Solzhenitsyn – Hero & Sage

 

In Solzhenitsyn’s death on August 3, at 89 there passes one of the few truly great men of our time. Not only a courageous individual, but also one of rare insight. Whether such prophets are honoured in their own Time, let along their own land, is another matter.

            Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918, at a time when the Bolsheviks had not even consolidated their power. Serving during World War II in the Soviet Army, he was sentenced to ten years of prison camps and internal exile for critical comment s about Stalin to a friend.

            After the death of Stalin, and eventually a new regime eager to give the impression of a different era, Solzhenitsyn’s first and only book published in the USSR, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, appeared in 1962. However, Solzhenitsyn could not be co-opted by the new regime and was exiled from the USSR in 1974.

            However, Solzhenitsyn also refused to be co-opted as a Cold Warrior defender of the liberal decadents of the West, as the Trotskyites had been. In fact he offended liberal sensibilities. His rejection of the communist system was on the grounds of its spiritual impoverishment, its materialism and mass conformity, and in this he saw a parallel in the West’s liberalism. Unlike most of the other Soviet dissidents, he was not a liberal-democrat, or a potential neo-con. He therefore made enemies among both the liberal literati and the corporate power elite such as those among the New York Times, and the likes of Henry Kissinger, who had in 1975 blocked Solzhenitsyn from visiting the White House, and had attempted to block his being awarded honorary citizenship by the Senate.

            In 1978 Solzhenitsyn was invited to give the Commencement Address to Harvard. (Available from Renaissance Press, www.freewebs.com/renaissancepress). Here he analysed with depth and vision such as few have, the fundamental malady of Western Civilisation. He declared that the West had lost its moral courage, starting at the top among the ruling elite and the intellectuals. Solzhenitsyn traced the decadence back to the ideology dominant in the West, lambasting the Western ideal of the happiness of the greatest number and a freedom that becomes licentious. Decades of technical and social progress had granted the masses the accumulation of goods, but also spiritual and moral impoverishment; happiness “in the morally inferior sense.” This has led to the desire for ever more possessions, “without opening the way to free spiritual development.” The excess of leisure and affluence had undermined any notion of the defence of higher values and of sacrifice. Drawing on the lessons of biology, Solzhenitsyn warned that “habitual safety” is not conducive to the well-being of an organism.

            Politically also nothing great could be achieved, because any sign of statesmanship and the need for far-sighted action would be stifled by this “habitual safety.” The outstanding individual could not assert himself; mediocrity triumphs in the name of democracy.

            “It is time in the West to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.”

            “Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space.”

            “Society appears to have little defence against the abyss of human decadence….”

            Solzhenitsyn castigated the press for its freedom to be misleading, immature and superficial, devoid of in-depth analysis. The direction of standards by fashion and conformity is every bit as stifling as conformity of the communist variety, and both led to the “herd.”

            In the West human weakness is cultivated; in the East, strength. The East had endured decades of suffering and privation, and from this crucible had emerged the soul longing for what is “higher and purer.” The West offered by contrast “TV stupor” and “intolerable music”, artistic decadence and the lack of statesmanship.

            This Western decline had been advancing since the ideological foundations laid in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, emerging as rationalism and humanism. From this emerged Marx and his communism. (Solzhenitsyn was to elsewhere refer to the natural alliance that had developed between capitalism and communism, alluding to Armand Hammer as having opened up contracts with the USSR since the time of Lenin; a relationship that had built Soviet military power).

            Solzhenitsyn challenged humanity to rise to new spiritual heights.

            The speech was a shocking blow to the liberal Establishment. The New York Times called Solzhenitsyn “dangerous”. The Boston Globe called him the “mad Russian.” He was condemned by neo-con guru William Buckley, and by liberal columnist Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The Washington Post called him “irrelevant” to democracy. Rosalyn Carter, friend of that paragon of liberalism, Rev. Jim Jones, responded with total incomprehension. Solzhenitsyn could not be co-opted to the liberal cause. It seemed mighty ungrateful. He did not fit in with the Western intelligentsia, and refused to compromise his writing style for the sake of popular culture. He lived not among the rootless cosmopolitans but among the woods of Vermont.

            Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia in 1994, but equally he would not be co-opted by a post-communist regime that sought to import the liberal decadence he had decried in the West. He held capitalism in disdain, opposed the way the oligarchs were talking over the post-communist economy and held to a vision of Russia as having a unique culture and destiny, under the impress of Orthodox faith. Therefore he refused the Order of St Andrew offered by Yeltsin, paragon of the type of liberal rot the West wished for Russia. But he did accept an award from Putin.

            Solzhenitsyn was the embodiment of the Russian soul, as such not itself of the “West” (see Spengler, Decline of the West), but provided a detached analysis of what ails the West Civilisation. We continue to ignore his wisdom, while Russia seems to have embarked on a course of revival based on the crucible of suffering that leads to spiritual realisation.

Chris Trotter’s Epiphany

            Chris Trotter, veteran socialist, oft-used media ‘political commentator’ and columnist for The Dominion Post (“From the Left”) has had an epiphany. Actually, in recent months this is the second, that has put him well and truly off-side of the Left.

            In October 2007 he cautioned whether the Left should jump wholeheartedly to the defense of the motley collection of Pakeha anarchists and Maori radicals who were subjected to police raids and firearms charges. This brought venom from his comrades, which should hardly be surprising.

            However in April Trotter became even more heretical in his Dominion Post column in questioning one of the sacred cows of the Left: multiculturalism.

            In an article entitled “The big multiculturalism question” Trotter opened with the statement: “there are moments when it’s easy to understand why people despite the liberal Left.”

            He then called unionist and former Alliance Party leader Laila Harre “smug” for stating that there is no real political support for NZ First’s Peter Brown, when he made some heretical remarks on Asian immigration.

            Trotter stated that Harre’s comments “contributed a final rhetorical cherry to the lavish confection of abuse” directed at Peter Brown, MP.

            Trotter points out that the first broadside against Brown was from Keith Locke, Green Party MP, who accused Brown of being ….. “white supremacist”. Trotter states that this prompted other sections of he Left to jump in and try and outdo each other with the abuse hurled at Brown, one might add, like a ball of dung rolling downhill and gaining momentum as it collected more muck. As for Keith Locke, it’s often some wonder to this writer that he and other formerly avid Trotskyite-communists can slip so comfortably into respectability without a word from a media that’s every –ready to slander any manifestation of “Right-wing extremism” from sectors of society that cannot claim any influence in government, pulpit or media. Indeed, Keith Locke can state publicly that Sam Buchanan, an apologist for anarchist thuggery, is a ‘respected’ community activist and all round good chap, and this also raises nothing from the media.

            Trotter alludes to the inane Campbell Live TV current affairs programme on April; 4, which ‘came close’ to associating supporters of Brown with ‘nazi persecutors of the Jews’.

            Five days later Harre got on the bandwagon to put the final kick into Brown. “With this final, metaphorical kick in the groin, New Zealand’s liberal leftist celebrated the triumph of their multicultural ideology over the disorganized and ineptly expressed views of the New Zealand people. And of course, over NZ First.”

            Trotter rightly points out that such views are seldom articulated in an intelligent manner, and Brown’s comments were no exception, considering one expects more from an MP. His stance on immigration, a major voting point for the NZ First Party, one expects would be somewhat better thought through and less defensive.

            NZ First leader Winston Peters, as Trotter points out, is stuck with the difficult job of being one of the few who can articulate a ‘populist’ position on immigration above street level clichés. It’s certainly not an achievement that can yet be claimed on the whole by the NZ “Right”, but one lives in hope…

            However, Trotter continues that people have a right to ask “perfectly legitimate questions: ‘what sort of society is NZ becoming?’ and, ‘Are New Zealanders ready to embrace that sort of society?’”

            Trotter states that since the 1860s the NZ State has reflected ‘overwhelmingly an “Anglo-Celtic heritage.” Our institutions and values stretch back 3000 years, and our primary cultural affinities are with other English speaking peoples throughout the world.“To state these facts is not to indulge in ‘white supremacy’; it is merely to describe reality.”

            Trotter states that NZ still has along way to go before becoming a successful ‘bi-cultural nation’. “How realistic is it, therefore, to suddenly expect NZ to embrace the idea of multiculturalism? Especially a multiculturalism which involves coming to terms with immigrant populations measured not in the current 1-5% range, but in numbers representing 15-20% of the total population.” It is this Asian immigrant density which prompted Peter Brown’s original comments.

            Trotter asks whether it is reasonable to expect NZ to accommodate an Asian population expansion of 15-20% over the course of just 20 years, when we still haven’t come to grips with the renaissance of the Maori population over the last 100 years? “An expansion moreover, which is grounded in neither the indigenous, nor the colonial  heritage of NZ, but in traditions alien to both.”

            “The liberal left owes us answers, not insults.”

            The impress of reality seems of late to be taking hold of Trotter. I’m am told that Trotter has also stated on a radio interview that immigration is a part of globalization.

            The views he is expressing, better by a long shot than those usually expressed by the few on the radical Right, not only puts Trotter at odds with the “liberal Left”, but at least as much with the “extreme Left” and with liberal-capitalism.

            What Trotter needs to realize now is that his basic non-dogmatic form of socialism can just as well be accommodated by the genuine “Right” as his newfound realizations on multiculturalism and immigration. Indeed, as the early labour movement showed in NZ and elsewhere, before being taken over by Marxists and liberals, is that the fight for social justice and the fight against immigration are one and the same.

 

 

Asian Vigilantes expose crumbling façade of multiculturalism

 (July 7, 08)

Police estimate the number at 15,000 who marched through south Auckland on July 5 to protest against what is perceived as mounting crime specifically against Asians in recent months.

Attacks on Asians, both Chinese and Indian, have recently received high profile media and have involved Polynesian perpetrators.

In response an Auckland businessman, Peter Low, has formed the Asian Anti-Crime Group. The Group is involved in self –defence training. Low said that the group was “training people in hand-to-hand combat and how to handle situations.” Mr Low has warned that if demands were not met for tougher action against criminals he would be calling for community protection from Triads. (Vigilantes response to attacks on Asians, Dominion Post, July 7, 08).

                The mass action of Auckland’s Asians is significant in a number of ways.

Firstly, in shows cracks in the supposedly harmonious multicultural society that the New Zealand Establishment tries to promote especially among Asians overseas, whose migrant skills and investments are wanted. Mr Low rightly states that the image is a myth. He states: “New Zealand is promoted as a green and peaceful country. That’s not true.” The implication is, as will become increasingly apparent , that rifts in the multicultural paradise will crack open as the tensions rise between the Asian and Polynesian communities.

                Secondly, when the likes of Pansy Wong MP, National Party spokesperson on ethnic affairs, as well as sundry liberals and Leftists, pontificate about supposed ‘white racism’ and violence directed against Asians, the accusations will appear increasingly lame. Mr Low’s efforts have highlighted that the violence is being perpetrated by Polynesians against Asians, with the occasional skinhead attacks seen to be nothing but left-liberal over-hype. Mr Low’s actions will highlight the less than ideal conditions in New Zealand and the word will spread quickly throughout Asia; with the likelihood of a downturn in migrant applications. However, what Mr Low et al are continuing to obscure is the intra-Asian crime, including drug operations and kidnappings for ransom, the latter a Chinese import to New Zealand.

                Thirdly, whites will largely be bystanders as racial tensions between Asians and Polynesians/Maoris, especially in the high-density multicultural areas, escalate. If whites had attempted to organise such a demonstration, after decades of Polynesian/Maori violence, they would be lucky to get 15 participants, let alone 15,000, and if attracting any attention, would be universally vilified as racists and Nazis. While the liberals are distinctly uneasy about the prospect of an Asian paramilitary force with Triad ties, they dare not give anything but platitudes, rather than condemnation, as they are acutely aware of the need to placate Asians.

                Fourthly, on the rare occasions of any public protest activity over issues such as China Free Trade or immigration, will this self-described vigilante force act violently on the pretext of ‘protecting Asians’? In any such scenario, protesters would find themselves out-muscled and outsmarted, and lacking a sympathetic media.

Fifthly, given the prospect of Asians overseas getting a different – more accurate – perception of New Zealand as far from idyllic, will the Chinese Government use the excuse to interfere in New Zealand’s internal affairs, as New Zealand is inexorably dragged not only economically, but militarily and diplomatically into the China orbit? Outside interference to protect an ethnic minority is an oft-used ploy to invade a country. E.g.’s include Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland to protect German ethnics and Milosevic’s invasion of Kosovo to protect Serbs from Albanian terrorists. According to Pansy Wong, in a conversation with this writer last year, the Chinese community in NZ is overwhelmingly loyal to Red China. Thousands of Chinese students already mobilised in recent months to counter pro-Tibet protests.

                The Asian mobilisation will not be lacking in funds. One also has to wonder about the threat to involve Triads as ‘community protectors’. It is precisely the Triads who have preyed on the Chinese communities, despite the red herring about ‘white racism’ put out by Pansy Wong et al, every time an Asian is perceived as so much as having been looked at without deference.  One also could wonder whether there is something of a ‘protection racket’ that might develop behind the scheme?

                At least Mr Low has to be congratulated for exposing the official Big Lie of New Zealand as a multicultural paradise, and the ancillary lie about ‘white racism’ being the only hindrance on the road to the liberal utopia.

 

 

RATS?!

The meaning of the latest rat bone dating on the question of ancient settlement

 

"We are not saying that Maori arrived at any different time than we believed, but we are confirming that Maori were the first people to settle New Zealand. There wasn't this other group that arrived in 200BC”. –Dr Janet Wilmshurst, Christchurch Press, June 4, 08

Academe has triumphantly announced that the time period for human settlement of New Zealand has been definitively established  – on the basis of some rat bone radiocarbon dating.

            Orthodox scientists have been in a flap since the publication in 1996 of research indicating that there must have been some kind of human contact with New Zealand as far back as several thousand years ago, on the basis of rat bone dating. Although Dr Richard Holdaway, Palaecol Research Ltd., and Canterbury University, who headed the research into the initial testing, did not hold that human contact was anything but transient, and that human settlement had not occurred until the 13^th C. AD – the time now heralded by the newest results – orthodox academe had nonetheless felt insecure.

            There has been a lot of speculation particularly among heretical researchers, about settlement from sources other than Maori. This has captured the public imagination, and the recent book of Prof. Kerry Howe, The Quest for Origins, was written specifically to provide a “devastating critique”, as the publisher terms it, of these heretical views. Howe is particularly vicious in his less than scholarly attacks on Thor Heyerdahl, whose Kon Tiki adventures caught the public imagination, much to the chagrin of orthodox academia, for it was Heyerdahl’s contention that Polynesia had been settled from South America by Caucasians.[10] Other theories on settlement of Polynesia have included Egypto-Libyans (Dr Barry Fell) and proto-Celts (Martin Doutre). [11]

            The radiocarbon dating of the rat bones was undertaken by an international research team headed by Dr Janet Wilmshurst of Landcare Research, over the course of four years. Of the rat bones that had been dug up, none preceded 1280AD.

            Dr David Lowe, Waikato University earth scientist senior lecturer, was quoted as stating ‘that the theory of earlier settlement was now quashed…. Flaws in the testing [by Holdawaya] may have produced the results’.[12]

            It is of note that Dr Holdaway himself had never stated that his results proved that there had been long-term human settlement at the time. He believed, and still does, that the rat bone dating showed that there had been a transient human presence, and that actual settlement had indeed taken place during the 13^th C. AD.

            Dr Holdaway in a communication to this writer mentions that Landcare Research has typically distorted his research.[13]

            Dr Wilmshurst herself jubilantly proclaimed on a TV News item that her results show that the Maoris are indeed the ‘tangata whenua’. Hence, one detects a certain ideological agenda. She was followed by Maori academic Ranganui Walker, stating that the dating disproves the theories on the ‘Moriori’.

            In my naiveté I wondered how the latest results ‘proved’ anything other than that some rats, along with humans, were in New Zealand during the 13thC. AD.

            Dr Holdaway straight away questioned the validity of the results. Replying to a question from this writer, Dr Holdaway states:

 “As usual, Landcare misrepresented my research and results: I have never advocated a 200 BC colonization or even visitation. In fact, I was advocating an AD 1290 settlement before they were. That of course leaves open the question of TRANSIENT visits (think of Lieutenant James Cook). My data indicate some kind of visit by transients about AD 200… during which Pacific rats were introduced. The persistent miscitation of my data and views is rather annoying.

“She [Wilmshurst] cannot have been referring to the SAME rat remains (the term “re-dating” is completely misleading because the rat bones are totally consumed in the dating process: dating another rat bone does NOT re-date the first one. That would seem to be common logic…). [Emphasis added].

 

            It is equally uncertain however how Dr Holdaway can maintain that the habituation was very transient.

            I also put the following to Dr Wilmshurst:

“Dear Dr Wilmshurst

“I have read and seen media reports on your latest research regarding the dating of the oldest rat bones in New Zealand to the 13^th C. Obviously reliance on media reports is not particularly valuable.

“Since my academic background is not in the biological sciences, I am confused. You are quoted as saying that the dating of the oldest bones to ca. 13^th C. ‘proves’ that this is the date for the earliest possible human settlement.

“Disregarding for the moment the dissent by Dr Holdaway, I was wondering how the dating of the bones ‘proves’ anything beyond the obvious: that some rat remains you examined were here at a certain time? Can conclusions with such certainty really be drawn beyond that?”

           

As of writing no answer has been received from Dr Wilmshurst. Should we receive a reply it will be published in the next issue of Restoration.

            Academia was not always in accord with the timing of New Zealand settlement. It was once held that the “Great Fleet” of Maoris settled NZ en mass ca. 1350AD. However Dr Roger Duff put the date back to 950AD on the basis of dating moa hunter sites. This was pushed back further to at least 750AD by Prof. Keith Cumberland in his book The Moa Hunter (1965), and a date of 300AD was even suggested. However he asserted:

            “Let’s admit it, no one knows when men first reached the islands we call today New Zealand.”

            Such a scientific approach from earlier scholars seems to have been replaced in recent years by a PC driven approach, as indicated by tie comments of Dr Wilmshurst herself regarding the “Maori tangata whenua.”

As recently as 1988 N J Enright and N M Osborne could still write: “We do not dispute that Polynesian [more precisely, human] arrival in NZ may substantially pre-date the oldest known archaeological sites.”[14] Auckland University archaeologist Doug Sutton suggested a habitation of up to 2000 years ago.

 

EXVCAVATIONS OF PRICE & PULLAR PUT HABITATION BACK 3000BP

On the dates of human settlement Martin Doutre comments of the findings of Russell Price:

“Then there's the work of Russell Price who worked at Hawkes Bay and found the remains of cooked, scraped, and broken moa bones (where the meat had been cut from the bones, leaving scratch marks on the surface and the bones broken to suck out the marrow) under known tephra layers (one grouping from beneath a known explosion from 1250 BC or so.

“As Price pointed out at the time to naysayers, the activity was clearly human, unless moa at the time were cooking, breaking up and eating each other.”

Price was discounted and dismissed by archaeologist McFagden for his research showing such an early date for habitation. The treatment of Price’s evidence is instructive. Doutre comments on this:

“…the crumpled and crestfallen man[Price] tried to respond and will, ultimately, be vindicated. Price's career and life's work was ruined by Bruce McFadgen's gloss over of many years of hard, careful analysis. It's a long, sad and sordid tale of woe,…”

As the result of the 1931 Hawkes Bay earthquake the valley floor had been lifted up, the water drained away and the valley began drying out. In 1964, Excavators digging drainage channels discovered many moa remains on Price’s land from the old lake beds. The excavations also exposed two strata of pumice ash separated by a layer of peat, the ash falls being deposited from Taupo eruptions. Excavations uncovered thousands of bones of long extinct birds: the giant swan, notornis, goose, heron and moa; most found beneath the lower ash stratum. At the lowest levels were found wood that had been worked by man, wooden, standstone and greywacke tools, an obsidian cutter, oven stones, soapstone foreign to the area and a pumice disc worked by hand. Bones also showed the marks of tools.

Leading Pedologist Alan Pullar joined the dig on 30 December 1964.

Pullar turned his attention to volcanic ash strata in the ground. The three strata that he singled out for study were the Kaharoa ash-fall of ca 1100 AD, the principle Taupo shower of ca 186 AD and the Waimihia fall of ca 1320 BC. Each showed up in the ground with their own distinctive colours and textures, and each had at one time been ejected by a volcano as an ash shower. They were dated by retrieving charcoal or peat samples from immediately above and below each stratum, dating them by the C14 method.

Pullar’s evidence showed that man had been in New Zealand at least 3,300 years, but of course he realised that he had to be careful when writing his report for the NZ Archaeological Association, stating: 'If the lower layer is indeed Waimihia lapilli the discovery by Price of items related to man found below the pumice band raises implications almost too daring to be true'.[15]

Predictably, the findings were challenged on the basis that they could not be right because they did not accord with the prevailing orthodoxy. Listen up Galileo, you just CANNOT be right; now go away and have a long rethink, so that you might avoid some unwise career choices…

It was assumed the pumice strata must have been water-borne centuries after the volcanic eruptions and that Pullar had mis-read them. But Pullar was well aware of the difference between 'water-borne' and 'air-laid'. Under the microscope the air-laid particles were sharp and angular at the base of the band. The water-laid particles above were rounded and worn. The lower band was Waimihia, air-laid 3,300 years ago. This meant that any human cultural material found beneath it had to be at least that age'.[16]

Pullar’s conclusions received independent confirmation by three geologists who visited the site. They had come to determine whether the ash layers as found 'may have been artificially re-deposited centuries after the Taupo and Waimihia eruptions'...Wellman, Kohn and Vucetich independently identified the ash showers and agreed with Pullar that they were air-borne deposits from the Taupo eruptions, and that their original placement was as seen today.

            Orthodoxy replied that material recovered below the Waimihia ash “might have fallen through the ash showers from above”. Price replied that, “The showers of ash have been undisturbed above the earliest artefacts, and in places a concrete-like matrix lies above them, deposited by later inhabitants'...thus making it impossible for objects from an upper layer to seep down and lodge themselves in a lower layer'.

Richard Holdaway mentioned the nature of such ash deposits in 1996 in connection with his rat date findings of the time:

“Most archaeologists have never actually excavated through two feet of ash. It seals everything underneath it. You can see every last wormhole in it and you can see where there is damage to it. So if something is underneath you know it was there before the ash fell...”[17]

 

ORTHODOXY’S DAMAGE CONTROL

In recent years one has come to expect self-defined “sceptics” to come out with supposedly ‘rational’ explanations that sound more bizarre than what they’re trying to debunk. In similar manner, those resistant to the findings of Price et al thought that moa bones showing evidence of human work at the lowest levels of the site “might have been deposited naturally”.. Most of the bones had been broken open to extract marrow, most had been burned in a fire and some had cut marks on them made by a sharp stone implement.

The scientists who had visited the Poukawa site endorsed the conclusions of Price and Pullar. However, they could not jeopardise their careers by challenging orthodoxy, so they put their names to a secret 'Statement of Belief', marked 'RESTRICTED - NOT FOR PUBLICATION'.

“The data Mr Price has slowly accumulated...has demonstrated that the results have to be taken seriously', the Statement began.'

“W A Pullar of Soil Bureau, Whakatane, visited the site earlier this year, examined ash layers contained within peat and collected radiocarbon samples from above and below the ash layers. The dates from these confirm his identification of the Taupo and Wamihia pumice ashes'

“…Occupation of this site has continued over a long period. The older occupation appears to have commenced prior to the commencement of the peat formation and hence also before the water level of ancient Lake Poukawa had reached its highest level. If the rate of peat formation has been substantially uniform peats commenced forming at about 'post'-glacial sea level maximum, say 4,500 years ago. The stratigraphically lowest discoveries lie below this peat and may conceivably pre-date ca 4,500 years ago'. 'The site demonstrates human occupation of this area of much greater antiquity than anything previously anticipated.

“It does not yet, however, demonstrate anything about the ethnological relationships of the earlier inhabitants and the later Maoris. Although the stratigraphically lowest material is all of a flaked nature, artefacts of this type are cosmopolitan and persisted in the Neolithic cultures, so do not necessarily indicate a Paleaeolithic culture...' [Emphasis added].

A ‘secret’ report had affirmed human habitation going back thousands of years, and of no known relationship to the Maoris. Orthodoxy therefore had to make a move.  Dr. Bruce McFadgen and his team from Victoria University Geological Society and the Wellington Archaeological Society, dug in an area already dealt with by Price and in his report McFadgen sought to repudiate all Price's findings.[18]

            Post holes, identified definitively as such in the ‘secret’ ‘statement of belief’ by the onsite scientists were discounted as 'root channels of old trees'. Disking of the area in the past mixed introduced snails and pig bones with extinct heron and notornis remains. Tree roots made the 'file marks' noted on some old bones. After the land was raised by the 1931 earthquake and the peat began to dry out, it cracked, and allowed surface material to fall down to sub-ash levels - in every case. The shrinking ground was also responsible for all broken bird bones.

McFadgen conclude that 'because the peat is cracked, and things have fallen down the cracks, and because the site has been bulldozed and disked, and artefacts have been disturbed, the Poukawa site does not provide evidence for the antiquity of man in New Zealand, and is extremely misleading'. The site 'was probably occupied between 150 and 300 years ago' and 'there is no evidence for human occupation before the Taupo pumice eruption'.

Doutre comments of the dismissive and simplistic conclusions of McFadgen:

“Personally, I wonder how McFadgen can sleep nights in consideration of the gross disservice he's rendered to the New Zealand public and the worldwide research community. History, in the final analysis, isn't going to be kind to McFadgen, but Price will, ultimately, be vindicated and receive his much deserved recognition. There seems to have been a plague of suppression in that era of McFadgen's unfortunate intervention into the Poukawa developments…

The very comprehensive work of another, earlier archaeologist, Leslie Adkin, extended over a period of 50 years. His conclusion, based upon his regional digs, was that New Zealand had been occupied since about 300 BC. Mc Fadgen intervened there also to cast doubt upon such an untenable concept.”

Leslie Adkin had undertaken research into the Waitaha of the Horowhenua region. The Waitaha’s own legends, only related in recent years via Dr Barry Brailsford, confirms a presence in New Zealand going back at least to 300BC, thereby providing a ‘convergence of evidence.’ Moreover, the Waitaha state that they are a pre-Maori ‘Nation’ that included in one of three components a “Urukehu” race, that of the red and blond haired and white skinned people that according to Maori legend were the first inhabitants of New Zealand, and whose descent could still be seen until recent times among Maori families with blond hair and pale skin.

            Finally, Dr Wilmshurst, with her triumphant proclamation that her rat bones ‘prove’ (sic) the Maoris really are the ‘tangata whenua’, that there can be no other, states that it fits in with a  convergence of evidence. Yet that is only so when archaeological anomalies are discounted, when the “Kaimanawa wall” is turned into a ‘natural rock formation’ (shades of McFadgen’s retort that post-holes were really ‘root channels of old trees’), when all cultural anomalies are relegated to being ‘within the Maori range’, when divergences in the morphology of skulls are number crunched to ‘fit within the Maori range’, when astronomically aligned standing stones of Old World type are said to be coincidental, when genetic research proves the orthodox view of Maori settlement because the anomalies are dismissed as being from European colonial times. Dr Wilmshurst, Rangi Walker et al are so pleased with the result, but we smell a rat. (For a fuller version of this article see One NZ Foundation, article: “Smelling like a rat”, http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/).

 

 

Australia’s Rudd Adopts 

Trilateralist Agenda
Newly elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been quick to advocate the globalist agenda for this region. According to Australian news reports, Rudd has declared his intention of pressing for the creation of a Pacific Asia union as far reaching and threatening to national sovereignty as the European Union.

            It is notable that Rudd states this should be a regional grouping beyond that hitherto usually envisaged by Asian and South Pacific business and political leaders. In Rudd’s plan the regional bloc would include the USA. Hence, there is no pretence that this Pacific bloc would exist as an alternative to US globalist influence; but rather as an appendage of it.

            This is in fact the agenda of the Trilateral Commission, which was crated in 1973 at the behest of David Rockefeller, the omnipresent globalist head of the famous banking and oil dynasty. David Rockefeller is listed on the Commission’s website as the “Founder and Honorary North American Chairman (1977-1991).

The Trilateral Commission was established as a think tank of globalist political and business leaders incorporating the USA, Europe and Japan. It first director was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who became National Security adviser in the Carter Administration, which was in fact a Trilateralist Administration, including Carter himself in the membership. It was under the impress of the Trilateralists and the Rockefellers that trade was opened up between the USA and China.

It is probably significant that Brzezinski is a key adviser to the likely next US President, Obama who, as documented in Restoration #3, is the recipient of largesse from a particularly large number of globalist plutocrats such as George Soros. Brzezinski is still listed as an Executive Committee member of the Trilateralists. It could be that Obama is to the Trilateralists what Carter was to them. Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, a major donor to the Obama campaign, is the North American Chairman of the Trilateral Commission. Vernon Jordan, an executive of numerous international banks and corporations and another Obama donor, is involved not only with the Trilateralists but also with the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations. [19]

            The agenda of the Trilateral Commission has been widened in recent years to further the ‘new world order’ that is also being sought by similar think tanks, again with Rockefeller influence, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller is CFR emeritus chairman), and the Bilderberg Group. Hence, the Trilateral Commission states that the regional groupings being incorporated into the Trilateralist scheme now include Mexico (reflecting the push for the NAFTA American Free Trade Agreement that includes Mexico), and most significantly to our thesis here, the “Japan Group” has now become the “Pacific Asian Group” reflecting the push for a Pacific-wide union. The Commission states of this:

“Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfil their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU. …”[20]

           

Of the new Pacific Asian Group, members are now drawn from the following countries to reflect this aim of a Pacific-wide union. (Note the inclusion of China):

“…In 2000, the Japanese group of 85 members expanded to become a Pacific Asian group of 96 members, and includes 57 members from Japan, 15 members from Korea, 8 from Australia and New Zealand, 16 from the original five ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). The new Pacific Asian group also includes participants from the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.”

           

The Commission also implies that these regional groupings are the prelude to a ‘new world order’:

“The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s is deepening into “globalization.” The need for shared thinking and leadership by the Trilateral countries, who (along with the principal international organizations) remain the primary anchors of the wider international system, has not diminished but, if anything, intensified. At the same time, their leadership must change to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system. As relations with other countries become more mature—and power more diffuse—the leadership tasks of the original Trilateral countries need to be carried out with others to an increasing extent.” [Emphasis added].

           

What should be added is that this process of “interdependence” growing into “globalisation” and a “dramatic transformation of the international system” has been deliberately pushed by the Trilateral Commission, and similar bodies such as the aforementioned Bilderbergers and CFR. Note also again the Trilateralist statement above alludes to the broadening of the Trilateralist countries to “others”; again in this instance not just Japan, but the entirety of Asia and the Pacific. This “increasing extent” was necessitated because at the time the Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 it was Japan, which was the pre-eminent Asian economy, and as with the Carter Administration, Trilateralists have dominated the Japanese business and politic Establishments. Now Japan is not the sole Asian economic giant. There are of course China, India and others that are now being incorporated into the Trilateralist scheme. This is the meaning of Rudd’s recent declaration.

            The extent of Trilateralist influence is also alluded to in the same Commission description:

“The members of the Trilateral Commission are about 350 distinguished leaders in business, media, academia, public service (excluding current national Cabinet Ministers), labor unions, and other non-governmental organizations from the three regions. …”

 

RUDD’S STATEMENT

            This then is what Rudd is reported to have stated, reflecting the Trilateralist- -globalist agenda of a Pacific-wide union that will subvert our sovereignty and identity in the name of increased profit margins:

           Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called on Asian and Pacific nations to form a regional alliance similar to the European Union.

          Mr Rudd says a strong multilateral body is needed to help the region maintain security, foster trade and respond to natural disasters and terrorism.

He said Asia needs to react quickly to cope with changes brought about by rapid economic growth in the region.
          ”The European Union does not represent an identikit model of what we would seek to develop in the Asia-Pacific, but what we can learn from Europe is this - it is necessary to take the first step,” he said.
          But he concedes getting Asian nations together will be much tougher than the task faced by the architects of the European Union last century.
          ”Our special challenge is that we face a region with a greater diversity in political systems and economic structures, levels of development religious beliefs, languages and cultures than our counterparts in Europe,” he said.
          ”But that should not stop us from thinking big.”
          The Government will appoint experienced diplomat Richard Woolcott as an envoy to discuss Mr Rudd’s idea with other countries.
          Mr Rudd says the institution should span the entire Asian-Pacific region including the United States, Japan, China, India and Indonesia.
          ”The danger in not acting is that we run the risk of succumbing to the perception that future conflict in our region may somehow be inevitable,” he said.
          Mr Rudd will use his visit to Japan and Indonesia next week to lobby Asian nations on the proposal. [21]

ASIA SOCIETY- ANOTHER ROCKEFELLER LINK

            Rudd’s speech was delivered to the Asia Society Austral Asia Center in Melbourne. This is another globalist think tank headquartered in New York. Note that Australia is referred to as “Austral Asia” by the Society.. This obviously reflects how the global plutocrats see the European founded nations of Australia and New Zealand, reflected in New Zealand’s pursuance of free trade agreements throughout Asia, especially the recently signed China Free Trade Agreement, pushed by our home-grown plutocrats. The “Austral Asian” branch was founded by veteran diplomat Richard Woolcott who has been commissioned by Rudd to initiate the “Asia Pacific community” by high level meetings throughout Asia, as noted in the news media reports.

            The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.”

            The Asia Center New York office states that the Society was founded in 1956 by – John D. Rockefeller 3^rd,[22].. Trustees currently include: Charles P. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller IV. The latter Rockefeller, Senator John. D. IV is a Trilateralist who presented a paper to the Commission’s 1988 Tokyo conference, and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a participant in the Bilderbergers. He is one of Obama’s influential backers.[23]

            The chairman of the Asia Society’s Executive Committee is Richard C Holbrooke[24], A Trilateralist. Holbrooke was co-author of a 1988 Trilateral Commission Report, East Asia in Transition : Challenges for the Trilateral Countries: A Task Force Report to the Trilateral Commission.

            The 50^th anniversary of the Asia Society in 2006 was a tribute to the ‘whole Rockefeller family’ and its vision for Asia. The “keynote addresses” were given by : Henry Kissinger[25] (CFR, Bilderberger, Trilateralist), the omnipotent and perennial government adviser; David Rockefeller[26], head of the globalist dynasty; John D Rockefeller IV, Charles Percy Rockefeller; and Arthur Ross (CFR), a scholar and diplomat of varied experience, who sat on the Rockefeller University Council.             Thus once again, we come across a vast interlocking globalist network reaching tentacle-like across the world in all directions.

 

“THE BEST LAID SCHEMES…”

            Rudd is keenly aware that the region really does not have much in common; far less so than Europe which at least shares a common heritage and closer genetic affinities than the myriad of nations, peoples, cultures languages and races that compose the vast region that the globalists seek to mould into an Asia-Pacific union.

            Rudd is keenly aware, as are his globalist superiors, that the whole of Asia is wracked by crises in the making that will one day erupt into war.

            There is nothing of the organic and historical about what these globalists are proposing; the schemes are antithetical to historical processes, as far from realisation as the utopian scheme of Alexander to establish a World Empire. As capable and intelligent as the globalists are, they seem to have certain symptoms of the sociopath whose egocentric course is ultimately self-destructive.

            Although there will never be such an Asian-Pacific axis revolving around Mammon, any more there will ever be the ultimate goal of a ‘new world order’, that does not mean there’s not going to be one hell of a lot of chaos and destruction involved in the process of trying to IMPOSE such schemes. That is why Australian and New Zealand Nationalists have proposed an alternative ANZAC BLOC that is based on the historical, organic and geo-political realities of our region, to create an alternative to super-power incursions and Asian crises, around which the small nations of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia can also gravitate should they wish to secure their destinies in neutrality, peace and security.[27]

 

ADDENDUM

The Asia Society Williamsburg annual conference, founded by J D Rockefeller III in 1971, this year held in Bali, posed the question to Asian leaders as to whom they preferred as the next US President. “A large number of respondents said Obama was the most popular”. This coincides with the Restoration #3 feature backgrounding the support given Obama by the US globalist elite (referred to above).

 

 

 

[1] 60 minutes, TV3, June 9, 08.

[2] Wilson, Allan C. and Rebecca L. Cann. 1992. The Recent African Genesis of Humans. Scientific American 266:68-73.

[3] Wolpoff is Professor of Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Research Scientist, Museum of Anthropology at the University of Michigan.

[4] Thorne, Alan G. and Milford H. Wolpoff. 1992. The Multiregional Evolution of Humans. Scientific American 266:76-83.

[5] Shipman, P., New Scientist, Jan. 16, 1993.

[6] This assertion as to the primacy of cultural or learned traits over genetics is incorrect, and does not represent the findings of geneticists either in prior periods or in our own time. That “cultural anthropology” has hogged the limelight of media publicity, and the funding from vested interests, and was imposed by a well-organised cadre of Leftists,  is not a matter of science but of politics. Scientists such as Hans Esenyck, Richard Herrnstein, William Shockley, et al have even had to run the gamut of physical violence from the Left in the hallowed halls of academe; while other academics such as Andrew Fraser in Australia recently, have their university employment terminated for expressing heretical views.

[7] Coon, Carlton S. The Races of Man, Knopf, 2^nd ed. 1962, ix.

[8] Gates, R.R., Heredity in Man, Constable , London, 1929, p. 295. Gates was the founder of chromosome genetics.

[9] Pickrell,  J., Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says, National Geographic News, May 20, 2003

[10] More specifically Caucasians form S. America and Indians form the NW Coast of America. Orthodox scientists such as Howe notwithstanding, genetic research has shown that genetic markers from these two regions are present in Polynesia.

[11] For a refutation of Howe’s major contentions see this writer’s Caucasian bloodlines in Old Polynesian, Renaissance Press, NZ, 2008; P.O. Box 1627 Paraparaumu Beach, Kapiti 5252.  See Doutre’s Ancient Celtic New Zealand, and Barry Fell’s Bronze Age America, America BC and publications of the Epigraphic Society. Fell was a NZ born Harvard biologist who became an expert in the deciphering of ancient inscriptions, and identified many Libyan scripts from ancient Polynesian, including NZ.

[12] Humans in NZ by late 13^th century, Dominion Post, June 4, 08. (The dating of the rat bones was consistent with the date of the geoplogical strata in which they were found. See Journal of the Royal Socty. Of NZ Abstracts, http://www.rsnz.org/publish/jrsnz/2002/024.php).

[13] Holdaway e-mail, June 5.

[14] NZ Journal of Archaeology (Vol. 10, 1988).

[15] NZAA, Vol 8, No1.

[16] NZAA, Vol. 4, NO 2.

[17] Holdaway, NZ Listener, Rat Revisionists', Dec. 7, 96.

[18] McFadgen, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand', Vol. 9, No. 3, 1979, pp 375- 382.

[19] Bolton K R, Obama: No. 1 houseboy of international finance, Restoration #3, June 08, Box 1627 Kapiti 5252, New Zealand.

[20] The Trilateral Commission: About the Organization: http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm

[21] Rudd speaking to the Asia Society Australasia Centre, June 6, 08; reported in The Australian, June 7, 08, et al. See the report on Rudd at the Asia Society Australasia Centre’s website: http://www.asiasociety.org.au/speeches/speeches_current/r155_PM_Rudd_AD2008.html

[22] http://www.asiasociety.org/about/mission.html

[23] Bolton K R., Obama, op.cit.

[24] Former US ambassador to the U.N.O., member of the Council on Foreign Relations globalist think tank, Holbrooke has had numerous ambassadorial positions, and has served as director of Lehman Bros. International bank,

[25] Described by Holbrooke in his address as : “he main architect of the historic opening to China…”

[26] In the course of his address David Rockefeller referred to Kissinger has his “dear friend” and Holbrooke as his “old friend”.

[27] The Anzac Manifesto: Statement of intent between the Australia First Party and NZ Nationalist Alliance, www.nationalistalliance.org.nz