MAORI SEATS WON'T GO TILL THE POLLIES SAY SO

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

Maori, Maori, Maori: New Zealand, why are we waiting? Since the days of 'Kiwi Keith' Holyoake in the '60s the pollies have said the Maori seats should be abolished, and still they don't do it.

New Zealand has no option but to get rid of the Maori seats. Democratic representation cannot not be determined by differing ancestry, but only by common humanity. In a democracy you have a vote. Just one. Period. Other than residency, no qualifications are needed. Not where you came from, or when or how - just the fact that you are here. But although no rational argument exists for retention of Maori seats, now that we have MMP (and don't get me started), on this issue consecutive National and Labour Governments have sat on their hands.

Who's not fed up to the back teeth with diabolically narcissistic 'representatives' of nothing but their own racial self-interest lolling about in the Maori seats, biting the hand of the taxpayers who feed them? No one could claim even that they justify the existence of the risible Gerry Brownlee, who seems to depend for maintenance of order in the House on issuing wet bus tickets.

Maori in Parliament are over-represented, over-indulged and over-advantaged. A leftist campaign of woke Maorification, and Te Pati Maori crocodile tears and plaintive pleas for ever more nebulous 'rights' with no acknowledgment of corresponding responsibilities, have reconfigured our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, into a very expensive albatross around this country's neck.

Māori voters can now switch to the General roll without affecting the number of Māori electorates. They retain all seven Māori seats while at the same time improving Maori chances in closely-contested general electorates, to the detriment of non-Maori. In other words, Māori activists have their electorate cake, and are eating it too. Is that fair? Or is it a make-over of our democracy, re-inventing this nation as a guinea-pig for the globalists - and not for the first time? 

If that's not enough to shake Kiwis out of their sloth and complacency, how about the  alliance that's rumoured between Te Pati Maori and the goofy Greens, to secure enough seats between them to form part of a Labour-led coalition? Does that not make your blood run cold?  

https://x.com/TheRedbaiter/status/1985935910043545620

Call this inflammatory rhetoric if you like, but it positively begs to be employed if 'she'll be right' Kiwis are to be galvanised into addressing the crisis. Of course they could all register to vote as Maori, but that requires thought and action, which for most Kiwis is a bit radical. Conservative thinkers are calling for its resolution by a binding referendum. Don Brash, a successful central banker and former Opposition leader of National, asks, "should every New Zealander participate in the same electoral system?"

The answer's blindingly obvious. However. No citizen's-initiated referendum has ever been accepted by a National or Labour government. Even if New Zealand's entrenched two-party cartel of National/Labour were to accede to popular demand, the result will likely be ignored. Neither party will disestablish the Maori seats; they don't wish to do so or they'd have done it already.

Quarter of a million children in New Zealand are now on welfare. Even with Maori seats, and after all the bending-over-backwards to prioritise Maori, more than a third of all Maori children are dependent (36.5 percent) versus 16 percent of non-Maori. https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/lindsay-mitchell-quarter-of-a-million-children-are-now-depend

New Zealand's in Queer Street and it's a street and a story with a bad, dead end. 

What passes for politics in New Zealand (inevitably to be renamed 'Aotearoa' if we carry on as we are) is in reality pride and presumption. The true political authority, which alone will establish peace and prosperity in place of our secular chaos, comes from God, not man, and can be exercised only in union with His law and His Church. 

The nefarious collaboration of the Deep State in the civil sphere with the Deep Church in the Vatican means the closest thing on earth to Utopia is a long way off - which only makes more imperative the reign of Christ the Sovereign King in our churches and our homes.

 

“When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony” (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, no. 19).

https://x.com/TheRedbaiter/status/1924636365872103883

 

DON BRASH: Let New Zealand decide the future of Māori seats

 

The following is written in Don's capacity as Hobson's Pledge trustee

At Hobson’s Pledge, our position has always been clear and unwavering: it is time to abolish the Māori seats in Parliament.

 

 

Our reasoning is straightforward. In a modern, healthy democracy, citizens succeed on merit - not ancestry.

And right now, Māori MPs are already achieving incredible success in their own right, winning general electorate seats and earning high list rankings across the political spectrum.

That is exactly how a functioning democracy should work.

What is not a sign of a healthy democracy is reserving seats for one group of people based entirely on race or on when their ancestors arrived.

Let’s not forget history here: In 1986, the Royal Commission on the Electoral System explicitly stated that Māori seats should be abolished if MMP was adopted. Well, MMP arrived - but the seats remained.

Not only are these separate seats a relic of the past, but they are now being actively exploited by activists to skew our wider political landscape.

Take a look at what activist Katrina Smit recently wrote in e-Tangata. She openly called on voters to jump from the Māori roll to the General roll for the sole purpose of tactically ousting centre-right MPs—specifically targeting National’s Chris Bishop in Lower Hutt.

Her cynical logic? The Māori seats are guaranteed to go to Te Pāti Māori or Labour anyway, so why not weaponise the General roll to manipulate the overall election outcome?

For years, activists have encouraged Māori to move onto the Māori roll on the basis that it would strengthen Māori political representation and increase the number of Māori seats. But for the next two elections, that isn't true, and so the strategy has changed. 

The number of Māori electorates is fixed at seven until at least 2032, regardless of how many people are on the Māori roll. Thanks to changes in the way electorate boundaries are calculated, there will be no increase or decrease in Māori seats before then. That means Māori voters can switch to the General roll without affecting the number of Māori electorates at all. 

In other words, for the next two elections, Māori activist voters can have their cake and eat it too: retain all seven Māori seats while also gaining influence in closely contested general electorates. 

This is an outrageous situation. It proves beyond a doubt that these race-segregated seats are no longer just an outdated relic of the past - they are actively being used to distort our democracy.

It is also worth mentioning that there are Māori in every party in Parliament right now and 30% of the Cabinet are Māori.

 

 

If we all do Waititi says, his 'critical vote' for Maori is done for 

Remember, the number of Māori seats isn't even based on how many people choose to sign up for the Māori roll; it’s based on total population statistics. It is a rort built on a rort, and it undermines the core democratic principle of "one person, one vote."

The time for special seats is over.

New Zealanders are fair-minded people, but we have had enough. Polling shows it, and the tens of thousands of you who have signed our petitions prove it. Now, we need the coalition government to step up and act.

We are launching our major new campaign: REFERENDUM NOW.

It is time to hand the talking stick back to the people of New Zealand and put this issue to bed once and for all.https://www.brashandmitchell.com/post/don-brash-let-new-zealand-decide-the-future-of-m%C4%81ori-seats

 

 

"TINY BAND OF REALISTS: THE SSPX" SAYS THE SPECTATOR

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

If only 'Bad Bunny' had told Leo XIV he supports the upcoming SSPX episcopal consecrations

"The Catholic Church Has Turned on the Faithful." The Spectator - that prestigious, political and cultural news magazine (oldest in the world) is headlining "the uproar" in the Church since the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) declared its intention of consecrating its own bishops on July 1.

Followed by a resounding "Declaration of Faith", the Society's February announcement was a gauntlet thrown down before Leo XIV and his new, conciliar, synodal religion. The Spectator says the Society has started "a battle over the identity of the Church fought between what on one side is an uneasy conglomerate of cynics and idealists; and on the other, a tiny band of realists: the Society of St Pius X".

The rest of the article lies behind a paywall. In its secular wisdom, it may or may not address the underlying issue, namely the Society's inconsistency in calling out the Modernist errors of the post-conciliar Vaticanwhile at the same time bowing and scraping for an audience with "the Holy Father" and seeking a papal mandate for bishops who will continue, one hopes, to call out Modernism in all its promethean forms.

In 1976 Archbishop Lefebvre declared: “This Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time." Well, in 2026 that schism is wider than ever. So why does +Lefebvre's Society go cap in hand to a schismatic, apostate church, which can have no true authority, for permission to consecrate bishops for the defence and preservation of Catholic doctrine, from Leo XIV who does not profess that doctrine himself?

The SSPX is the only group saying the quiet part - the thoughts harboured by most trad Catholics in regard to this Modernist pontificate - out loud. The other priestly fraternities in Ecclesia Dei hangouts (FSSP, ICKSP) have been muzzled and corralled in the new synodal religion, where anodyne sermons and biddability pose no threat to its enforced, faux, pax romana. The Society therefore, by its outlier status and sheer numbers, enjoys a uniquely privileged and powerful position in the Church which it could parlay into promotion for Tradition. Having won universal respect for the Society's beautiful Declaration of Faith its Superior General, Fr Davide Pagliarani, could well afford to raise his voice in a challenge to the authority of a regime which:

• rewards clerical sodomites
• enabled an LGBTQ pilgrimage to St Peter's
• enthuses over an heretical nun (Lucia Caram) who denies Mary's perpetual virginity and advocates for abortion and LGBTQ
• ignores, like other Western powers, the Islamic pillaging and persecution of indigenous Christians in the Middle East
• quarrels with the leader of the world's most powerful nation over enforcement of its own, just, laws
• welcomed an heretical Anglican archbishopress into St Peter's
• forbids the death penalty endorsed for centuries by the Magisterium
• meets with the heretical Jesuit +James Martin
• meets with 'queer' activist Bad Bunny, who affects women's clothing
• permits episcopal consecrations by the Communist Party in China but sanctions those of a society of traditional Catholic priests
• suppresses celebration of the Mass of Ages, the Traditional Latin Mass, throughout the world
• declares it is "one" with Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox
• says Jews need not convert to the Catholic faith to be saved
• says "man has infinite dignity" without reference to the infinite dignity of man's Saviour, Jesus Christ
• allows all kinds of liturgical abuses including many opposed to the documents of Vatican II such as Communion in the hand, lay ministers of Communion, altar girls

+Pagliarani says punitive measures against the Society would be "objectively unjust". But for +Lefebvre, excommunication was "a mark of honour". The SSPX needs to raise its game. The Society may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb and declare the Vatican to be what it is: anti-Catholic.

Bishop Bernard Fellay SSPX states that God wants the Society today to be "the sign of contradiction - the sign of the cross". That is, the sign of the power and the wisdom of God.

+Pagliarani, bishops and priests of the Society of St Pius X: go to it, and God speed.

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And as for you, Capernaum: Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld. For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” (Matthew 11:20-24)

From Integrity Magazine:

Sunday marked the release of the first installment of Traditio: For the Love of the Church, a new three-part documentary produced in collaboration with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). It is being promoted as the largest and most ambitious film project in the Society’s history. 

 

Filmed over a period of two years across multiple countries and continents, the project seeks to present the life, apostolic work, and priestly mission of the SSPX as it exists today: global, established, and increasingly confident.

 

Across more than four hours of film, Traditio promises viewers an extensive look into seminary formation, missionary activity, liturgical practice, and the worldwide expansion of the Society’s efforts.

 

The brainchild of “two young students” — the identities of whom oddly seem to not be public knowledge — the documentary was produced in conjunction with the SSPX’s General House. One of the students told an audience at the film’s premiere in May that they did not want it to engage in “theological polemics or polemics of church politics” but only to present the life and work of SSPX clergy.

 

A global apostolate

The scale of the production says something. This is no longer a movement presenting itself merely as an emergency response to a temporary crisis. The imagery being presented is one of permanence: seminaries, schools, missions, parishes, pilgrimages, families, and institutions built over decades.

 

The message being sent is clear, whatever the canonical situation may be, the Society intends to demonstrate that it is a worldwide reality.

 

For decades, traditional Catholics have watched the post-conciliar landscape with growing concern: collapsing Mass attendance, shrinking seminaries, disappearing religious orders, doctrinal confusion, and liturgical experimentation that transformed Catholic life throughout much of the world. 

 

Against this background, footage of packed churches, cassocks, thriving seminaries, and traditional liturgical life naturally carries rhetorical force. But beneath the cinematography and production quality lies several important issues the Society needs to address.

 

Resistance yes, but questions remain

 

The SSPX has staked out a position that appears increasingly difficult to explain coherently. On the one hand, Rome is recognized and its authority acknowledged, while on the other it is routinely ignored and frequently resisted.

 

The Society habitually refers to Leo as the “Holy Father” and seeks his approval (at least indirectly through Bishop Athanasius Schneider) for their upcoming consecrations, all while criticizing and rejecting outright his and his predecessor’s encyclicals, disciplinary decisions, reforms, liturgical legislation, ecumenical programs, and pastoral directives.

 

Undoubtedly, such resistance is necessary in this time of apostasy as Modernism flows from the Vatican daily, but the question that naturally emerges is: is it fitting to ask for the imprimatur of a man who does not outwardly profess the Catholic faith? What, moreover, does “attachment” to the “successor of St. Peter” mean if practical resistance to him is permanent?

 

The Society has presented its position as a temporary necessity during extraordinary circumstances, but more than a half century of perpetual disobedience has become its own theological system, one that does not appear to align with what the popes of old taught on how Catholics ought to behave toward the Vicar of Christ.

 

In his famous 1864 document Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX said he could not “pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that … assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See … so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.”

 

In 1870, Pius declared that “all those who glory in the title of Catholic must not only be united to him in matters of faith and dogmatic truth, but also be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.”

 

If modern ecclesiastical authorities have genuinely promoted — as the SSPX correctly argues they have — harmful doctrines, dangerous pastoral innovations, “Protestantized” liturgical rites, “Modernist errors,” and ecumenical practices incompatible with Catholic tradition, then continuously insisting upon “profound attachment” to “the Holy Father” not only begins to appear contradictory but should compel the Society to question whether these men are legitimate Church authorities in the first place.

 

A shift in messaging

 

Even critics of the Society will generally acknowledge that its priests and faithful have spent decades preserving traditional liturgy, catechesis, sacramental life, religious formation, and Catholic education. All this the documentary highlights admirably. In doing so, it is in keeping with the Society’s “branding” campaign over the past 15 years to focus more on the beauty of Tradition and on what the Society offers the Church rather than primarily the condemnation of the errors coming from the Vatican.

 

 

But this leaves out the other half of the equation: the doctrinal reasons for the Society’s existence.

 

In 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre declared: “This Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time.

 

It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship — already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents.” He also said “to whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”

 

Has Leo not proven that he fully adheres to these “new dogmas”? Has he not shown that he has “separated” himself from the Catholic Church and is now a part of the “Conciliar Church?”

 

 

Archbishop Lefebvre reiterated his views in his 1991 book Spiritual Journey. In it, he accused the “current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI” of having “made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism.”

 

He also stated that it is “a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.”

 

One can’t help but notice that this sort of tough talk has been absent from the many public statements issued by the SSPX and their chief ally Bishop Schneider in recent months.

 

The collective message being sent now is not that Leo is head of a schismatic church or a promoter of Jewish Freemasonry, but that the SSPX is only wanting to serve the Church by helping souls in need, and that Leo should be pastoral to them and treat them in the same way he does when he meets with Anglicans and others.

 

“If we come to be declared excommunicated and schismatic, this would not mean that we seek such a sanction or rejoice in it, for it would be objectively unjust,” Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the current SSPX Superior General, has said.

 

Compare that to what the SSPX superiors declared after the 1988 excommunications: “To be publicly associated with this sanction which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful.

 

"They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church.”

 

While it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to avoid carrying out the consecrations against the wishes of John Paul II by seeking a deal with Cardinal Ratzinger in the 1980s, he admitted in 1991 that, “I think I can reply that I have gone further than I ought to have gone.”

 

This confession alone throws cold water on the arguments made by those who continue to insist the Society should exhaust diplomatic options with Rome and seek Leo’s approval for July 1, or some other arrangement.

 

No practical accord

 

Archbishop Lefebvre’s most mature thought on the matter was that recourse to the conciliar authorities was not needed. “Hence we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, ‘Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?’

 

Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course,” he said after the consecrations.

 

The Society’s leaders heeded that wisdom in the ensuing years. In 1991, Bishop Tissier — assisted by Bishops de Galarreta and Williamson — consecrated Fr. Licínio Rangel as the successor of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer for the Diocese of Campos, Brazil. There is no evidence that they asked the Vatican for permission to do so.

 

When the priests of Campos made an agreement with the Vatican in 2003, Bishop Fellay denounced the capitulation, stating that it was tantamount to putting Tradition in an “ecumenical zoo.” This was in keeping with Archbishop Lefebvre’s remark one year after the ’88 consecrations that to “re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic … is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects.”

 

At its 2006 General Chapter, the SSPX officially embraced the position that talks with the Vatican were for doctrinal reasons only. “The contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement.”

 

That policy was done away with in the early 2010s by Bishop Fellay whilst he was Superior General. He said Rome had sufficiently changed its perspective toward the Society and that a new posture was needed.

 

The dramatic shift caused intense internal debates that have lasted to the present day. Not only did Bishop de Galarreta but Bishops Williamson and Tissier express opposition, both privately and publicly.

 

“This project of ‘officialization’ of the SSPX leaves me indifferent,” Tissier said during an interview in 2012. “This status that is proposed to us, of a personal prelature, analogous to that of Opus Dei, is a status for a state of peace. But we are currently in a state of war in the Church. It would be a contradiction to wish to ‘regularize the war.’ … the irregularity is not ours. It is that of Rome.”

 

On New Year’s Day in 2015, Tissier pushed back again, boldly stating in a sermon that “bad friends” were seeking the “normalization” of the SSPX with the “Conciliar Church.”

 

The SSPX can be a leader for the Counter-Revolution

 

 

Traditio deserves to be praised for highlighting the Society’s many admirable priests. Their tireless efforts to bring the Gospel to all corners of the earth while the Novus Ordo hierarchy refuses to do so should be applauded.

 

But something more is needed right now. For decades, the men who have worn the white papal vestments have waged war on Catholic doctrine and liturgy. They have held prayer meetings with heretics and schismatics.

 

They have brought pagan idols into the Vatican, destroyed religious life, installed unworthy men into positions of power, and have partnered with the global Deep State.

 

These same “Vicars of Christ” proudly declare that they are “one” with Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox. They teach that Jews don’t need to convert to the Catholic faith in order to be saved. They promote the “infinite dignity” of man and support “healthy pluralism” in the civil sphere.

 

What this moment calls for is a full-on, public denunciation of these men and the false religion they are spreading in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

The SSPX’s leaders should recognize that the Vatican is not interested in their concerns with the Second Vatican Council. They should not make future attempts at a practical accord. Instead, they should “shake the dust off” their feet (Mt. 10:14) and, following in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre, denounce Leo as the head of the Conciliar Church and accuse him of being in schism with the great popes of the past.

 

They should also declare that it is he — not they — who is “canonically irregular” with the Catholic Church, while stating that it would be an honor to be “excommunicated” by men like him who do not preach the Gospel.

 

Time will surely tell whether the Society will embrace its roots, take up this important mission, and become what it should be for the Counter-Revolutionary movement.

 

We can only pray that it will do so sooner rather than later, and that it will extend an olive branch to other Traditionalists who have been fighting for the faith since the Modernist coup at the Second Vatican Council.https://integritymagazine.org/2026/06/10/sspx-documentary-impresses-but-the-society-needs-stronger-messaging

 

Mater Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis!