Deep History of Waitangi
The Queen Victoria Connection
In this heretical account, a former Māori Television news and current affairs editor proves that the 1840 Waitangi Treaty sheets were red herring literary devices. Steve ‘Snoopman’ Edwards presents a ground-breaking argument that the British takeover of New Zealand in 1839 and 1840 occurred along two parallel tracks — a ‘Treaty Theatre Track’ and a ‘Colonial Law Track’.
The hawking of the Waitangi Treaty around the coastlines of New Zealand was merely a stage production to supply the documentation for the nation’s founding myth: cession by treaty. The ‘Colonial Law Track’ — laid in 1839, 1840, and 1841 — was the ‘main trunk line’ for the roll-out of legal instruments prior, during and after the Treaty signings. It was via this primary route, that the completion of the annexed title claimed by Freemason Bro. Captain James Cook actually occurred.
British Takeover by Two Parallel Tracks
In 1839, by her royal seal, Queen Victoria authorized the perfect power crime to swindle full sovereignty from the entire aboriginal and indigenous peoples of New New Zealand by pen-quill, parchment paper and treaty theater for the expansionist British Masonic Empire.
Moreover, two parallel tracks — a ‘Treaty Theatre Track’ and a ‘Colonial Law Track’ — were laid during the British takeover of N.Z., as this heretical exposé proves. The Treaty would save face for the Monarch, at a time when annexations drew rebuke.
The Treaty Theatre Track began in June 1831 when future British Resident James Busby essentially outlined his dream job description to make treaties with Māori, when he published a pamphlet in England, titled “Brief Memoir Relative to the Islands of New Zealand”.
This move was followed by the ‘Letter to King William IV of October 5 1831’ signed by 13 rangatira asking for the King’s protection. This letter had been triggered amid widespread rumours of a French ship coming to take lands.
This ‘Treaty Theatre Track’ was advanced by the appointment of James Busby as British Resident in 1833. The Treaty Theatre Track took form with the ‘apparent’ joint British Resident-rangatira initiative to reach an ‘agreement’ over a National Flag for Shipping in 1834.
This track to the treaty was further advanced with the 1835 ‘Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand’, creating the edifice of an ‘independent state’. More Treaty track was laid by Captain William Hobson’s Factory System plan of 1837, which proposed a treaty for settlements — although the plan itself was not implemented. All of these moves culminated in the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi, accompanied by its deceptive English language non-identical twin.
In deed and in design, the 1840 Waitangi Treaty parchments spun with unseemly speed on a fulcrum of deceptive language translation differences, poorly recorded oral promises and a simulation of a sacred covenant. In the language of the imperial power, sovereignty was construed to be willingly transferred.
All the while, full sovereignty was retained in the native language version. The stage production of the ‘Waitangi Treaty Theatre Company’ supplied the documentation to create the nation’s founding myth: cession by treaty.
When vital consideration of the re-examined accounts of the circumstances that preceded the 1840 signings, the discussions rangatira had with Lieutenant-Governor Hobson, his agents and the missionaries, and the sly symbolic cession rituals of empire — are all laid bare — it is evident that rangatira thought they were agreeing to the appointment of a governor to rule over unruly Pākehā, not Māori.
Those Māori that signed were convinced by the sales-pitch of Hobson and Associates, that they were signing a treaty with a great power to not only discipline troublesome Pākehā. But, also to address land-swindling and protect Māori from foreign invaders in exchange for trade, limited immigration and positive co-development.
Furthermore, crucial assurances of Royal Navy Captain Hobson, his British Crown agents and the Protestant missionaries were given to rangatira, explicitly stating:
(1) Queen Victoria would not dispossess Māori of lands they did not willingly sell;
(2) Māori would not become enslaved; and,
(3) rangatira would still retain their chiefly authority — as Dame Claudia Orange found in her Goodman Fielder Wattie prize-winning, imaginatively titled 1987 book, The Treaty of Waitangi.
This epic swindle of bi-lingual innovation was necessitated by the fact that the aboriginal and indigenous people of New Zealand would never consent for their chiefs and chieftainesses to give away their sovereign authority. The Treaty Cliqué later construed that the Treaty Chiefs had consciously and freely signed away sovereignty, without mentioning Māori relied heavily on lying, unprincipled missionaries for advice, since the tribes lacked knowledge of English Law.
Whereas, the Colonial Law Track was the primary route through which the completion of the annexed title claimed by Freemason Bro. Captain James Cook actually occurred. Indeed, the ‘Endeavour Voyage’ in 1769-1770 was New Zealand’s first travelling theatrical production, while the Waitangi Treaty Theatre was the second big budget show staged on a ‘side-track’ to distract, divide and defeat.
The main trunk line of the new ‘Colonial Law Track’ was laid in 1839, 1840, and 1841, with the roll-out of legal instruments prior, during and after the hasty hawking of the nine Treaty parchments around New Zealand coast-lines; a feat that swindled signatures and marks from 527 Māori rangatira (or chiefs) and 13 wahine (women).
The legal instruments included proclamations, new commissions, swearing-in of officials, letters patent, legislation, gazetted notices and a royal charter that solidified the establishment of New Zealand as a separate colony of the British Masonic Empire.
This parallel track was detected by Norman Arthur Foden, whose 1938 work — The Constitutional Development of New Zealand in the First Decade (1839-1849) — proved that New Zealand was acquired by the British Empire on the basis of occupation on June 15th 1839, when the South Pacific archipelago became a dependent colony of New South Wales.
Foden also found at the time of the British takeover of New Zealand, there were three classes of colonies designated according to their mode of origin: by settlement (or occupation), by conquest and by cession.
Crucially, when Queen Victoria’s Royal Prerogative Powers were used on three instrumental occasions prior to and after the Waitangi Treaty signings, none of the three legal devices made under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, mentioned the mode of sovereignty acquisition.
The three legal devices were: Letters Patent of Boundary Extension to expand the jurisdiction of New South Wales to envelop the islands of New Zealand on June 15th 1839; Letters Patent of Amended Commission, which appointed New South Wales Governor George Gipps as the first Governor of New Zealand, and appointed Captain William Hobson as Lieutenant Governor over the new dependent colony of New South Wales by Her Majesty’s Command on July 30th 1839; and a Royal Charter for Severance (or Charter of 1840), which was signed by Queen Victoria to establish New Zealand as a separate colony on 16th November 1840.
Thus, the Treaty was omitted from these legal devices.
By means of a Letter Patent device to erect a dependent colony, the British Crown adopted the unauthorized British settlements, and therefore sovereignty was wrested by usurpation through the Colonial Law Track legal moves.
Therefore, this exposé “Deep History of Waitangi: The Queen Victoria Connection”, looks at the 1840 Waitangi Treaty clustered events as part of a broader innovation of trickery — treaties with aboriginal and indigenous peoples.
This “Deep History of Waitangi” also reveals the novel twist of swindling full paper sovereignty from an entire people, with the brazen expectation that a chiefly majority would not be gained by peddling the parchment copies around the coastline of the South Pacific Archipelago.
Meanwhile, the final stage of crucial chess moves along the Colonial Law Track were started and finished by the hand of Queen Victoria, of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Her Majesty’s seal of approval to circumvent the British Parliament meant that under English Law, her claim of title to the newly erected colony was unchallengeable, despite the inherent fraud.
Discovery Doctrine and Treaty Cliqué’s Clanker Moments
Four ‘Clanker Moments’ at Waitangi demonstrate that a Treaty Cliqué consciously avoided fully disclosing to Māori there was trickery afoot, while the ‘theatre production’ proceeded with unseemly haste. The contextual facts of these clanker moments remained unspoken at Waitangi and, therefore, they remained ‘at-large’ for historians to piece together later.
On February 5th, the first ‘clanker moment’ came when Chief Te Kemara of Ngāti Rāhiri hapū complained that the Anglican missionary Williams family had swindled him out of his land, and as well as Busby for swindling him of the land at Waitangi. Ngāti Rāhiri were, in effect, hosting the hui since the meeting was technically and ironically on their land, but exclusively claimed by Busby.
Chief Te Kemara’s rebuke was part of an opening volley that included Rewa and Moka, whom focussed their anger on land loss, as part of a broader ill-conceived political strategy to bind Captain Hobson as governor to the Bay of Islands. This opening volley touched upon the matter of land loss.
The same day, the second clanker moment came when Chief Te Ruki Kawiti of Ngati Hine, who told Hobson to leave as he expressed his apprehension that Māori would be cast as an oppressed people through slavery, jail or warfare. In this way, Kawiti’s clanker touched upon the matter of sovereignty.
A clanker moment of a third kind happened on February 6th when French Catholic Mission, Bishop Jean Baptiste Pompallier, interjected to ask Royal Navy Captain William Hobson — who was appointed British Consul to gain paper sovereignty — if there would be tolerance for diverse religious teachings under the treaty.
The fourth clanker occurred as Chief Hōne Heke Pōkai got up to sign on February 6th at Waitangi. Church Missionary Society (CMS) printer William Colenso interrupted to ask Captain Hobson if the “Native chiefs” understood the treaty.
Each of these clankers could have derailed what was, in effect, a track-laying vehicle for the British Masonic Empire to forge a colony out of what had been construed in 1835 as an independent Māori state comprised of numerous hapū and iwi.
Until now, however, the four clanker moments have not been identified as such and their deep significance reveals the rivalry between four empires that intersected at Waitangi: the British, French, American and also the Vatican Empire.
Moreover, Māori at Waitangi were unaware that a secret piece of international law, known today as the Doctrine of Discovery, was applied during the 1840 Waitangi Treaty Theatre. This Discovery Doctrine was ‘transported’ on both tracks, and intersected briefly at Waitangi, where time had been weaponized to gain control over a new territorial-jurisdictional space for the British Masonic Empire.
This study of this epic heist is located in empire literature, the revolutionary dynamic model and power crime theory. Central to the ruse was establishing a colonial apparatus to represent the British Crown in matters such as land purchases on the cheap. Substantive development finance in New Zealand would be withheld until it was clear that the British had been victorious in the inevitable conquest stage, in accordance with the Discovery Doctrine.
Thus, the machinations of 1839-40 would inevitably lead to war. The gambit envisaged British Masonic Imperialism would win substantive sovereignty over the soil by swindle, struggle and stealth, since the leading immigrants would be a more loyal breed to the British Monarch than those that rebelled against King George III.
The eventual New Zealand Masonic Revolutionary War of 1860-1872 was the consolidation stage of the revolution set in motion on June 15 1839 with the Letters Patent of Boundary Extension, which established New Zealand as a dependent colony by acquisition mode of occupation.
As Ranginui Walker correctly observed in Struggle Without End, Freemason Governor Bro. George Grey was recalled for a second governorship to consolidate the colony at a time when the First Taranaki War of 1860-1861 had faltered for the colonists. Walker, however, was unaware of the hidden Masonic layer that underpinned what was, in fact, New Zealand Masonic Revolutionary War of 1860-72.
Ever since Freemason Captain Bro. James Cook had expressed the view that Nieuw Zeeland would make an ideal resource-rich base for the British Masonic Empire in the South Pacific Ocean, the New Zealand Masonic Revolution had been incubating.
The ‘Colonial Law Track’ – From Captain Cook to Captain Hobson
The key finding of the “Deep History of Waitangi: The Queen Victoria Connection”, is that the British takeover of Aotearoa occurred by the two parallel tracks — a ‘Treaty Theatre Track’ and a ‘Colonial Law Track’ — and were innovative cunning tricks in statecraft to gain full paper sovereignty over the entire aboriginal and indigenous peoples that could never be repeated, lest the perfect crime became obvious. The decision to opt for a Treaty was pursued to save face for the British Monarch, by achieving the appearance of sovereignty cession to Queen Victoria.
Getting legislation passed in the British Parliament would have attracted the attention of the French, American and Vatican Governments, thereby risking the enterprise to gain a far-flung colony on the cheap, without firing a shot. Amid the complications of running the British Masonic Empire, the imperial ‘need’ to acquire sovereignty over New Zealand occurred at a time when the high priest of British Freemasonry, Lord Palmerston, was planning the first of two wars with the civilization that invented the very medium of paper upon which the fraudulent bi-lingual Treaty copies were written: China.
The significance of the Waitangi Treaty as a theatrical production, or théâtre usurp d’état is the object itself, as a literary device, was designed to distract from the Colonial Law Track. This finding means the 1840 compact or ‘agreement’ was, in fact, a red herring mechanism to sponsor logically fallacious arguments to divide and defeat. The intention was to lead its audience to a false conclusion.
The Waitangi Treaty Theater was, in effect, a simulation produced to create a copy of reality to eventually forge subject race pacification.
In his seminal 1979 book, Orientalism, Edward Said, observed that events in the Orient of the Near, Middle and Far East, North Africa and the ‘New World’ were repeatedly turned into theatre by ‘Orientalists’, or Europeans, who aided the categorizing, Christianizing and colonizing projects to save the events from oblivion. The modus operandi of the Orientalist was to consult ‘the natives’ for a text whose usefulness was not to aboriginal and indigenous peoples; a practice that stretched back to at least the second century B.C.
Therefore, the practice of consulting at Waitangi and around the coastlines of New Zealand in early-to mid-1840, was performed to lead the chiefs to think one thing while setting in motion chess moves to outplay the indigenous tribes. This performative fraud is perhaps best illustrated by conjuring the famous ‘shadow of the land’ phrase, spoken by Chief Nōpera Pana-kareao of Te Rarawa iwi at Kaitāia on 28 April 1840.
When Chief Nōpera signed the Waitangi sheet, with his wife, Ereōnora, he said:
“The shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria, but the substance remains to us; we have now a helmsman; before everyone wished to take the helm. One said, ‘Let me steer.’, another, ‘Let me steer’, and we never went straight.”
— Chief Nōpera Pana-kareao of Te Rarawa iwi at Kaitāia on 28 April 1840
By ‘shadow’, Chief Nōpera meant the British Monarch was extending a protective blanket, while the capacity to control sovereignty over the soil was held by rangatira at the hapū level. Chief Nōpera questioned Wesleyan missionary, William Gilbert Puckey, the night before he signed, in particular about the meaning of the word kawanatanga in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Puckey translated Nōpera speech, which missionary Richard Taylor transcribed.
Norman Arthur Foden noted the unease felt by the British Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr R. Vernon Smith, upon reading Chief Nōpera’s now famous line regarding ‘the shadow of the land’.
In London, Vernon Smith had read the dispatch from James Stephen in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies reported Nōpera’s words. Adding in a minute to Vernon Smith, Secretary of State James Stephen wrote:
“This is merely a continuation of the reports relating to the cession of Sovereignty. I commend the accompanying speech for your perusal. There is, I think, great merit in the New Zealand style of public speaking.”
— Secretary of State for the Colonies, James Stephen
In a dispatch to Lord John Russell, Vernon Smith, replied:
“Yes, but I fear they will discover that the subjects of Queen Victoria have something more than the shadow”.
— Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Vernon Smith
The final stage of the ‘Colonial Law Track’ was started with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom and completed by the inky, feathery quill of Queen Victoria, whom perfected the incomplete title stealthily gained by Freemason Captain Bro. James Cook — as the Snoopman showed in his heretical investigation, “Royal Landlord Possession Rituals”.
To that devious end, on June 15th 1839, the British state exercised the Queen’s Royal Prerogative Powers to sign a decree known as the Letters Patent of Boundary Extension that enlarged the boundary of New South Wales, which had the effect of enveloping all of the islands of New Zealand within the jurisdiction overseen by Governor George Gipps.
This parallel Colonial Law Track to the Treaty Theatre Track was essentially completed on 16th November 1840, when Queen Victoria signed the Royal Charter for Severance (or Charter of 1840), establishing New Zealand as a separate colony.
The key pieces of parallel Colonial Law Track laid to the Treaty Theatre Track to gain British paper sovereignty were:
(1) a Letters Patent of Boundary Extensions activated by Royal Prerogative Powers, dated June 15th 1839, which expanded the jurisdictional boundary of New South Wales to include all of New Zealand;
(2) a Letters Patent of Amended Commission to Governor George Gipps making him Governor of New Zealand, a new dependent colony of New South Wales, signed by Her Majesty’s Command bearing Lord Normanby’s name on July 30th 1839;
(3) Governor George Gipp’s Proclamation of January 5th 1840 establishing N.Z. Customs;
(4) Gipp’s three Proclamations of January 14th 1840 notifying the extension of the boundaries of New South Wales to include New Zealand, Captain Hobson’s Commission as Lieutenant-Governor and a notice that land Sales after January 5 1840 would not be valid and land sales before that date would be subject to official scrutiny;
(5) Captain Hobson’s Proclamation of January 30th 1840 declaring himself as Lieutenant-Governor in an Anglican chapel, Christ Church, in Kororāreka before 300 settlers and 100 Māori;
(6) Lieutenant-Governor Hobson’s Proclamation of May 21 1840 claiming sovereignty over the North Island on the basis of cession by Treaty and over the South Island on the grounds of Cook’s Discovery;
(7) the New South Wales Continuance Act (or the “New Zealand Act of 1840”) with a separation empowering clause to sever New Zealand from its status as a dependency of New South Wales without expressly naming New Zealand, was passed in the NSW Legislature on 16 June 1840 as 3 Vic No 28;
(8) in Westminster, London, the New South Wales Continuance Act was passed on 7 August 1840, with a severance empowering clause to erect a separate Colony of out of those islands considered as Dependencies of New South Wales;
(9) Ratification of Hobson’s sovereignty Proclamation of May 21st 1840 in the London Gazette on October 2 1840, after they were received in London on September 28 1840;
(10) the Royal Charter for Severance (or Charter of 1840), signed by Queen Victoria and dated 16th November 1840 establishing New Zealand as a separate colony upon receipt of the Long Roll of Parchment on November 10;
(11) the Governor’s Commission of 24 November 1840;
(12) the Royal Instructions of December 5th 1840; and
(13) Hobson’s oath as Governor and Commander-in-Chief on May 3rd 1841, which was notification that New Zealand was no longer a dependency of New South Wales.
These moves to gain sovereignty over New Zealand made prior to, during and after the signings of the 1840 Waitangi Treaty were the real means by which the British Crown laid claim to paper sovereignty, and perfected the incomplete ‘First Discovery’ title claimed by Freemason Captain Bro. Cook for the British Masonic Empire.
The fact of Queen Victoria’s Letters Patent of Severance and the Royal Charter of New Zealand of November 16th 1840 is the key vulnerability in the narrative of New Zealand’s ‘birth certificates’.
Behind the Imperial Curtain, we get a glimpse of the home state of the British Masonic Empire wittingly performing screening actions to preserve Queen Victoria’s own apparent ‘oblivion’ as the principle actor, while the agent is her royal later self at the time of the unwitting misdeed, who effectively ratifies the earlier self’s choice to compartmentalize, or screen off, potential knowledge of wrongdoing.
Thus, her state officials could instigate Colonial Law Track moves by exercising the Royal Prerogative Powers on her behalf, and by that route circumvent the British Parliament and thereby de-risk foreign powers getting wind of the plan, and after the fact, gain her ascent to the shrewd imperial chess moves.
In other words, Kawiti’s fears of Māori becoming an oppressed people came to pass, since the matter he touched upon was about paper sovereignty becoming substantive sovereignty as more chess pieces were placed on the far-flung colony’s chessboard.
The supposition proven here is that while the Treaty Cliqué raced toward the endgame to capture new political space via a sovereignty payload, they acted like a travelling theater company to weaponize the one physical dimension they could control though emotional hijacking, Orientalist swagger and novelty: time.
The Treaty Cliqué responsible for the British takeover via paper sovereignty in the period leading up to, during, and in the immediate aftermath of ‘The Great British Waitangi Treaty Swindle’ are identified as they appear in the full narrative.
The full illustrated research essay, on Snoopman News, refers to numerous books, articles, reports, documentaries, primary documents and museum exhibits:
Deep History of Waitangi: The Queen Victoria Connection
Steve ‘Snoopman’ Edwards is a dissident journalist, who worked at indigenous broadcaster, Māori Television, for 14 years as an editor of news, current affairs and general programmes. He forged his ‘Thunk Evil Without Being Evil’ super-power while writing his ground-breaking thesis on the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), titled — “It’s the financial oligarchy, stupid”— to figure out the means, modus operandi and motives of the Anglo-American Oligarchy.
Editor’s Note: This essay is written with an awareness that there are whānau, hapū and iwi accounts, traditions and customs that may shed further light on the events re-examined here. Nevertheless, the author believes he has taken the subject of the British takeover of New Zealand in 1839-40 to the ‘next level’, from where deeper comprehension can be furnished. If we have made any errors, please contact Steve Edwards, with your counter-evidence. e: steveedwards108[at]protonmail.com
Thank you very interesting no thanks, ill stay with our version as trust has been measured exposed and weighted and I can read and write. I was told by an old kuia don't believe everything you read as lies strated a long time ago nga mihi