within the institutions they believe produced it. This will force them to either denounce the modernist religion or recognize the authority of those who introduced it, but not both.

 

Holy Scripture warns us “to hold fast to the traditions that have been handed down” and rightly asks, “what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” It also instructs us to choose between “life and death, blessing and cursing.”

 

The time has come to choose unequivocally between the Catholic Church and the false Synodal imitation. To choose between loyalty to the postconciliar ecclesiastical order or the Catholic tradition and truth they failed to preserve.

 

To choose to stop being lukewarm and double-minded, lest you be spat out of His mouth.

 

Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…

Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…

Viva Christo Rey!  https://radicalfidelity.substack.com/p/why-the-synodal-church-should-completely

 

 

Christ heals the deaf mute
El Greco



"And looking up to heaven, he groaned, and said to him: Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened."(Mk7:34)

WOKE RADIO NEW ZEALAND HAS TO GO

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X. 

 

https://x.com/Newrygal1/status/2082805622953685223/video/1

The young lady pictured above haranguing New Zealand's Parliament recently is one Tamatha-Kaye Erin Paul. She's of English, Scottish, Spanish, Waikato Tainui and Ngāti Awa descent. One wonders what her opinion might be of the Scots, Scottish Gaelic, Spanish and Maori languages.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that she represents the Green Party, or that she's the Member for woke Wellington Central, voted in (according to her own publicity) by 'bad bitches'. Paul was upset that English might be declared an official language of New Zealand - which it was, naturally.

It's actually unnatural, considering that every single Kiwi speaks English, that it ever had to be debated and declared official. But so sick is our society - so unhinged that a Prime Minister (Chris Hipkins) cannot define the word 'woman' and subjective ideologies trump objective truths - that it had to be spelled out. Just as Te Tiriti had to be spelled out in the English alphabet to translate the 13 native languages spoken by the 512 chiefs who signed it, and later spelled out in Te Reo by experts trained in English at English speaking universities. Expert 'colonisers', you might say.

Back then, Maori had only 2000 words. Spoken, of course, not written. English has around 170,000 words and is plundered now by leftist academics to make up the deficit. So that now Te Reo is, in reality, pidgin Maori.

 

 

But it's 'official'. How and why did New Zealand arrive at such a crazy juncture, where Parliament's time and taxpayers' money is wasted on debating whether the language we all speak, and always have spoken, has to be made 'official'? In large part, because for years now, Radio New Zealand has tried its hardest to make us all Maori, obviously infuriating listeners and viewers by sprinkling pidgin Te Reo and general Maori wonderfulness throughout its air time. 

'Otipoto Dunedin', for example. Or 'Te Whanganui-a-Tara' when they mean Wellington. Our capital city. The state-funded broadcaster must surely be motivated by ideology; it's certainly not doing it for fun or finance: RNZ's audience has dropped to 56 per cent. And that's after NZ's Government had spent one and a half billion dollars promoting the Maori language, including the Maori Language Commission and its invention of 1000s of new Maori words, (like neke for snake) at a cost of hundreds of millions. Radio New Zealand's Crown-funded baseline currently sits at $64.422 million a year.

In passing, it's worth reminding ourselves that no matter what money is thrown at it, no secondary indigenous language has been successfully revived, anywhere IN THE WORLD.

So Radio New Zealand is partly HOW New Zealand got to a Parliamentary debate on making English official. But WHY does an overwhelmingly English-speaking nation have to assert its most unifying characteristic officially, in Parliament? Why are the zealots at RNZ coercing Kiwis into learning a language they don't need, when (as Paul demonstrates in her speech - link above) they don't properly know the one they do need? When the '17% Maori' figure quoted by NZ Stats is likely gerrymandered to lift Maori numbers?

It's just not practical. It's actually political. In 2016 Green Party co-leader Marama Fox let the cat out of the bag when she said the Maori language was a key to New Zealand moving to a unique form of governance. Shared sovereignty. In other words, dividing the nation by colour of skin: in Marxist parlance, racialisation.

It's significant that a little-bit-Maori woman from arguably the wokest electorate in the country inveighs against her mother-tongue English as "a bastard language". As the youngest in a large family with both parents in the work force, it's natural that she should embrace the politics of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion, of the Left. What's not naturally right for anyone, however, is to be r*cist.

And it's not natural for the state-owned broadcaster to disseminate that injustice - that poisonous ideology - in the homes of our nation.

From Graham Adams at Brash and Mitchell:

Jacinda Ardern always insisted He Puapua was not official government policy although critics could be forgiven for thinking it was — whether it was the blind eye turned to illegal iwi roadblocks in Northland during Covid or the co-governance provisions under Three Waters.

 

Similarly, RNZ’s management would undoubtedly deny that its te reo policy closely echoes the He Puapua playbook despite striking similarities.

The broadcaster’s Charter requires it to “reflect New Zealand’s cultural identity, including Māori language and culture” but that vague brief has been aggressively amplified. In fact, it is in line with He Puapua’s Vision 2040 that demands increasing “Māori cultural content in all publicly funded media”.

 

 

He Puapua imagines that by the 200th anniversary of the Treaty of Waitangi, “te reo Māori will be flourishing, its use will be widespread, and its integrity will be protected”.

 

 

The Māori separatist report — drafted as a roadmap in 2019 to comply with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — also expects all New Zealanders will embrace and respect Māori culture (including the language and mātauranga) as an integral part of a bicultural national identity.

RNZ is so enthusiastic about furthering these aims it often appears to double as a propaganda arm for Māori nationalism with its tenets reliably presented as articles of faith. Questioning the broadcaster’s dedication to revitalising te reo as an integral component of this policy is regarded as racist, even though it is perhaps the single most obvious factor responsible for a swathe of once-regular listeners switching off.

RNZ is determined to normalise the Māori language as part of everyday life — no matter how annoyed many feel about being force-fed a particularly rosy view of the benefits of studying it, which is often a prelude to a rosy view of the first settlers’ culture and history.

Its management seems wilfully blind to how much the extravagant promotion of Māori wonderfulness and the arbitrary insertion of te reo words into its news contributes to the dismally low levels of trust among its audience — currently languishing at 56 per cent, as acknowledged in its Statement of Performance Expectations, signed on June 30.

In fact, insiders say the heavy-handed insertion of Māori words several years ago marked the beginning of the slide in its audience numbers.

The stream of articles on RNZ promoting te reo, mātauranga and Māori exceptionalism is constant — and only the flimsiest reasons are required to trigger a new instalment.

Last month, “kaitiakitanga” was declared the world’s most beautiful word by a panel from the online language site Babbel, judged on its sound, layered meaning, and cultural relevance. It was a publicity stunt by the site’s marketing team that RNZ was eager to promote as yet another excuse to bolster the language’s profile.

It’s safe to assume RNZ imagines New Zealanders’ hearts swelling with pride at winning a global beauty contest despite the fact the vast majority of the population would have no idea what “kaitiakitanga” means and have never uttered it nor heard it pronounced in their lives.

But, in its dedication to never letting an opportunity for yet more boosterism slip by, RNZ produced a follow-up article titled: “Is te reo Māori globally hot but locally not?”

 

https://x.com/the_salty_one_/status/2083073404748648512/photo/1

 

RNZ’s Māori news journalist Layla Bailey-McDowell rolled out the usual suspects for their very predictable opinions.

She interviewed Mātai Smith, co-chair of Te Mātāwai, which supports the revitalisation of the language within Māori communities.

He claimed any Māori word being recognised internationally would have been significant for language revitalisation and normalisation but “kaitiakitanga” was particularly important because it not only reflected guardianship but also “the Māori ethos and the Māori worldview... It's not just a word, there's more layers to it.”

He saw the accolade as “more than recognition of a single kupu, it’s the recognition of the beauty, the richness, and the mana of our reo”.

 

Dr Vincent Olsen-Reeder went further to make the stunningly illogical claim that the “recognition [by Babbel] … should send a strong message to the current government that what they’re doing isn’t anywhere in line with what New Zealanders want out of language”.

 

In fact, what most New Zealanders feel about the Māori language is clear: they’re not keen. And not only are they not keen on it, but neither are most Māori.

According to the 2023 Census data, roughly four per cent of the total population — or 213,849 people — reported they could hold a conversation in te reo Māori, with 20.5 per cent of those identifying as Māori.

 

 

 

These figures, of course, are self-reported and quite likely inflated. “Holding a conversation” could mean little more than offering simple greetings and very basic inquiries. As historian Paul Moon said in discussion with Dane Giraud on a Free Speech Union podcast last week, “There is a tendency to overreport fluency.”

 

He related conducting an unscientific experiment with a friend, who is a native te reo speaker, by visiting markets around Auckland over 18 months and listening to the different languages being spoken.

“We heard Samoan and Tongan, Korean, Eastern European languages, Asian languages, and so on… But in all the places we went to over 18 months, we never once heard people talking conversationally in te reo”.

If more than 200,000 New Zealanders were fluent in the language, you might expect that they would have overheard at least a handful of conversations.

Professor Moon — who described himself as “a good friend of te reo” — saw dangers in misrepresenting how widely Māori is spoken because many people will conclude the revitalisation project is proceeding much better than it actually is and become complacent about the need to further support it.

One obvious conclusion to take from his view about creating “false hope” is that RNZ’s extravagant boosterism may, in fact, be doing more harm than good.

Another perhaps less welcome conclusion, of course, is that the hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars that have been spent over 50 years on revitalisation have largely been a waste.

Moon supports the revitalisation efforts, but acknowledges a dismal truth: no indigenous second language has been successfully revived anywhere in the world. And the chances of te reo being resurrected are not encouraging given the experience of Wales and Ireland, where the vast majority of the population are native Welsh and Irish but revitalisation has had only mixed success.

Te reo, however, is the ancestral tongue of only a small minority making up 17 per cent of New Zealand’s populace. Somehow imagining the other 83 per cent will devote time to learning a language they have no obvious use for or interest in requires a heroic leap of faith.

 

RNZ also regularly runs boilerplate articles on people gaining salvation through learning te reo. Most recently, it was a 70-something Pakeha woman whose study was reportedly helping her understand “Aotearoa differently”.

“Though it will never be my language or my culture, by learning the reo you unlock so much about the culture that you're unaware of if you don’t speak the reo,” she said, while admitting she was not a natural linguist and would never become fluent.

Predictably, she acknowledged the usual RNZ pieties — including the obligatory nods to the connection Māori have to nature and the Treaty being a partnership. She also confessed to being “very disturbed by recent attempts to remove the reo, and aspects of Māori representation on councils”.

It goes without saying RNZ’s journalists will never seek out someone who is learning the language but who also objects to democracy being subverted by unelected iwi members on councils — or who supports the aims of the Treaty Principles Bill.

It also goes without saying its journalists are never going to interview anyone — Māori or not — who is studying Latin and Ancient Greek to connect with two of the richest and most influential civilisations the world has ever seen.

Yet with Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey dominating the international box office right now, it would be highly topical to discover someone immersed in Homeric Greek happy to extol the benefits of their study. But lauding the intellectual foundations of Western culture is not part of RNZ’s mission (or “kaupapa”, as it would no doubt describe it).

 

At its heart, the broadcaster’s strategy is to spruik the study of Māori language as the key to unlocking the gates to the magical kingdom of te Ao Māori. This is a fraudulent — and counter-productive — endeavour on two principal counts.

 

First, anyone who has struggled to learn a second language knows that gains from mastering a language are hard won over many years of intense study. And unless the student is fully immersed in that language, the attempt for most will be brutally disappointing. Enrolling in a te reo class for a couple of hours a week won’t deliver the cultural insights RNZ likes to imagine.

 

Nevertheless, in RNZ’s eyes, it’s apparently enough to enrol in a course to be connected to Māori culture and to become immediately virtuous.

Second, RNZ’s strategy depends on romanticising Māori history and culture.

 

This goal can only be achieved, of course by overlooking the less-flattering aspects of Māori history — slavery, cannibalism, and endless internecine warfare.

Topics such as the role of Māori allies (kupapa) fighting alongside British forces and the slaughter of Māori by Māori during the Musket Wars are studiously ignored.

The most telling example of RNZ’s bias in recounting Māori history is that the Crown’s 1881 invasion of pacifist Parihaka — during which no one died — has been covered or mentioned hundreds of times in the past decade whereas the genocide of the pacifist Moriori by two bloodthirsty Taranaki iwi after their invasion in 1835 is rarely featured.

Māori history and culture is obviously a very important strand in New Zealand society — and often a fascinating one — but the bowdlerised and black-armband version that RNZ provides only hurts its credibility.

Graham Adams is a freelance editor, journalist and columnist. He lives on Auckland’s North Shore. https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/graham-adams-rnz-s-te-reo-policy-dovetails-with-he-puapua

 

St Judah Cyriacus 

Iacopo Negretti 

St Cyriacus, please pray for us