Part I: New ‘Histories Curriculum’
Has there ever been an administration or government in New Zealand’s history (or ‘histories’) more fanatically intent on social engineering than the Ardern regime? Certainly, there has never been an administration more intent on relegating the Euro-New Zealander to extinction in all ways other than as rootless economic automatons, for so long as they are required to keep the wheels of the economy going, denied the sense of identity that is being instilled in all others.
As pervasive and mind-bending as the curricula on gender relations is, the new curriculum for teaching the ‘histories’ of ‘Aotearoa/New Zealand’ is intended to have similar impact. [1]
Unlike the ‘one nation, one people, one law’ advocates such as Don Brash, who counter Maori invasiveness with an appeal to Governor Hobson’s antiquated English liberal notion that ‘we are one people’ on the basis of a document, I do not regard the concept of a plurality of ‘histories’ as objectionable. Where there is more than one people there is more than one history, and for all the rhetoric we are not ‘one people’, and hence the notion of ‘one law’ is also problematic, let alone a single historical perspective.
However, the manner in which these ‘histories’ will be taught will be at the expense of the Euro-New Zealander and particularly the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic –heritage. Hence there is a denial to this element of what is being avidly promoted among all non-European elements: a sense of place and identity. This double-standard is rationalised on the premise of ‘white privilege’, and the notion that White identity in New Zealand cannot exist as anything other than one of colonial invasion and exploitation. What this assumes is that Whites can be lumped into an indistinguishable mass who have all profited from the legacy of colonialism. In order to right this alleged historical wrong it is necessary to deny Whites any form of consciousness other than that of collective shame and guilt.
When several generations of White youth have been inculcated with the feeling that their heritage is of no account in the future of Aotearoa (the days of ‘New Zealand’ are surely numbered) then they will at last be passé as an ethnic component, and exist as nothing other than to serve the economic system.
It is a paradox that while there is such a commitment to the demise of White heritage and identity, what will remain is the exploitive system under which most people of all races suffer, and a very few of all races benefit. Free Trade capitalism, which is colour-blind, is a phase of the late epoch of Western civilisation. It is tragically and farcically the same system in 19th century Britain from which the majority of early settlers to New Zealand sought escape, with a deceitful promise from the speculators of the New Zealand Company that they would have a new and prosperous beginning in New Zealand. According to the liberal and leftist ideologues in media, academia, and government, the poor Whites who staked the lives of themselves and their wives and children for a new start at the Antipodes, were the vanguard of colonialism and the beneficiaries of Free Trade capitalism and we, their descendants, have lived high on the hog of their rapaciousness. One can be disabused of any such notion as ‘white privilege’ but reading an original socialist source: Friedrich Engels’ Condition of the Working Class in England (1844). [2]
‘What is true of London, is true of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, is true of all great towns. Everywhere barbarous indifference, hard egotism on one hand, and nameless misery on the other, everywhere social warfare, every man’s house in a state of siege, everywhere reciprocal plundering under the protection of the law, and all so shameless, so openly avowed that one shrinks before the consequences of our social state as they manifest themselves here undisguised, and can only wonder that the whole crazy fabric still hangs together’. [3]
‘The most extensive working-people’s district lies east of the Tower in Whitechapel and Bethnal Green, where the greatest masses of London working-people live. Let us hear Mr. G. Alston, preacher of St. Philip’s, Bethnal Green, on the condition of his parish. He says:
‘“It contains 1,400 houses, inhabited by 2,795 families, or about 12,000 persons. The space upon which this large population dwells, is less than 400 yards (1,200 feet) square, and in this overcrowding it is nothing unusual to find a man, his wife, four or five children, and, sometimes, both grandparents, all in one single room, where they eat, sleep, and work. I believe that before the Bishop of London called attention to this most poverty-stricken parish, people at the West End knew as little of it as of the savages of Australia or the South Sea Isles. And if we make ourselves acquainted with these unfortunates, through personal observation, if we watch them at their scanty meal and see them bowed by illness and want of work, we shall find such a mass of helplessness and misery, that a nation like ours must blush that these things can be possible. I was rector near Huddersfield during the three years in which the mills were at their worst, but I have never seen such complete helplessness of the poor as since then in Bethnal Green. Not one father of a family in ten in the whole neighbourhood has other clothing than his working suit, and that is as bad and tattered as possible; many, indeed, have no other covering for the night than these rags, and no bed, save a sack of straw and shavings”’. [4]
Engels’ detailed account of 19th century Britain makes sorrowful reading. When was the last time a socialist in New Zealand cited Engels’ work? How many socialists in New Zealand have even heard of it? The Left have long since ditched the White proletariat to pose as champions of LGBTQ+++ and non-white ethnics in what they call ‘intersectional identity politics’.
Before Engels, from the Conservative-Right, Thomas Carlyle damned Free Trade and the rule of ‘Mammon’ as an affront to God and nature, and the blight of Britain. From the right-wing perspective it is notable that Carlyle, as per the title of the book, Past & Present, saw traditional England prior to the advent of Free Trade as more conducive to social community, meritocracy, and social duty than the Britain of his own day, at about the time (1843) that Britons were starting to settle New Zealand:
‘True, it must be owned, we for the present, with our Mammon-Gospel, have come to strange conclusions. We call it a Society; and go about professing openly the totalest separation, isolation. Our life is not a mutual helpfulness; but rather, cloaked under due laws-of-war, named “fair competition” and so forth, it is a mutual hostility. We have profoundly forgotten everywhere that Cash-payment is not the sole relation of human beings; we think, nothing doubting, that it absolves and liquidates all engagements of man. “My starving workers?” answers the rich Mill-owner: “Did not I hire them fairly in the market? Did I not pay them, to the last sixpence, the sum covenanted for? What have I to do with them more?” – Verily Mammon-worship is a melancholy creed. When Cain, for his own behoof, had killed Abel, and was questioned, “Where is thy brother” he too made answer, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Did I not pay my brother his wages, the thing he had merited from me?’ [5]
Conversely, who on the supposed ‘Right’, so-called by the media and academic ‘experts’, who champion Free Trade against ‘socialism’, has ever heard of Carlyle’s Past & Present ?Both orthodox Left and Right have succumbed to the capitalist mentality. The only potential for revolt comes from the new dissident Right, which has more in common with traditionalist Maori than any number of nominally ‘white’ liberals and leftists.
Education Department Proposals
So what is the Education Department proposing? After perusing what these mind-benders drafted on ‘relationship studies’ (sic) for 5 to 18 year olds, one should not be optimistic about the future of New Zealand children. Mind-rape cannot have a positive outcome. Planned for implantation in 2022, the premise of the new ‘histories’ curriculum is stated:
‘Through the Education Conversation / Kōrero Mātauranga and wider public discussion New Zealanders have made it clear that the current gaps in knowledge of our histories are not okay. We have heard a strong call for Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories to be taught to all students and ākonga at all schools. We want the next generation to be able to apply lessons from the past as they shape our future.
‘Given the calls from New Zealanders for this to change, we will be updating the National Curriculum, to make explicit the expectation that Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories will be part of the local curriculum and marau ā kura in every school and kura’. [6]
What is being described are the demands of Maori supremacists being adopted by the state and supported by their whores in academia and bureaucracy, in an alliance that is cynically called ‘wider public discussion’. It is notable that there is reference to the ‘new histories curriculum’ being locally adapted. That is to say, there will be focus on local iwi grievances against some aspect of colonial history perceived as injustice. This will mean that pupils in Hamilton schools for example will focus historical studies on the besmirching of Captain John Hamilton and that of the bravery of the colonial soldiers who fought at Gate Pa. [7]
Multiply this example throughout every school and one begins to get an image of what will be taught, and the feelings of guilt and shame that will be imparted on White children. Have the liberal ideologues that are so eager to obliterate all things European given any thought to the consequences of what really amounts to ‘hate speech’ on children, or do they just not care, or is a Zimbabwe type situation of dispossession the aim of a hidden agenda? Anti-white race hate under this regime will proceed from the present de facto state to that of de jure. Such a situation is what Orwell called ‘double-think’; simultaneously holding contradictory views: race-hate in the name of ‘justice’.
Draft Premises
The education department began to look at drafting proposals for a new ‘histories curriculum’ in 2019, for implementation in 2022. In 2019 Marielle Hawkes prepared a ‘briefing note’ to associate minister of education Kelvin Davis, and education minister Chris Hipkins, summarising discussions with department officials on the Treaty of Waitangi as the predicate for teaching history. Since it was decided a few decades ago that the treaty is a ‘living document’, this means that it can be interpreted and extended in any manner deemed necessary by Europhobes of whatever hue, dark or self-loathing white. According to Ms. Hawkes it was decided that all pupils, ‘across all year levels’, must have access to ‘facts’ (sic) in accord to the living treaty, and that these ‘facts’ should be applied to their local area. What these ‘facts’ are would be determined by consultation with local iwi and hapu. A White input is not mentioned. [8]
The type of individual drafting these premises for the curriculum might be discerned by the background of Ms. Hakwes. According to her account on social media she witnessed a 2017 ‘white supremacist’ activity that made it clear that ‘the time for meaningful dialogue has passed there’. The implication is that she once thought ‘meaningful dialogue’ was possible, which is of course nonsense. To her any expression of dissent can be relegated to that of a few dozen [peaceably and lawfully assembled] bogins and skinheads facing the frenetic anger of utter trash: but all is permitted in the name of ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, and ‘equality’, especially given that these ‘white supremacists’ represent views against which ‘millions died fighting’. Never mind the ‘millions upon millions’ have died at the hands of those who have sought to impose an impossible ‘equality’ (Robespierre, Mao, Trotsky, Pol Pot, Rev. Jim Jones, et al). Her and her ‘well-educated, white, liberal, able-bodied’, friends pontificated about Aotearoa’s future in their own mini hui, guided by a set of ‘kiwi values’ (all expressed in Maori terms) provided by a Far Left lobby called Action Station. [9]
A ‘briefing note’ as basis for discussion alludes to the new histories curriculum to be part of the ‘continuity and change strand’, for compulsory implementation. [10]
Here students learn about past events and how interpretations change and how to ‘imagine possible futures’. The aim will be to pervade the ‘strand’ with the treaty as a living document. Therefore, the pupil will learn how to interpret NZ history and imagine its future in term of the ‘living’ treaty. Schools will develop their programmes according to both national and local situations, including historical trends and movements, from ‘the Maori perspective’. It will be interesting to see what the ‘Maori perspective’ is on cannibalism, slavery, endless utu, precolonial despoliation of the flora and fauna, and precolonial land wars. If these events are mentioned, the pakeha will somehow be blamed, as he is for the massacre of the Moriori. Maori responses to the land wars will, of course, include Parihaka, the great myth, without recourse to the ‘facts’ about Te Whiti as a psychotic cult leader intent, Jim Jones style, on making himself and his people into martyrs, with the expectation that they will be resurrected. [11] Instead, as he is now, Te Whiti will continue to be presented as an unjustly persecuted noble predecessor of Martin Luther King, himself the subject of heavy layers of white-wash.
Incorporated into this grand historical narrative will be the history of leftist protest movements, including anti-Apartheid protests and the LGBT movement, the latter reflecting the parallel compulsory ‘strand’ on ‘gender fluidity’. [12] Pupils will be instructed on how to be ‘good and active citizens for change’, enabling them to be mobilised to support some part of the state’s agenda under the delusion that they are exercising their individuality, reminiscent of a prior generation that was befuddled into thinking they were helping to attain ‘freedom’ for Blacks in South Africa rather than globalist servitude. [13]
An ‘education report’ of August 2019, misdated 2018, refers to the new curriculum being an extension of existing programmes on the Treaty of Waitangi. [14] It is said, cynically, that students ‘develop an understanding of their own identity’ through what has ‘shaped New Zealand’, and this is ‘woven through all the strands’ of the ‘treaty principles’ that premise the social sciences curriculum. The new curriculum will update these ‘strands’, incorporating local and national histories based on input from iwi and hapu.
What does this say about developing a sense of ‘identity’ for Euro-New Zealand pupils? Will the new curriculum impart anything at all to the Euro-NZ pupil other than that his forefathers were colonial invaders and exploiters and that he continues to live in a position of ‘white privilege’ thanks to this legacy, for which he must beg forgiveness and make amends? At a time when we hear much about enhancing a child’s self-esteem and not doing or saying anything that might undermine that, to the point of dis-empowering parents thanks to another neo-Marxist agenda, what is this other than inflicting on children an inherited collective guilt complex? What seeds of self-loathing, alienation and pointlessness are being sowed in White children that will surface in dysfunctional and self-destructive ways?
In an ‘aide memoire’ to Chris Hipkins, the minister is reminded that ‘it is not okay’, that children are not being sufficiently taught the historical events that have shaped NZ. [15]
Although there has been such instruction, it has been ‘left to chance’, and to local school decisions. Such an ad hoc approach is unacceptable; ‘every’ student is required to learn about ‘NZ histories’. The new histories curriculum will be developed between the Ministry of Education, ‘experts’, Maori, Pacific and ethnic communities, teachers, students parents, whanau, and ‘other groups with a strong interest in shaping how NZ’s histories are taught’. This, of course, is pure cant. Will White parents be widely consulted at local and national levels? Will actual ‘experts’ be consulted, such as David Round [16] and Paul Moon, whose perspective, despite being a Maori academic, does not always square with liberal agendas? [17]
In an ‘aide memoire’ to Kelvin Davis, the first point is that people’s lives are today strongly influenced by history. [18] Sure enough, but the interpretation of history is the crucial point. Point 2 states that ‘we have an opportunity to ensure students have their history, and their place in Aotearoa New Zealand, acknowledged at their kura or school’. More cant. What will be the history imparted to White students; what will be their place? Will they learn of the hardships of their forebears before they even reached NZ let alone what they faced in a strange land which had been promoted as a South Seas idyll by NZ Company land agents? [19] Cleaver and Johnstone state that to build a ‘treaty-based nation’ everyone must understand the perspectives of the ‘diverse people’ who keep the treaty alive ‘as treaty partners’. It would be naïve to think that this includes any acknowledgement of Euro-NZ perspectives. Point 4 states that tangata whenua and iwi have their own unique histories and experiences, as do other ethnicities who have migrated here. This is a means of enabling a multiplicity of ethnic communities to have their input as vital contributors to the ‘treaty-based nation’. This will enable Chinese and Polynesians to enhance their identities and feeling of place [20] at the expense of Whites. The aim is said to be to build ‘empathy and connections’ between people. It has all the meaning of an Orwellian paradox from Animal Farm. Included in this are Maori, women, ‘gender diverse people’, and ‘people with disabilities’. The disabled are given their own identity construct. Whites per se are non-beings vis-à-vis building a positive identity. The common factor for them all will be the discrimination they have suffered. Hence identities are constructed by negativity; feelings of grievance, and as for the rest, the Whites, they will be rendered peripheral by feelings of collective guilt and self-loathing. Disabled and transgender whites are enabled to establish an identity by means of what the Left calls intersectionality, whereby sundry incongruous categories are constructed into an alliance against whatever remains of traditional Western norms.
[Next : Part II: Notes towards an alternative NZ histories curriculum]
[1] K. R. Bolton, Their target: your children, The European New Zealander, https://theeuropeannewzealander.net/2020/11/14/their-target-your-children/….
[2] F. Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17306/17306-h/17306-h.htm
[3] Engels, ibid., p. 25.
[4] Engels, ibid., p. 29.
[5] Thomas Carlyle, Past & Present, Book III:II; http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/13534/pg13534.html
[6]Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories in schools and kura, Ministry of Education, https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/information-releases/issue-specific-releases/nzhistories/
[7] K. R. Bolton, The assault on our heritage, The European New Zealander, 14 June 2020; https://theeuropeannewzealander.net/2020/06/14/the-assault-on-our-heritage/
[8] Marielle Hawkes, Briefing note: teaching of Te Tiriti o Waitangi follow-up, 14 June 2019, https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Information-releases/2019-releases/NZ-Histories/R-6-1194902-BN-Davis-Redacted.pdf
[9] M. Hawkes, Kai & Korero: chats about the future of New Zealand, 14 August 2017, https://medium.com/beyond-the-ballot/kai-k%C5%8Drero-d6ca078b2be6
[10] Christine Dew, Briefing note: Aotearoa New Zealand’s history, 23 August 2019, https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Information-releases/2019-releases/NZ-Histories/R-5-1203007-BN-Hipkins-Redacted.pdf
[11] K. R. Bolton, The Parihaka Cult, Black House Publishing, London 2012; John McLean, Parihaka: The Facts, Tross Publishing, Wellington 2020.
[12] K. R. Bolton, Their target, your children: social engineering and the ministry of education, The European New Zealander, https://theeuropeannewzealander.net/2020/11/14/their-target-your-children/
[13] K. R. Bolton, Apartheid: lest we forget (or never knew), Counter-Currents, https://counter-currents.com/2011/09/apartheid-lest-we-forget-or-never-knew/
[14] Stephanie McHardie, Education report: including NZ history within the national curriculum, 30 August 2018 [sic] (2019, https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Information-releases/2019-releases/NZ-Histories/R-4-1204074-ER-Hipkins-Davis-Redacted.pdf)
[15] Pauline Cleaver, Aide memoire: NZ’s histories in schools and kura, 6 September 2019, https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Information-releases/2019-releases/NZ-Histories/R2-2-1204767-AM-Hipkins-Redacted.pdf
[16] D. Round, Truth or Treaty: commonsense questions about the Treaty of Waitangi, Canterbury University Press, 1998.
[17] Paul Moon, Fatal Frontiers: a new history of NZ in the decade before the treaty, Penguin Books, 2006.
[18] Pauline Cleaver and Kiritina Johnstone, Aide memoire: NZ’s histories in schools and kura, 6 September 2019, https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/SIGNED-REDACTED-1204768-AM-signed.pdf
[19] John McLean, Voyages of the pioneers to NZ 1839-85, Winter Productions, Wellington, 2015.
[20] Cabinet paper material, proactive release, point 21, https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Information-releases/2019-releases/NZ-Histories/R2-1-124-125-Redacted.pdf
The European New Zealander 