Their Target: Your Children

Social Engineering and the Ministry of Education

By K R Bolton

Queerest Parliament in the World

New Zealand’s Parliament is being lauded by those whom one would expect to be celebrating, as the queerest in the world. The term used in ‘rainbow’. We are a ‘rainbow nation,’ sharing that term with the chaotic mess still known as South Africa. ‘Rainbow’ apparently can be applied to any foul-up that accords with a Liberal-globalist agenda. The Auckland Herald states:

‘The overall rainbow representation will be at 10 per cent – providing the Green Party is successful holding on to its preliminary 11 seats – bypassing the UK which holds the current title of the most rainbow Parliament with a 7 per cent representation.

‘Meanwhile the openly rainbow MPs in New Zealand’s recently elected Parliament include Labour’s incumbents Grant Robertson, Louisa Wall, Meka Whaitiri, Tamati Coffey and Kiri Allan and newcomers Ayesha Verrall, Shanan Halbert and Glen Bennett.

‘They will be joined by openly LGBTQIA+ Green Party member and spokeswoman for Rainbow issues Jan Logie, Chloe Swarbrick, Elizabeth Kerekere and Ricardo Menendez. About 40 per cent of the Green Party MPs are also from the rainbow community’. [1]

Inside Out managing director Tabby Besley stated that with the Green Party’s Elizabeth Kerekere having campaigned on ‘rainbow issues’, being an MP along with the rest,

‘I think for our communities a lot of us know she will be waving the flag as one of her main priorities whereas I guess many MPs might have other portfolios or some people may not want their rainbow identity to be the main thing they talk about because they are just doing their job like other people. At least with her position we know she’s not going to be shy around raising these issues so that is quite exciting’. [2]

What Besley is referring to is a state-within-a-state, with allusions to the way the so-called ‘community’ sees ‘queer issues’ as of paramount importance. Raising the ‘rainbow flag’ is both literally and figuratively a declaration of separate identity while exclaiming that ‘inclusion’ is the aim. ‘Inclusion’ and ‘diversity’ are two words that are used in conjunction as a type of double-think.

The campaign for transgender identity-confusion is part of an ideological agenda, where, as is more often than not the case, the Left and oligarchy converge. Prior to the general election Ardern alluded to the need to criminalise criticism and opposition to such agendas as part of the proposed ‘hate speech law’. Besley also mentioned ‘their’ (sic) hope that the ‘rainbow’ parliament would result in ‘a swift ban of conversion therapy’; a term used to discredit several therapies used by medical specialists for those who have become confused as to their gender identity; perhaps not such a surprising quandary in the epoch of decay. A private members Bill has already been drafted which states:

‘Conversion therapy is a flawed and abhorrent practice that continues to happen in New Zealand. This practice tells people that, due to their sexuality or gender, there is something fundamentally wrong with who they are and they should be changed. It has no basis in modern science or psychology, goes against every ethical requirement for practitioners, is demonstrably harmful, and has no place in New Zealand’.

…It is opposed by numerous organisations, including the United Nations Committee against Torture, the Royal College of Psychiatrists London, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the Australian Medical Association.

…This Bill creates an offence for any person who advertises, offers, or performs conversion therapy on another person. Under this Bill, any person is guilty of an offence if they remove another person from New Zealand for the purposes of conversion therapy. No one should, or even can, have their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression changed through the pseudo-psychology of conversion therapy. [3]

Clauses include a $10,000 fine or one year jail for professionals (doctors, social workers, and teachers) who assist in the process. Parents would be liable to prosecution because, ‘Every person is a party to and commits an offence who aids, abets, counsels, procures, or incites’… under the definitions of the Bill. [4] Therefore, professional advice would only be available if intended to reinforce gender identity confusion, while contrary advice and alternatives would be illegal. The Bill was submitted for draw by Labour List MP Marja Lubeck, who was rejected by the electorate by more than 4,400 votes in the 2020 elections, but returned on the Labour List.

Indoctrination in the Schools

As one would expect, in order to push the queer agenda it is most important to target children, because they are still going through stages of socio-psychological development, and are therefore most susceptible to social engineering. More significant than parliamentary electoral shadow-boxing are the entrenched bureaucrats and advisers who devise state policies.

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. [5]

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. For example, in Britain militant protests against such queer agendas in schools has come from Muslim parents. It is one of many examples of where ‘diversity’ conflicts with the West’s secular liberal humanism. [6]

Another predicament is that many feminists regard such gender fluidity as an outrage against womanhood, and this has caused much controversy between more traditional feminists (called TERFS: Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and those who see political mileage in what they call intersectionality: where the Left becomes an amorphous combination (rainbow?) of ethnic and LGBT+++++++ issues, with scant regard for old-time proletarianism.

Globalist Agenda

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)’.[7]

What is RSE?

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. [8] Changing social norms and global shifts are regarded as primary justifications for imposing those changes onto New Zealand children. It is imposed conformity to globalist ideological agendas that are being constructed and promoted by vested interests behind a very bogus façade of recognising ‘differences’. One surely cannot get much further removed from real, organic differences than to promote the notion that sexual dimorphism is a social construct that can be changed at a whim.

What is implemented is not ‘sex education’, but ‘relationships and sexuality education’ (RSE). The former no longer suffices; indeed it must now be eliminated as reactionary and antithetical to the new ‘sexuality’, as the former sex education was predicated on binary gender, once a bugbear of conservative parents, but now an affront to the ‘progressives’. The whole edifice is underpinned by the use of Maori terms, in what is surely a manipulation of that culture for an ideology that is entirely derived from Western liberal modernism.

Throughout, it is claimed that RSE accords with the insights of new scientific evidence. [9] 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. They 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. They 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 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 (e.g. the recent example of Professor Ricardo Duchesne in Canada). That is what passes for ‘education’ in the modern epoch from primary to tertiary levels.

The ‘guide’ links RSE with environmental and other agendas in the process the Left calls intersectionality, and then claims that RSE proceeds from questions posed by children, rather than as imposed indoctrination, despite the ‘guide’ having previously identified the UNO as the originating body:

‘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’. [10]

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’. [11] This is hypocritical cant. 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. I know of this happening. There is no room for nonconformity. According to Freudian-Marxian Critical Theory parents are the first of the primary ties from which the individual must be ‘liberated’, [12] and the traditional family is the germ-cell of fascism. [13] A large corpus of literature has arisen over the decades, written by Critical Theorists to destroy the foundations of Western tradition, which is the basis for what our current mind manipulators call the ‘latest research’.

Revolution in Morals

Just how far-ranging RSE is can be gauged from the 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’. [14]

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. Again a lot of sematic 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? There is an assurance however that RSE accords with Maori custom, 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’. [15]

Analogous to the hijacking of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 and the redefinition of homosexuality by a militant lobby [16] in recent years a long forgotten Maori word, Takatāpui, meaning a close bond between males, was 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. [17] Hence, the social engineers are able to inculcate their ideology by recourse to indigenous custom redefined with modernist interpretations.

Naturally, Maori (and other Polynesian) medicine and customs on health are ‘holistic’ and thus superior to traditional Western medicine, science, concepts of family, and society, which exist as no more than vestiges within the onslaught of modernism. A sanitised version of the Maori and Polynesian precolonial societies is required, which amounts to a return of the 18^th century Western liberal doctrine of the ‘Noble Savage’ who lived idyllically, unburdened by civilisation; a fallacious model revived by Leftist social scientists such as Margaret Mead, who was supposed to show how Samoan pubescents were free of sexual anxieties and taboos. [18]

One must also ask why a child’s ‘academic success’ is predicated on conformity to the RSE programme?

Deconstruction of Language

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 [19] [One day Mister Smith might show up to class and declare that ‘they’ is (sic) now Ms Smith. 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 actual 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 is the sole aim]

Imposed and Enforced

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. [20]

Given the ‘hate speech’ laws that Labour and Green parties are aiming to introduce, which Ardern has mooted as including gender issues, it seems that any recalcitrant parent or pastor is likely to find ‘themself’ (sic) tried in secret (which is the way this system already operates ) before the Equal Opportunities Tribunal.

Freedom of opinion is of the Left-liberal type called ‘repressive tolerance’, coined by New Left guru Herbert Marcuse, where freedom of opinion is encouraged, but only for those who agree with the Left-agenda, while any opposition is ‘repressed’. 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’. [21] 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 in short order. 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).[22]

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’. For at least several decades it has been a feature of the major publisher of NZ primary school books, Wendy Pye, to eliminate all traditional gender roles in stories and illustrations. The liberal-globalist agenda has long been proceeding, and is increasingly being formalised.

Awareness Raising

If a child comments or laughs when ‘they’ finds (sic) it funny that Johnny is playing dress-up with dolls, this will become an issue of major consequence, 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. [23]

Making an example of such a child for not conforming to the agenda is called an opportunity by the social engineers to ‘raise awareness’. Awareness raising is a concept long 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 also called team-building.

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’ has been employed often enough by liberals. What of the child being pushed outside ‘their’ (sic) ‘comfort zone’ as part of RSE enforced indoctrination? ‘They’ will presumably be subjected to humiliation, and 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 insists is proven by the latest science.

Remoulding Generations

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’. [24]

Every aspect of education will conform 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’. [25]

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…The aim is not to champion identities, but rather to obliterate actual, organic identities, and to manufacture a transhuman (as Julian Huxley, and UNESCO called it), nebulous being that can be slotted into any circumstance desired by a Brave New World (as his brother Aldous warned).

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.

No Choice

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. [26] 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’. [27] 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’. [28] Hence if parents object then they are told that RSE is an intrinsic part of the NZ Curriculum, and presumably that their child’s learning will suffer unless there is participation.

---

[1] Nikki Preston, World record, NZ overtakes the UK’s title for the most rainbow Parliament, NZ Herald, 18 October 2020, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/world-record-new-zealand-overtakes-the-uks-title-for-the-most-rainbow-parliament/CLEAKIDVKRIOQDF5ZO67EGIDCY/
[2] Preston, ibid.
[3] Prohibition for Conversion Therapy Bill, general policy statement, https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PMB-Prohibition-of-Conversion-Therapy-Bill.pdf
[4] Ibid., 10. 10.
[5] Margaret Smith (ed.) Relationships and Sexuality Education: A Guide for Teachers, Leaders and Boards of Trustees, Years 1-8, Ministry of Education, 2020, Download
Note: the guide for Years 9-13, mostly mirrors that of Years 1-8. Download
[6] Birmingham school stops LGBT lessons after parents protest, The Guardian, 4 March 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests)
[7] RSE, p. 8.
[8] RSE, p. 8.
[9] RSE, p. 12.
[10] RSE, p. 12, emphasis added.
[11] RSE, p. 12, emphasis added.
[12] Eric Fromm, Escape from Freedom, 1941.
[13] Theodor Adorno, et al, The Authoritarian Personality, 1950.
[14] RSE, p. 12.
[15] RSE, p. 13.
[16] Charles W. Socarides, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality, The Journal of Psychohistory, Vol. 19, No. 3, Winter 1992; http://www.geocities.ws/kidhistory/homopolo.htm
[17] Melody Thomas, Early Maori view on sexual fluidity far more liberal than previously believed, Stuff, 6 July 2018, https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/105284489/early-mori-view-on-sexual-fluidity-far-more-liberal-than-previously-believed
[18] M. Mead, The Coming of Age in Samoa, 1928.
[19] RSE, p. 19.
[20] RSE, p. 19.
[21] RSE, p. 20.
[22] RSE, p. 21.
[23] RSE, p. 22, emphasis added.
[24] RSE, p. 24.
[25] RSE, p. 29.
[26] RSE, p. 43.
[27] RSE, pp. 28-29.
[28] RSE, p. 46.