Who Are The Conspiracy Theorists In Your Neighbourhood #1: Forbidden History by John Dudley Aldworth, Part 2

NZ pseudo-history and Christian fundamentalism

Alongside these attempts to legitimate the standard NZ pseudo-history trope of Maori as ‘genocidal cannibals’ from an ostensibly ‘Maori’ perspective, the other main area in which Forbidden History can be interpreted as making an ‘original’ contribution to the NZ pseudo-history sub-genre is in Aldworth’s application of a fundamentalist Christian gloss to the overall mythology. Doutre’s influential designation of the original tangata whenua as not just Europeans, but Celtic Europeans, tapped in to Neo-Nazi themes of Aryan/Celtic supremacy (Doutre’s affiliations with such ideology being successfully outed by Scott Hamilton in his Scoop discussion). Aldworth’s designation of the original tangata whenua as Celtic Europeans, who were really descendants of the Phoenicians and other Caucasian peoples of the biblical Mediterranean, suggests an agenda linked less to Neo-Nazi racism than to racism of the fundamentalist Christian variety, in which white-skinned Europeans are identified with the spiritual goodness of Christianity and dark-skinned non-Europeans are manifestations of evil paganism. That this is indeed the case is apparent from Aldworth’s theorising as to why the Maori were genocidally and anthropophagically inclined: “The important question to ask is: what made Maori go that way? Answer: the Maori nature and character shaped by their chosen religious beliefs, a worship of dark spiritual forces that inculcated hate, treachery, cruelty, fear and bloodlust in those that worshipped them.” (p. 112). 

Aldworth elaborates upon this premise by undertaking some ‘analysis’ of Maori mythology to come to the jaw-droppingly racist conclusion that Maori are, literally, ‘demonic’, being descended from the Nephilim, the fallen angels of biblical lore (p.116). However, salvation was at hand in the form of those British missionaries who brought Christianity to Maoridom and changed barbarism to civilization: “It was through the preaching of the gospel Maori first realised their worst mistake, that of worshipping devils of darkness rather than the god of light and love” (p.150). These explicitly Christian elements in what is ostensibly an ‘objective, evidential’ study of NZs secret past suggest that Aldworth is conceptualising the NZ pseudo-history mythos as some kind of literalised fundamentalist allegory, in which a paradisiacal golden age of Christian civilization in NZ (the Patupaiarehe and Waitaha) ‘falls’ to the forces of evil (pagan Maoridom) before undergoing redemption in the form of the Christianising power of British colonialism. Outside of the Christian trappings, this last point also reaffirms one of the key tropes of Pakeha racism (as mentioned in the ‘weaponised narratives’ section above): that Maori society was prevented from destroying itself through constant inter-tribal warfare by the peace, order and progress of British colonialism. The taking of Maori land by the British in violation of the Treaty of Waitangi is not a historical injustice that Pakeha should feel guilty about and atone for through political systems such as the Treaty Settlements, but a moral act of Christian righteousness that was necessary to save Maori from themselves. Aldworth’s thesis takes this theme of Pakeha justification one mythological step further by asserting that British colonisation was actually returning NZ to its natural order of Christian-based civilization, as established by the Patupaiarehe and Waitaha. 

80s goth-rock big in Maoridom then, eh John?

Forbidden History and NZ politics

As the above discussion indicates, Forbidden History can therefore be taken as a ‘notable’ addition to the NZ pseudo-history sub-genre thanks to its extremism (Maori as responsible for ‘the great genocide’ of NZ history), chutzpah (its attempts to legitimate such racist confabulations from an ostensibly Maori POV), and bizarreness (Maori as literal ‘fallen angels’?).  Such a summary is particularly interesting to consider in relation to the featured endorsements for the book by public figures associated with NZ right-wing political parties. The back cover includes quotes from Hamilton City Councillor Garry Mallett, who is also well-known for his involvement with the ACT party (“A really good read. A compelling book), and former NZ first MP Doug Woolerton  (“ A fascinating read that adds to our short history”). Woolerton further provides the book with a two-page foreword that supports the book’s overall conspiratorial view of official NZ history: “This book will challenge the reader and lead to more questions being asked of our institutions, including our Government. The New Zealand Establishment, be they scientific, legal or political like things to be nice and tidy and squared away so they are not questioned” (sic) (p. 8). 

It’s not particularly difficult to see why both NZ First and ACT (extrapolating from Mallett’s affiliations) are sympathetic to the NZ pseudo-history mythos. NZ First has successfully branded itself as the political party of Pakeha populism. Its main support base are older voters (60+) who grew up in a post-war NZ in which Pakeha/colonial worldviews were the norm, and who are possibly reacting against the perceived decline of Pakeha racial and social power due to Maori empowerment through forces such as the Treaty Settlement process (along with more contemporary social changes linked with globalisation, such as increased immigration from China).  NZ pseudo-history offers a historical narrative, backed up by purported ‘evidence’, that legitimates and affirms Pakeha identity as the dominant, ‘natural’ basis of NZ society (the ‘One New Zealand’ and ‘Hobson’s Choice’ movements being more explicit variations on this basic theme). The ACT party’s libertarian ideology – limited government and quasi-religious adherence to the deeply Anglo-Saxon economics of free market capitalism – is not particularly resonant with pro-Maori state policies around Treaty settlements and the increasing normalisation of a Maori worldview that differs from the current economic-materialist paradigms of Western society.  

Alleged face of a Phoenician or Celtic king carved into a Northland cliff. Y'all might want to look up 'simulacra' on Wikipedia, pseudo-history dudes...

However, Forbidden History is a particularly extreme version of the NZ pseudo-history mythos, in that it goes beyond the standard claims of ‘lost cities in the Waipoua forest’ to full-on historical revisionism, using the Holocaust as a template (‘the great genocide’), and Christian fundamentalist literalism (Patupaiarehe as descendants of Noah, Maori as descendants of the Nephilim). Presuming that Woolerton and Mallett both actually read the manuscript (instead of providing endorsements on the level of a matey shout-out for Aldworth), does this mean that they actually believe the ideas presented - ideas which, in their demonization of a particular ethnic group on the grounds of fundamentalist nationalism and religion, are essentially coming from the same place as the extreme far-right ideologies underpinning so much contemporary Western conspiracism? And if they do accept Aldworth’s arguments, are we meant to infer that similar beliefs are shared by at least a decent amount of NZ First voters? (leaving aside the ACT party on the grounds of its economic, rather than overtly racial, ideology, and miniscule level of public support). The answer, disturbingly, is a possible ‘yes’, if we can extrapolate from a July 2017 investigation by NZ Herald journalist Kirsty Johnston into the NZ ‘alt-right’ – the local version of the white nationalist ‘movement’ which rose to public prominence as a result of their support for Donald Trump in last year’s US presidential election. According to the article, the about of people involved in the NZ alt-right is very small (scores rather than thousands), but those involved expressed support for NZ First and its leader Winston Peters as the political party most amenable to their worldview (further discussion on the No Right Turn website reminded readers of the NZ National Front’s support for NZ First in prior elections). It would therefore seem likely that such folk would find the highly racist NZ pseudo-history presented in Forbidden History palatable to their ideological beliefs. 

NZ alt-right 'white identity' group that was the subject of controversy in March 2017. Note use of Celtic imagery to go with the neo-fascist slogan.

As a self-published book by a provincial author with little influence in NZ cultural circles, Forbidden History is unlikely to reach much of an audience. But it does provide an indication of some of the real ideological darkness implicit in the NZ pseudo-history mythos, and provides core bases for the mythos to be developed further along these lines.