There is currently a dispute in New Zealand that is centred around certain Maori MPs (and others) calling for the name of our country to be officially changed to Aotearoa, and for every non-Maori place name to be changed to a Maori one. This is similar territory to changing the design on our national flag (as mooted a few years ago), or changing from a dominion to a republic (an issue that also sporadically emerges). From a nationalist point of view it’s a no-brainer that the names of our respective localities should stay the same, and there are a number of angles from which we can view the debate that will likely resonate with many New Zealanders.

Let us consider some key points against a name-change.

Firstly, a name change would be a purely symbolic act that would fail to address any real underlying issues associated with the current System and its ideologies. Such cosmetic changes are simply deflections away from the fundamental flaws in the System, which have been implemented both stealthily and flagrantly over the decades by sectional and selfish interests that undermine the integrity of European and Maori cultures and communities. Most people do not seem to care about— or are only vaguely aware of— these problems, yet they will make a big brouhaha about changing the name of our country. The Government and media are influencing the ‘debate’ through their increasing use of ’Aotearoa’, which now takes precedence over ‘New Zealand’ (when it is even used).

What still remains is to have the name change announced officially, with ‘New Zealand’ being dropped completely just as when Zimbabwe Rhodesia was changed after their so-called ‘transition’ of power. It seems that we are now in a similar transitional phase, and while the future Aoteaora might indeed become ‘Maorified’ on a superficial level, this will do nothing to change the banking system, the export-based growth economy, the housing crisis, high unemployment and the health crisis; all of which are inseparable from the process of globalisation that will continue regardless to eat away at whatever remains of any actual Culture. We will see no more change than the Africanisation of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Congo, Kenya or Uganda brought those states out of the same system. Even now there are studies on how Maori tribal corporations can best profit from globalisation; a matter of selling one’s birthright for a mess of pottage. It makes no difference to global corporations and money-lenders whether they are dealing with white, black, brown or yellow faces.

Maori should take note that in the last decades not only New Zealand European but also Maori culture has been threatened to be swamped by Chinese, Indian, and Pacific Island immigration. Years ago, Jim Bolger lauded the prospect of New Zealand becoming ‘part of Asia’. Are Maoris so bitter with Europeans that they don’t care if it means their own culture will also be swamped by migration from the burgeoning excess populations of Asia that the United Nations officially calls ‘replacement migration’? Do they think they will gain an iota of their own identity back?

It seems hypocritical that a Maori MP (insert name or link?) would reject the European names for this country and it’s localities (nor will he wear a European tie in parliament) yet he does not object to wearing a cowboy hat and European style suit. Certainly some could argue that if Maori have adopted many European things then New Zealand Europeans should also adopt a certain amount of Maori things; and in fact there are many Maori names, phrases and words we do already use. If they want to use Maori names then it would be better that they are bilingual, otherwise the result could be Babel-style confusion and yet another example of the constant state of flux and lack of the permanence that is so necessary for a healthy culture.

I would also argue that places that were mainly founded by Europeans should retain their European names. Forcing New Zealand Europeans to adopt Maori names for every locality in New Zealand would be to impose on them a culture that is not natural to their ethnicity, which could result in psychological confusion and other problems associated with such alienation and disenfranchisement. If we change all the names of the localities in NZ, the next step— already mooted in policy documents such as He Pua Pua— will be compulsory Te Reo Maori and perhaps the elimination of English; or the further evolution of the pidgin English/Maori mix that we are already seeing develop. To be sure, the early missionaries did force Maoris to speak English and punish the speaking of Maori in schools, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Furthermore it is always overlooked that it was the Maori elders and chiefs who insisted that this process be enforced. Conversely in South Africa, Afrikaans was likewise suppressed in schools when under British colonisation, but not at the urging of the Afrikaners.

Another question is: why can Maori claim more rights to changing our country than the rest of us? Although we respect that Maoris have a right to certain consideration because they are an established early historical people of NZ, they shouldn’t have the right to exclusive favour, especially since they contracted a Treaty that was supposed to make them British subjects with the same rights and obligations as any other under the unified ‘mana’ of the Crown. Maori were so embroiled in their own inter-tribal self-destruction that they pleaded for British intervention. One only need read the many days of debates between the chiefs at Waitangi before they signed the Treaty to find that they knew very well the pros and cons of handing over their sovereignty.

Population statistics show that Europeans make up 70.2% , Maori 16.5%, Pacific Islanders 8.1%, Chinese 5.5%, Indians 5.5%. Although Maori have rights as the second-largest historical group, compared to European numbers they are still a minority; just a few of which want to change all the European place names to Maori ones. According to statistics by regional area some places are more or less Maori or European than others, yet again they want to change all the place names in New Zealand. For example, the North Island has 665 thousand Maoris, 290 thousand of which are in Auckland and Waikato, while the South Island has 110 thousand, 56 thousand of which are in Canterbury. Only in Gisborne is there about the same number of both.

Lastly, according to some sources, Aotearoa may not even be a genuinely historical Maori name for the whole landmass. The first time the name seems to have been used for the entirety of the country was perhaps in The Maori Messenger in 1854. None of the Maori chiefs used the word Aotearoa at the large conference at Kohimarama in 1860. In 1901 when the Maori elder Tamamau Mahupuku wrote to Maori Member of Parliament James Carroll, gifting a carved house for a Maori museum, he referred to the North Island as Aotearoa and the South Island (the so-called ‘Middle Island’) as Te Waipounamu.

This attempt to change the name of Our country is a debased attempt— in the name of globalisation— to further destroy the identity of the European New Zealanders who cultivated this land, constructed its towns and fashioned its unique culture. This is not something to be condoned by any self-respecting person, and we encourage people to share their opinions on this matter. Remember that global capitalism and its growth-economy knows no race, but only individuals as economic units, either at the bottom, or the top of the world economic junk-heap. All cultures will fall victim and no name-change is going to bring any meaningful change.

Currently, there is a dispute about certain Maori MPs and others wanting to change the name of our country from New Zealand to Aotearoa, and also wanting to change every place name to Maori names. From a nationalist point of view, this really is a no-brainer, but there are so many cunning people and so many idiots on the ‘left’ that all many people can see is the usual muddle.


Let us consider a few points about this name change dispute.

Firstly changing the name of our country or changing the flag (as mooted a few years ago) or changing to a republic (which also sporadically emerges) is a deflection and will not change the nature of the dominant system and its ideology. There are so many wrongs and evils that have been implemented both stealthily and flagrantly over decades that cosmetic changes do nothing but deflect attention away from the fundamental flaws in this system.

Here are a few:

Mass unemployment, mainly caused by globalist free trade and associated immigration policies; i.e. globalisation,

The housing crisis, including excessively expensive prices, rents, and associated homelessness; aggravated by globalist immigration/refugee policies, and caused by the failure of the state to utilise its own credit to fund public works, as the first Labour government did.

The very overlooked and unrealised matter of artificial additives in food and lack of soil nutrition, and the proliferation of fast food and convenience diets, due to the obsession with profit over community health. Any minor suggestions in the direction of healthy food and the libertarians object – ‘nanny state’ and scoff, as ego-bound ‘liberties’ come before a healthy population. Again we see the motive being profit rather than the national interest. This problem includes the overuse of sugar and salt-heaped foods and fluoridation. Such a nutrition-debased diet also has an ethnic component. For a society that proclaims itself so obsessed with the welfare of ethnic minorities, the poor health and lower life expectancies among Maori and Pacific Islander populations are easier to blame once again on ‘colonialisation’ and ‘neocolonialisation’, than to consider the science of how Western junk diets impact with more immediacy on these ethnic communities. Any such research might come to the conclusion that there are differences among races that have literal ‘life and death’ repercussions.

Sectional and selfish interests are at the root of these problems as they are at the root of undermining European and Maori cultures and communities. Most people do not seem to care or realise these problems, and yet they then make a big brouhaha about changing the name of New Zealand to Aotearoa. This is being undertaken stealthily at any rate, through the state’s and media’s use of the name that now takes presence over ‘New Zealand’, when the latter is even actually used. What remains is to have the name change announced officially, and ‘New Zealand’ dropped completely, as the transition from Zimbabwe–Rhodesia was changed after the so-called ‘transition’. It seems that we are now in a similar transition phase, and while the future Aoteaora might indeed become Maorified in its superficialities, this will do nothing to change the banking system, the export-based growth economy, and the globalisation process, which will continue to eat away at whatever remains of actual culture, any more than the Africanisation of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Congo, Kenya or Uganda brought those states out of the same system.

Even now there are studies on how Maori tribal corporations can best profit from globalisation; a matter of selling one’s birthright for a mess of pottage. Hence, the change from ’New Zealand’ to ‘Aotearoa’ becomes a red-herring, a ‘smoke and mirrors’ deflection. Meanwhile, certain Maori activists congratulate themselves on eliminating one of the few vestiges remaining of the New Zealand-European heritage in the naïve belief that they have gained an iota for the maintenance of their own identity as globalisation proceeds not only unhindered but from the examples of decolonised Africa and Asia, accelerated. It makes no difference to global corporations and money–lenders whether they are dealing with white, black, brown, or yellow faces.

Additionally, forcing New Zealand Europeans to adopt Maori names for every locality in New Zealand is imposing on them a culture that is not natural to their ethnicity and it will result in psychological confusion and other problems associated with such alienation and disenfranchisement.

I myself am not anti-Maori. I have nothing against experiencing and learning Maori culture and language and life and respecting them and theirs. But there is a problem when globalist multiculturalists keep pushing total mixture and favouring other cultures over our own because it undermines our NZ European identity, culture, and community while also stealthily undermining the Maori culture, too. All in a world where there will no longer be any clearly defined cultures other than whatever serves global economic growth for the profit of the few.

We have to respect natural boundaries/borders, real bio-diversity, and genuine self-determination. If we change all the names of the localities in NZ, the next step, already mooted in policy documents such as He Pua Pua, will be compulsory Te Reo Maori, and beyond this the elimination of English, or perhaps a pidgin English-Maori mix that we are already seeing develop.

To be sure, early missionaries did force Maoris to speak English and punish the speaking of Maori in school. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Furthermore, it is overlooked, that it was the Maori elders and chiefs who insisted that this process be enforced. However, in South Africa, Afrikaans was likewise suppressed in schools when under British colonisation, but not at the urging of the Afrikaners.

Maori should take note that in the last decades not only NZ European culture but also Maori culture has been threatened to be swamped by Chinese, Indian, and Pacific Island immigration. Years ago, Jim Bolger lauded the prospect of New Zealand becoming ‘part of Asia’. Are Maoris so bitter with Europeans, whose intervention in their blood feuds they insistently sought in the face of Colonial Office reticence, that they don’t care if it means their own culture will also be swamped by migration from the burgeoning excess populations of Asia, which the United Nations officially calls ‘replacement migration’?

Further, according to Maori traditional memories, there were Turehu and Patupaiarehu and Waitaha and Urukehu and Moehau and Rapuwai and Moriori here before the Maoris arrived. Regardless of the historical accuracy of these legends, the status of each iwi and hapu as ‘tangata whenua’ only related to their claim to initial settlements of a specific locality, until they were dispossessed by an invading tribe. Of the notion of ‘Maori’ as ‘tangata whenua’ per se, there was none, and the arguments of ownership of land still cause conflict among iwi and hapu. Ever since 1840 New Zealand Europeans are still burdened by the consequences of tribal and family feuds, for which we are somehow held morally accountable and financially liable.

So, although we respect that Maoris have a right to certain consideration because they are an established early historical people of NZ, they nevertheless don’t have the right to exclusive favour, especially since they contracted a Treaty that was supposed to make them British subjects with the same rights and obligations as any other, under the unified ‘mana’ of the Crown that the chiefs had eagerly surrendered.

Certainly more Europeans (those who are nominally ‘white’ – physically – although far from being so in spirit) than Maoris have the blame for the evils of the modern world regime, and certainly, a few Europeans have done some wrongs to Maoris since Cook’s arrival to now (just as they cruelly exploited their own people) but Maoris were so embroiled with their own inter-tribal self-destruction that they pleaded for British intervention, and many Maoris have collaborated with the evils being pushed by the modern World regime in their eagerness for profit.

The real lesson is that global capitalism and its growth-economy knows no race, but only individuals as economic units, either at the bottom or the top of the world economic junk-heap.

It also seems hypocritical that a Maori MP rejects the European name for this country and localities and won’t wear a European tie in parliament etc., yet he does not object to wearing a cowboy hat and European suit. Certainly, some could argue that if Maori have adopted many European things, New Zealand Europeans should also adopt a certain amount of Maori things. But we already have a balance of Maori and European place names. There are many Maori names, phrases, and words which we already use, although some erstwhile PC proponents become so zealous that they actually wrongly pronounce them. ‘Wh’ is properly spoken as ‘hw’, not like ‘f’, except in some tribes, which brings us to the problem that before Europeans developed Maori lexicons and started reinventing ‘Maori culture’ there were innumerable local variations.

I’m not against using Maori names for places that have Maori associations in history. But places that were mainly founded by Europeans should retain their European names. If they want to use Maori names then it would be better that they are bilingual, otherwise, the result will be confusion, Babel style, and yet another example of the constant state of flux, of continual change, and the lack of permanence that is so necessary for a healthy culture, but which is being destroyed in the name of ‘progress’.

Population statistics show that Europeans make up 70.2% , Maori 16.5%, Chinese 5.5%, Indians 5.5%, Pacific Islanders 8.1%.

So although Maoris have rights as the second-largest historical group, that is a lot more Europeans than Maoris considering that a few people want to change all the European place names to Maori ones. Moreover, according to statistics by regional area some places are more or less Maori or European than others. The North Island has 665 thousand Maoris, 290 thousand of which are in Auckland and Waikato, while the South Island has 110 thousand, 56 thousand of which are in Canterbury. Only in Gisbourne is there about the same number of both. Yet they want to change all place names in New Zealand.

According to some sources, Aotearoa may not even be a genuinely historical Maori name for all of this land/country. The first time the name seems to have been used for the entirety of the country was perhaps in The Maori Messenger in 1854. None of the Maori chiefs used the word Aotearoa at the large conference at Kohimarama in 1860. In 1901 when the Maori elder Tamamau Mahupuku wrote to Maori Member of Parliament James Carroll, gifting a carved house for a Maori museum, he referred to the North Island as Aotearoa and the South Island (the so-called ‘Middle Island’) as Te Waipounamu.

This attempt to change the name of Our country is a debased attempt at further destroying the identity of European New Zealanders who cultivated this land, constructed its towns, and fashioned its unique culture in the name of globalisation. This is not something to be condoned by any self-respecting person, and we encourage people to share their opinions on this matter.

4 thoughts on “Name Changes: More Cultural Undermining”

  1. Aufente gentem perfidam credentium de finibus. Return to tradition, embrace the traditional religion that built Christendom and caused 109 expulsions. There’s only one.

  2. Many of us are not one big happy family
    here with the globalist doctrine of every mans a equal,
    What’s so wrong with the nanny state, much of the people still don’t have the intelligence to change their own diapers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *