New Zealand has for a long time been referred to as a ‘social laboratory’.832 Among the first to institute social welfare reforms, labour arbitration, pensions, women’s franchise, and much else, many of those reforms, introduced during the late 19th century and into the 1930s by social reformers relatively devoid of dogma, have been of fundamental benefit. However, the takeover and redirection of social reform by the oligarchy, which we have been considering, has taken the necessity for social reform into vastly different directions than the intent of those who had no notion of destroying, but rather restoring, the organic character of social bonds.
Despite present assumptions, fundamental social reform is a necessary element of genuine conservatism,833 for in order to replenish and invigorate an organism to health, one must be able to weed and prune, and even drastically cut out the dead and the rotting, as Thomas Carlyle pointed out: ‘The bough that is dead shall be cut away for the sake of the tree itself. Old? Yes, it is too old … Let Conservatism that would preserve cut it away’.834
With increasing stridency, backed by the global Establishment and the historic course of modern decay, the present New Zealand Labour Government is empowered to pursue agendas that strike at the roots of what scant remnants there are of traditional organic bonds.
‘Gender fluidity’ is the primary method of reshaping children, and hence the means by which future generations are being reconstructed. While the suggestion of such an agenda caused outrage in Britain among Muslim parents, in New Zealand the Muslim community has been co-opted by the Establishment and shares platforms with the social engineers in government and their counterparts of the Far Left on the streets, including those of ‘gender fluid’ orientation. Cognisant of the problems inherent in multiculturalism, the social engineers have laid down guidelines on how objections from more traditionally inclined migrant communities might be overcome.
The focus is on children because they are still going through stages of socio-psychological development, and are therefore most susceptible to social engineering. In 2020, the Ministry of Education issued to primary schools a document touted as an expert study, Relationships and Sexuality Education: A Guide for Teachers, Leaders and Boards of Trustees — Years 1–8.835
The guide is designed for indoctrinating with a transgender or gender fluid bias 5- to 12-year-olds. As with such ideologically driven agendas, there must be a core reference to the Treaty of Waitangi and the customs of sundry ethnic communities, which makes necessary some type of semantic double-dealing for acceptance by those who might not be as acquiescent as White parents.
United Nations intrusion is acknowledged, albeit when such matters are addressed critically, they are condemned as ‘Far Right conspiracy theories’ and ‘false news’, as in the case of rightist exposure of the UN Compact on Global Migration. In regard to Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE):
These guidelines also acknowledge Aotearoa New Zealand’s international legal commitments to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (2015), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).836
The ‘guide’ is deemed a necessary update to previous ‘guides’ (2002, updated 2015) to keep pace with change: ‘shifting social norms in relation to gender and sexuality’; ‘global shifts, including trends towards earlier puberty and changing family structures’; ‘continued societal concerns about child protection and abuse prevention’; ‘increasing calls for social inclusion’, and so forth.837 ‘Changing social norms’ and ‘global shifts’ are regarded as primary justifications for imposing those changes onto New Zealand children. It is imposed conformity to the globalist ideological agendas we have been considering here, backgrounded by over a century in social experimentation by the likes of Kinsey, Hirschfeld, and the activists that took over the American Psychiatric Association and enforced their ideologies in the name of ‘science’, as examined above.
What is implemented is not ‘sex education’, but ‘relationships and sexuality education’ (RSE). ‘Sex education’ no longer suffices; rather, it must now be eliminated as reactionary and antithetical to the new ‘sexuality’, as the former sex education was still predicated on traditional binary gender.
Throughout the ‘guide’, it is claimed that RSE accords with the insights of new scientific evidence.838 We have seen the character and development of this ‘new evidence’, and ‘science’ in the previous chapter. Rather, the reason why children are targeted so early is because that is when attitudes can be conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs, with rewards and punishments, at an age range that lacks developed critical faculties. Yet the ‘guide’ states that children will be taught to exercise critical judgement. Nonsense. They will be told how to think. Children will not be able to critically judge the supposed ‘new evidence’ that is presented to them by RSE, nor would the Ministry wish them to do so. And how can the ‘evidence’ be weighed up anyway, if contrary studies are not included? Children are led along a course that conforms to liberal-globalist doctrines emanating from the UNO and elsewhere, so that they are moulded into ‘world citizens’ of the type required by globalisation. The process reaches its apex at a tertiary level, where critical thought that challenges left-liberal orthodoxy, whether by students or faculty, is punished as heresy, to the point of censuring and purging miscreants.
The ‘guide’ links RSE with ‘climate change’ and other agendas in what the Left calls intersectionality, but also claims that RSE proceeds from questions posed by children, rather than being imposed from outside bodies such as the UNO, despite having previously stated, as we have seen, that the programmes are designed to accord with various UN requirements:
Families are now more diverse than ever before, and children and young people are questioning gender norms and binaries. Climate change continues to impact how young people view their worlds and their relationship with others and with the environment.839
One such source is identified as the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, where the ‘guide’ states, ‘Children and young people have the right to engage in critical inquiry about relationships, gender, and sexuality as part of meaningful learning’.840 What youngster of the age range being targeted has the ability to ‘engage in critical inquiry’? The youngster is under the thrall of the teacher’s authority as a substitute parent figure. If a child does have the genuine independence and courage to reject what is being imposed, he or she will be regarded as a problem to be corrected. The parents will be called by the school and questioned as to the attitudes they have imparted to their child. There is no room for nonconformity. As we have seen, according to Critical Theory, parents are the first of the primary ties from which the individual must be ‘liberated’, and the traditional family is the germ-cell of Fascism. The large corpus of literature produced by Critical Theorists, Kinseyans, and others is the origin for what our current mind manipulators call the ‘latest research’.
Just how far-ranging RSE is can be gauged from the stated aims:
Quality RSE policies and programmes enable young people to:
• challenge homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and gender-based violence
• interrogate the ongoing effects of colonisation
• study the environmental impacts of changes in population growth and of related issues such as people’s use and disposal of menstrual products
• engage with mātauranga Māori
• gain knowledge about the diversity of cultures in Aotearoa New Zealand — including religious diversity
• gain understandings about the strengths of sexual and gender diversity. This learning is vital for children and young people’s individual development and overall wellbeing, so it contributes to their academic success. It also enables us to develop more inclusive and positive societies’.841
Again the intersectional doctrine of the Far Left is the basis, with key words such as homophobia, transphobia, and sexism conjoined with ‘ongoing colonisation’, demographics, multiculturalism, and religious diversity. Double-think — dialectics — is required. While traditional Christian attitudes of one’s parents can be routinely ridiculed and disposed of, how does one dispose of the traditional attitudes of Muslim parents, without jeopardising the multicultural society? That remains one of the paradoxes of the imposed, rootless System. There is an assurance, however, that RSE accords with Maori and Polynesian customs, and that ‘Maori models of sexuality’ will be a premise:
Sexuality is an element of hauora. Ākonga [students] who are supported in regard to their sexuality are likely to have better overall health, which in turn supports their educational success and strengthens their relationships with whānau and friends.842
Analogous to the hijacking of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 and the redefinition of homosexuality by a militant lobby,843 recently a long forgotten Maori word, Takatāpui, meaning a close bond between males, has been augmented by a few other obscure cultural remnants, and ‘reclaimed by Māori in lesbian, gay and trans communities in the 80s. In recent years its definition has expanded to encompass all tāngata whenua with diverse gender identities, sexualities, and sex characteristics — similar to the way the word “queer” is used now’, according to Maori ‘queer’ lobbyist Ngahuia Awekotuku.844 Hence, the social engineers are able to inculcate their ideology by recourse to indigenous custom redefined with modernist interpretations.
Maori (and other Polynesian) medicine and customs on health are ‘holistic’ and implicitly claimed to be superior to Western medicine, science, concepts of family, and society, which now exist as no more than vestiges within the onslaught of modernism. A sanitised version of Maori and Polynesian precolonial societies is required, which amounts to a return of the 18th century Western liberal doctrine of the ‘noble savage’, who lived idyllically, unburdened by civilisation; as we have seen, a fallacious model revived by leftist social scientists such as Margaret Mead.
One must also wonder why a child’s ‘academic success’ is predicated on conformity to the RSE programme?
To facilitate and encourage ‘gender fluidity’, whether among staff or children, the prescription includes:
• ākonga and staff are known, and addressed at school, by their name of choice.845
[One day Mr Jones might show up to class and declare that ‘they’ is (sic) now Ms Jones. God help the child who is caught sniggering; that might impact on ‘their’ ‘academic success’ unless confession and penance are shown]
• School rolls and records use each person’s name, gender, and pronoun of choice
[Johnny decides he is now a girl and is to be called Joanna]
• all school forms allow for genders in addition to male or female (e.g., gender diverse, nonbinary, takatāpui)
[Given that there are now more than 120 ‘genders’ and counting, this will be an ever-expanding task]
• the school has clear and safe procedures for disclosures and complaints
[Encourage anonymous informants, with all the abuse that entails].
• school uniform policies are reviewed so that all the school’s uniforms are inclusive and don’t reinforce outdated, Eurocentric, and exclusionary notions of gender
[All children, no matter what discomfort this causes, will be obliged to wear a uniform that is so nebulous as to obliterate genuine identities]
• procedures for sports are inclusive so that all ākonga can take part, whatever their sexual or gender identities.
[Striving for excellence is passé and reactionary; inclusion as part of a nebulous blob is the aim]
For all the cant about consulting the diverse communities, the Ministry of Education unequivocally states that the RSE agenda will be imposed from on high; not subject to reform or rejection by any such community:
The school culture is very powerful. Whether or not they plan to do so, all schools give ākonga and their families messages about what is acceptable and what is not, in terms of gender and sexuality. Values are inherent in the practices, policies, and language used by teachers and school leaders.
The New Zealand Curriculum recognises human rights and the values of diversity, equity, and respect. These values ensure the rights of all ākonga to self-expression, self-identification, and support. RSE acknowledges and supports diversity among ākonga. It is crucial that schools establish and maintain cultures of inclusivity. Schools are encouraged to question gender stereotypes and assumptions about sexuality, including:
• gender norms • gender binaries • gender stereotypes • sex norms, for example, the assumption that sex characteristics at birth are always male or female. School cultures should acknowledge the sexual diversity of Aotearoa New Zealand communities.
The culture should recognise and actively support the rights of those who identify as: • takatāpui, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, intersex, transgender • whakawāhine, tāngata ira tāne • māhū (Tahiti and Hawai‘i) • vakasalewalewa (Fiji) • palopa (Papua New Guinea) • fa‘afafine (Sāmoa and American Sāmoa) • ‘akava‘ine (Cook Islands) • fakaleitī or leitī (Tonga) • fakafifine (Niue and Tokelau) • other sexual and gender identities.846
Freedom of opinion is of the type that Marcuse called in double-think ‘repressive tolerance’. Hence: ‘Ākonga should be free to challenge school practices (such as rules about uniforms). School leaders and teachers need to be open and provide spaces for student voices and feedback’.847 If Johnny or Mary signify that they are less than comfortable being forced into participating in these intrusive programmes, they and their parents will be given corrective treatment. There is no room provided for challenging this RSE programme, despite supposed assurances under the Education Act.
Manipulative techniques to alter the psyche include the obliteration of traditional binary gender roles:
During play and discovery times, encourage children to engage with a wide range of equipment, toys, and play materials. These times offer opportunities to discuss and challenge unhelpful stereotypes about girls and boys (for example, if ākonga suggest that only girls play dress-ups or that only boys play with trucks).848
Here again we might discern implicit coercion. Previously we are assured that children must be listened to; now it is that if a child does not conform to gender fluid role-play ‘they’ is (sic) to be corrected for being ‘unhelpful’.
If a child comments or laughs when ‘they’ finds (sic) it funny that Johnny is playing dress-up with dolls, this becomes a major issue for child, parents, and the entire school, if not further:
When specific issues arise in the school (for example, an incident of homophobic bullying), specific discussions or programmes (in classes, assemblies, or parent and whānau meetings) can raise awareness of the school’s related support systems and policies. When the whole school community is aware of the issue, all can work together to address it.849
Making an example of such a child for not conforming is called an opportunity by the social engineers to ‘raise awareness’. Awareness raising is a concept that has long been the basis of Marxism. It is also called consciousness raising. While originally applied to class consciousness among the proletariat, the post-Marxist Critical Theorists extended the concept to what is often called political correctness. Where Marxism was established as a dictatorship, ‘raising awareness’ was maintained by frequent political indoctrination sessions in factory and field. Jim Jones operated a pervasive system to ‘raise awareness’ at Jonestown, where the aim was perfected Communism. The method involves public confession of guilt, renunciation of one’s ‘errors’, and humiliation for lack of conformity. The method was called self-criticism, (USSR = kritika i samokritika; Red China = 自我批评, zìwǒ pīpíng). This is also used in the human relations field, where it is often called team-building.850
One might readily envisage a classroom scenario where a child is embarrassed and uncomfortable, being forced to perform roles which call for the class to ‘consider plays and role plays that critically investigate gender stereotypes’. The term being ‘outside one’s comfort zone’ is employed often enough by liberals. What of the child being pushed outside ‘their’ (sic) ‘comfort zone’ as part of RSE-enforced indoctrination? ‘They’ will be subjected to humiliation during a process of ‘awareness raising’, and possibly permanent psychological damage for the sake of imposing a fallacious ideology that the Ministry of Education ‘experts’ dogmatically insist is proven by the latest science.
It becomes evident that the aim of RSE is to literally remould children into new, but amorphous beings that will conform to a brave new world, behind the façade of pseudo-identity. Modes of thinking will be re-engineered to conform:
Ākonga will make sense of information about growth and development, sexuality, relationships, pubertal change, and societal issues. They will: • reflect critically on that information • examine their own and others’ attitudes, values, beliefs, rights, and responsibilities with regard to development, gender, sexuality, and relationships • consider how to solve problems in social situations.851
The entire curriculum conforms to RSE. For example, when learning about technology: ‘explore symbols linked to the gay and transgender rights movements’.
• challenge gender stereotypes in relation to design and materials • explore symbols linked to the gay and transgender rights movements • identify how gender expectations are embedded in technology, for example, in the design and style of power tools and other tools, the range of colours, textures, and designs available for clothing • explore the way toys, apps, and online games and activities are designed for a gendered audience • engage in a gender-neutral design challenge’.852
Here we get to the actual aim behind the double-think dialectics: ‘engage in a gender-neutral design challenge’, as with ‘gender-neutral’ language; gender-neutral clothing, etc. The aim is not to champion identities, but rather to obliterate genuine, organic identities; to manufacture a nebulous being that can be slotted into any circumstance desired by a global technocracy and its plutocratic masters. Every individual will have the potential to become an interchangeable worker-drone, and it is being done in the name of ‘progress’.
How can an identity be ‘neutral’? How can an identity be ‘fluid’? Identity is premised on duration, passed down through generations; not transience based on whim and fashion as defined by social engineers and corporate planners within globalist think tanks, NGOs, and tax-exempt foundations.
Parents are reassured that according to the Education & Training Act (Section 51) they are able to remove their child from a particular programme, if they present their case in writing, although the school is not required to first seek permission from parents.853 However, RSE is intended to permeate the entirety of the curriculum, and not just ‘health education’. RSE is implemented in technology, mathematics, art, science, English, and sports, that is to say, ‘RSE across the curriculum’, as the guidelines state.854 The reassurances to parents are dishonest. A list of suggestions for teachers to use on parents who express concern is provided, with such examples as, ‘Connect back to The New Zealand Curriculum and the established place of relationships and sexuality in the context of the curriculum key competencies’.855 Hence, if parents object, they are told that RSE is an intrinsic part of the NZ Curriculum, and that their child’s learning will suffer unless there is participation.