NZ National’s Election Strategy

On election night, 17 October, Labour won 64 seats out of 120, thereby having enough to govern alone, if the result stands after special votes are counted. In any case Labour’s preferred coalition partner, NZ Greens, currently on 10 seats, will certainly have enough MPs to enable Labour to govern, This represents a disaster for National, which was the largest party in Parliament after the 2017 election, but which failed to come to an agreement with king-maker Winston Peters of NZ First. Peters went into coalition with Labour and loyally supported Labour/Green Marxist policies while at the same time alienating NZ First voters, which meant an ignominious and probably final defeat for the party.

Labour clearly benefited from its handling of the global ‘covid crisis’. However, whether National chose the best strategy in confronting Labour’s advantage is questionable. Todd Muller, leader of the National Party from 22 May to 14 July 2020, declared in his maiden speech:

‘First and foremost, I’m about what’s best for you and your family – not what’s wrong with the Government.  I’m not interested in Opposition for Opposition’s sake. We’re all tired of that kind of politics.’

Which amounted to an announcement that National had no fundamental problems with Labour policy. While Muller himself was replaced in July by the more feisty Judith Collins, there was no noticeable change in strategy. All year, non-mainstream commentators have desperately tried to expose the more extreme policies of the Labour/Green partnership, in terms of:

  • The numerous measures to undermine traditional property rights;
  • Bribing of landowners to convert pasture to pine (just when China is planting up huge forests which will come on stream at the same time as New Zealand’s);
  • Encouragement of foreign interests to buy up huge swathes of New Zealand farmland provided they convert it to forestry (inevitably monoculture pinus radiata);
  • The child-abusive education policies, such as the curricula for Sexuality Education and Climate Change;
  • The lack of a scientific basis for its zero carbon policy;
  • The fact of the zero carbon policy being in breach of Article 2 of the Paris Accord, which specifically prohibits countries from restricting food producers;
  • The lack of scientific basis for its panicked response to the Covid19 ‘pandemic’, for its mask mandate on public transport, and for its withdrawal of hydroxychloquine from the market;
  • Refusal to acknowledge the economic consequences of the government’s cancellation of tourism, its policy to replace farming with forestry, and its aim to convert New Zealand to renewables;
  • The determination to further the policies prescribed by the United Nations with total disregard for New Zealand’s interests.

Questioning the corporate narratives on either climate change or the ‘pandemic’ would entail declaring war on the corporate sponsors of those narratives, most obviously the Gates and Rockefeller foundations.  Any party who did this would, at the very least, be vilified mercilessly in the domestic and international press, and its leader compared to Donald Trump but there are other issues, however, that one might have expected that National could safely address, in fact had a duty to do so.  The National opposition, however, has steered clear of any major issues – its strategy strongly relied on being seen as a safe pair of hands. 

‘Strong’ leadership

This strategy depended on convincing the public that management of the ‘pandemic’ would have been handled at least as well by National, and that National was a safer pair of hands to manage the economy. At the same time National, like Labour, has been careful to avoid spelling out the extent of the looming economic crisis, which would raise questions of whether the lockdown was worth it and bring the heavens (or at least the corporate media) down upon the party.

Thus the National Party continued to keep clear of criticising the government on any fundamental issues.  So rather than exposing the false premise behind Jacinda Ardern’s ‘test, test, test’ strategy, that there is a test that actually works (probably too risky to mention that the virus hasn’t even been isolated), Collins preferred to make capital out of any perceived failures in ‘securing the borders’, and promise even more draconian measures to combat the dreaded virus.

National’s boldest policy was its agricultural policy, which proposed to modify the provisions of the Zero Carbon Act which affected farmers. The policy also removed the exemption that streamlines the process for forestry applications in the Overseas Investment Office. However National did not campaign on the government’s pasture to pine policies. So when I raised the issue at a candidates meeting in Ohariu, NZ First minister Tracey Martin was able to point to Pan Pac, given permission by Environment Minister Eugenie Sage to buy 20,000 hectares, as a ‘New Zealand company as it already did business in NZ (so why did it have to be given special permission?). There was no attempt from the Ohariu candidate Brett Hudson to query this ridiculous claim, or to ask whether the European aristocrats who have also been able to buying up land on this basis were also ‘NZ companies’, or to address the principle. Incidentally, the effect of the agricultural policy was to put itself in competition with ACT, its natural partner, which had garnered huge support in the rural sector when sole ACT MP David Seymour voted against the Zero Carbon Bill.

National also committed itself to repealing the Resource Management Act, but the stated aim of this policy was to facilitate development – the party did not set out to make an issue of the provisions in the Act which are being used to undermine property rights, nor the Urban Development Act which allows the compulsory purchase of private homes for development. Nb: the founding objectives of the National Party were stated as:

‘To promote good citizenship and self-reliance; to combat communism and socialism; to maintain freedom of contract; to encourage private enterprise; to safeguard individual rights and the privilege of ownership; to oppose interference by the State in business, and State control of industry.

National founding principles, therefore, are in direct conflict with the policies of Karl Marx, the UN and the NZ Labour/Green partnership to to eliminate property rights of homeowners.

Regardless of outcome, National’s strategy was deeply worrying to many of Labour’s critics. Even if it worked, and National gained the Treasury benches and maybe rolled back some of Labour’s more obnoxious measures, little or none of the Labour/Green agenda to serve global Marxism (including a massive transfer wealth upwards and ultimately global government), would be exposed. After a couple of terms the public would inevitably get bored and, still unaware of some vital issues, vote Labour/Greens back in, to pick up where they left off.

See also:

CO2 is Not Causing Global Warming

Coronavirus: WHO Backflips on Virus Stance by Condemning Lockdowns

WHO (Accidentally) Confirms Covid is No More Dangerous Than Flu/

NZ Government MPs Lie About Contents of the Sexuality Education Syllabus

WHAT can we do to stop our MPs lying their heads off? 

At a meeting in Ohariu last night I directed a question at the representatives from the parties in government, thus NZ First’s Tracey Martin, Labour local MP Greg O’Connor and the Green candidate, John Ranta.

‘The New Zealand sex education curriculum turns small children into sexual beings, strongly promotes gender stereotypes, and forces children from the age of five to see gender dysphoria and and transition as natural and desirable. Will you support the inevitable move to extend the programme to early education?’

When pressed for further detail I explained that children are actively and repeatedly encouraged to see gender transition as a viable option and that ‘by the age of about nine children are invited to imagine waking to find that their gender has changed’.

First Greg O’Connor and then Tracey Martin, who as Minister of Education was involved in developing the programme, flatly denied that the Sexuality Curriculum groomed children for gender transition, or that children were invited to imagine that their gender had changed.  The curriculum was completely age-appropriate and anything to do with gender was purely to encourage tolerance.  (The Green candidate was open about knowing little of the syllabus.)

What the text says

‘Encourage students to recognise that some people’s biological sex is different to their gender identity. For example somebody born with a penis may identity as a girl’ (Years 1-2, section “Gender Roles”, in which ‘Students will describe themselves in relation to their gender’ and ‘Students will explore diverse gender roles’ ).

Gender diversity is again explored in detail in Years 3-4, in Theme 2, and is referred to also in Theme 4, thus gender diversity is addressed in years 1, 3 and 4.  In year 5, when children are about nine:

Development
Have the students make themselves comfortable in small groups. Ask the students to use their imaginations and consider the following scenario: Imagine waking up one morning and discovering that your gender has changed.  What that would that be like?  Allocate two questions per group for the students to discuss:

• How would your life be the same? How would it be different?
• Would any of your ambitions change?
• What could be some negatives about living with this “new” gender?
• What could be some positives about living with this “new” gender?
• Do you think people would treat you differently?
• What couldn’t you do anymore?
• What would you be able to do that you may not have been able to yesterday?
• What would you need to learn?
• How would you be expected to dress?
• If you looked different but were exactly the same on the inside, would you still fit in with your friends and family?
• Are the expectations for genders the same? Or are there different expectations?
• If you looked different but were exactly the same on the inside, would you still fit in with your friends and family?
• Are the expectations for genders the same? Or are there different expectations?
• How do you suppose it feels to be transgender? What are the expectations if you are transgender? Discuss any stereotypes or challenges associated with growing up.
(Years 5-6, Theme 2, so year 5)

Tracey Martin, Minister of Education told the meeting that she was closely involved with the development of the syllabus and knew it well.  Thus Martin’s authoritative claim that there was no such provision for small children to be instructed to ‘Imagine waking up one morning and discovering that your gender has changed’ has to be seen as knowingly false.  Greg O’Connor probably had no idea what was in the syllabus, but under pressure his instinctive response was flat denial.

Note: Tracey Martin, as Minister of Education would also have been responsible for the equally manipulative Climate Change syllabus.

See also:

Cultural Marxism and the NZ Sex Education Curriculum

UK Government issues gender identity guidance for teachers: pupils must not be told they might be a different gender based on personality or clothes. 

‘War is Peace’: NZ MP Greg O’Connor Claims Labour Supports the Farming Sector

Ohariu MP Greg O’Connor is an ex-policemen and long-time President of the New Zealand Police Association, best known in that role for his strong support of armed police.  (In 2019-20 New Zealand trialled armed police patrols, and for a while it looked as though armed police visiting private homes for minor offences, or where no offence has been committed, was going to be the norm in New Zealand, see Is New Zealand on the Road to Bolshevism?)   O’Connor supported the gun reforms which were fast tracked in the aftermath of the Christchurch shooting, and spoke in favour of the government’s draconian Covid-19 Response Bill.  First elected in 2017, O’Connor would be a front-runner for the post of Minister of Police in a future Labour government.

On 29th September 2020, O’Connor sent out an email to subscribers in which he came out with this startling statement:

‘And our economic news is improving as well with small businesses bouncing back and the primary sector continuing to do the heavy lifting by producing what the world needs most; quality food.  I’m just one of several of my fellow MPs with a farming background and the value of that sector is well recognised in our caucus.

What can have possessed O’Connor to come out with this whopper?  Labour has done all in its power, not just to undermine, but to eradicate the farming sector:

“The coalition government […] is implementing a strategy squarely aimed at replacing the farming sector with forestry.  The result will be depopulation of the countryside, the destruction of our environment and our way of life, and set us on the road to poverty.”  (The NZ Government’s Strategy to Destroy the Farming Sector)

The measures include:

The batty Zero Carbon Act, which

  • Is in breach of article 2 of the Paris Agreement, which specifically prohibits countries from restricting food producers;
  • Forces little New Zealand to try to compensate for the CO2 emissions of China and India;
  • Relies heavily on junk science, including the claim that methane is a major greenhouse gas justifying the policy of a 24 to 47 per cent decrease in methane emissions by 2050.  Methane is in fact virtually irrelevant as a greenhouse gas, as its energy absorption is completely within the bandwidths of the far more dominant H2O (when did it ever rain methane?)

One Billion Trees Fund and Overseas Investment Office incentives to all and sundry, at home and abroad, to convert farmland to forestry

The One Billion trees fund pays landowners, including farmers, to plant trees – any trees.  At least half of this is expected to be pinus radiata forest plantations – it will probably be much more. According to Forestry Minister Shane Jones, ‘ the commercial forestry sector [is] projected to plant half a billion trees in the next 10 years’.

Selling land into overseas ownership: Despite farm land being defined as ‘sensitive land’ that should not be sold to overseas interests, an exception is made for farmland that is to be converted to forestry.   Overseas investment in forestry is actively encouraged: ‘Generally overseas investors buying fewer than 1000 hectares of forestry rights per calendar year are exempted from needing consent.’

Often the parcels of land far exceed 1000 hectares. In 2019 Land Information Minister and Green MP Eugenie Sage gave Pan Pac Forest Products approval (signed off by Assistant Finance Minister David Clark) to bypass the OIO to to make 25 transactions involving 20,000 hectares of land, valid until 2022, for the purposes of forestry conversion.  Pasture is a carbon sink, while logged forests impoverish the soil and are net carbon emitters, but hey, it was never about the environment.

‘If sheep and beef farms convert to forestry on a nationwide scale at just half the rate that has occurred in Wairoa this last year, there will be no sheep and beef farms left by 2050’ (Neil Henderson, Gisborne farmer, 2019)

Fresh Water

All New Zealanders want clean rivers and clean beaches,  but the very language of the Fresh Water proposals makes it clear the the government is targeting farmers and has little interest in our unsanitary urban beaches.

Let them eat pine chips

All these measures are accompanied by the heavy-handed promotion of veganism, including a big push in the child-abusive climate curriculum, which imposes on growing children guilt about eating meat and proposes that they consider (to begin with) meatless Mondays – if schools make this a policy, it will be virtually impossible for children to opt out.

New Zealand’s future – what future?

Government policies to eliminate beef and sheep farming combined with its cancellation of tourism mean that New Zealand is faced with a future that comprises a fire-sale of assets, huge tax hikes, and spiralling debt. 

See also:

Greg O’Connor’s Latest Push to Arm Police and 5 Reasons Not To

 

How Neo-Marxists Have Hijacked the New Zealand Labour Movement

Ayn Rand famously said that ‘the difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is only a matter of time’.   Maybe it doesn’t have to be like that – but maybe it does.

In its early years NZ Labour stood for affordable health and education, national rail, home ownership for all, job protection and full employment.  How does Labour today compare?

Why I have abandoned Labour after 40 years

Labour’s post-war ideal has given way to a naked drive towards Marxist totalitarianism and one world government, with the Labour/Green partnership launching a fast-moving assault on the NZ way of life.  The introduction of initiatives to:

  • undermine property rights and replace homes with apartments
  • destroy the farming sector and rural New Zealand
  • weaken the fabric of society through child abusive education policies
  • use the cold virus to crash the economy and the health system and create a police state

all follow a neo-Marxist model as dictated by the UN and the elite foundations that own the UN.  The goal is communism in its proper sense, a highly controlled world population governed by an elite, in other words totalitarianism.

From a conservative Christian website:

‘So all this mass media claptrap lately about how well our friendly, smiling, unmarried Communist NZ Prime Minister P [… is doing…] – while behind the scenes, she and her Marxist/Socialist colleagues are frantically working day and night to destroy marriage, destroy the family, destroy gender, get all the nation’s children out of the control of parents at home and indoctrinate them all to become little socialists in state-funded child care centres, destroy all personal freedoms under state dictatorship, tax and spend like there is no tomorrow to destroy the economy, while working towards the ultimate Marxist goal to abolish the right to own all private property – isn’t it about time we all woke up to who she really is, and called her the wickedly deceptive little Communist Comrade she really is?’ (Genuine Christianity Now)

So how much of this is wrong?

‘the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property’ (Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto)

Labour has introduced a raft of measures to remove traditional private property rights and eliminate home gardens, arguing the prior claim of ‘biodiversity’, despite NZ’s extensive national and urban reserves.  The measures include the Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, Biodiversity Strategy and Urban Development Bill.   The aim is  to move the populace to high-density rental living, in accordance with the UN’s Agenda 21.

Clearing the countryside and eliminating the agricultural sector

The New Zealand government has brought in so many incentives to convert fertile pasture to pine forest that purchase of land with an intent to farm is not an option.   Forestry can not provide anything like the jobs that agriculture does, and there are huge implications for rural life, the economy, the food supply and the environment.  Moving people out of rural New Zealand will further Agenda 21 and Labour’s policy of high density living.

The impoverishment of New Zealand

The goal of Marxism is to ensure that all power is concentrated into a few hands.   The Ardern regime has done all in its power to impoverish NZ to the benefit of the wealthy, with foreign interests expected to benefit most.

The encouragement of the sale of farmland into overseas ownership: Farmland is considered by the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to be ‘sensitive land’ and purchase by overseas interests requires OIO approval. An exception is made for farmland that is to be converted to forestry.

The disastrous effect of Covid-19 measures on NZ businesses: As a result of the measures taken on the back of the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’, an enormous transfer of wealth upwards and outwards (ie overseas) is expected, when small family businesses (‘the bourgeoisie’) go to the wall.  While the super-rich are making billions , Labour MP Deborah Russell expressed her contempt for small businesses struggling to survive the lockdown:

 

 

The government has throughout the manufactured crisis been reluctant to discuss the negative consequences of its response.  It has recently been revealed that Treasury, who obligingly agreed to suspend all Regulatory Impact Assessment relating to Covid-19 measures, warned back in early April of a possible fire sale of NZ companies to foreign owners.

Destroying society, culture and the family are fundamental policies of Cultural Marxism

When a society stops caring for its young, it has reached a level of degradation from which recovery may be impossible.

The NZ Sexuality Education syllabus

 The teachers’ resource Navigating the Journey: Sexuality Education:

  • Recommends the sexualisation of children from the age of five,
  • Forces small children to consider transsexuality as a natural option,
  • Reinforces and exaggerates male-female stereotypes.

The World Health Organisation recommends instruction in masturbation for European toddlers from 0 to 4 years– this will certainly become NZ policy under a Labour/Green administration.  (See Cultural Marxism and the NZ Sex Education Curriculum.)

Gender self-identification

Both Jacinda Ardern and the Green Party support a policy of gender self-identification, which puts newly declared rights of men ahead of time-honoured rights of women and children.  An attempt to insert an amendment to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill at select committee stage without public consultation failed – no doubt it will be introduced in another Labour/Green term.

Labour seeks to bully and blackmail children into becoming climate activists via the Climate Science Curriculum

The curriculum is devoid of science, actively discourages critical thinking, and is designed to frighten children into compliance. The provision of a long list of agencies that can advise parents or treat deliberately traumatised children, including suicide-help, should be a clue to how iniquitous this curriculum is. (See The NZ Climate Change Curriculum is Cult Indoctrination and Child Abuse)

Burning books

‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’
(Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984).

As part of the protests against ‘white supremacy’ and Western Civilisation, statues and other historical references been vandalised or removed across the English-speaking world, including New Zealand – one startling example being the defacing of Penny Lane’s street signage in Liverpool , claiming an (unproven) link with slavery.  It is perhaps no coincidence that NZ’s National Library is culling 625,000 books, almost the totality of the international collection, which:

  • Reduces access to factual knowledge
  • Cuts links to a heritage going back thousands of years
  • Creates a sense of disempowerment

Creating racial hatred in New Zealand

Many people, including Muslim familes, walked out of a post-Christchurch vigil organised by Green Party leader Marama Davidson when they found it was an anti-white hatefest.  Davidson could be Deputy Prime Minister if a Labour/Green coalition win the election.

The bizarre policy, unique to New Zealand, of imposing a hybrid form of English by inserting large quantities of (unfamiliar) Maori phrases into English texts creates resentment amongst the non-Maori population, and presents considerable difficulty for non-native speakers of either language, including immigrants.

Labour exploits a cold virus to create a police state

Ardern ignored expert advice, scientific studies and facts on the ground which show that the Covid-19 virus has not lived up to the media build-up, in order to crash the economy, wreck the health system and trash democratic freedoms.  The Covid-19 Public Health Response Act gives the government, the police and ‘authorised persons’ undreamed-of powers to control the lives of NZ citizens, including powers of entry without a warrant, for up to two years.

Is NZ headed for martial law?

Ardern has assigned responsibility for policing its Covid-19 quarantine to the military.   This opens the way for these responsibilities to be extended to include entering private homes without a warrant.

If we look back over the period since the Chrischurch mosques shooting on the Ides of March 2019, we can see that the event set in train a series of measures by the government which have charted a seemingly inexorable course towards the establishment of a police state.  These include:

  • the draconian censorship imposed to prevent viewing the documentary evidence,
  • the announcement of the fast-tracking of hitherto unmooted gun control laws, in tandem with
  • a policy to normalise armed police patrols, including visits to law-abiding citizens.  (see Is New Zealand on the Road to Bolshevism)

Be Kind  – Or Else

Ardern’s style consists of appeals for kindness, moral blackmail for waverers, and threats of imprisonment for dissidents. New Zealanders have had to tolerate the Orwellian experience of Jacinda Ardern within the space of a minute reinforcing the need for kindness, reminding of police powers to ensure compliance, and advising how to dob in one’s neighbours (see Appendix, 6:00).  For weeks exhortations to ‘Be Kind’ were everywhere, even in lights on State Highway 1.

It’s a moot question whether we term Jacinda Ardern’s dystopia Brave New World, or 1984.

Appendix

Daily COVID-19 Media Conference, 29 March

 

See also:

Olivia Pearson: Jacinda Ardern: From Prime Minister to Tyrant

Jacinda Ardern, giving closing address to the 2009 International Union of Socialist Youth Festival in Hungary, uses the term comrade 15 times in seven minutes:

 

 

 

Is NZ On the Road to Bolshevism?

The openly Marxist Labour/Green partnership that runs New Zealand is exploiting a series of significant events  – the Christchurch shooting, the contrived Covid-19 scare, and the orchestrated George Floyd protests – to create a totalitarian state.  The strategy relies heavily on fear, division and the suppression of dissent.

The creation of a police state

The shooting on 15 March 2019 of 51 men in two Christchurch mosques by a much-travelled Australian (some say CIA agent), set in train a series of measures by the government which charted a seemingly inexorable course towards the establishment of a police state.

The combination of:

  • the unwarranted censorship after the Christchurch event, accompanied by threats of long prison sentences,
  • the normalisation of armed police calling at family homes for flimsy reasons,
  • the role of the police during the lockdown, and
  • the introduction of new hate speech laws

all serve to create fear in would-be dissidents and protesters.

Whither New Zealand?

Slobodan Solajic asks: The Second American Revolution Or The First American Bolshevik Revolution?

‘The “revolutionary” initiatives in the US that Tucker Carlson talked about in his monologue about “Why mobs are tearing down America’s monuments” chillingly remind me of what was happening during the dying days of the Russian Empire and the Romanov dynasty, and the unimaginable horror imposed by the Bolshevik ideology in the years during and after the revolution:

Solajic’s long list of points includes:

  • Constitutional rights of Americans are continuously eroded through various coercive measures, judicial and legislative precedents, etc
  • Perpetual attempts to disarm Americans through so-called “gun control”
  • Forced displacement: a strategic development recognised and described by Kelly M. Greenhill in ‘Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy’
  • Mainstream media is entirely controlled, spewing propaganda for systematic brainwashing and social/mental engineering
  • Degradation of American culture and history (also through destruction of monuments and historical and cultural sites)
  • Social education which encourages a hateful and racist view of European-American citizens which could be considered as ‘reverse racism’
  • Campuses are the centers of indoctrination
  • Unnatural, oftentimes deviant, moral dogmas normalizing unhealthy and dangerous lifestyles which cause the long-term destruction of family, culture heritage, and achieved civilization levels
  • Violent false flag events being used as a pretext to disarm Americans and further increase the police/security state
  • Deliberate attempts to create racial tension leading to a race or civil war in America, while at the same time promoting multiculturalism and diversity which are then used to add more fuel to the already present racial problems.’

Solajik concludes with ‘Considering all of this, is America on the threshold of its own Bolshevik revolution?’  Many or all of these his points apply in New Zealand, though we have not yet experienced the murderous ‘race riots’ currently being experienced in America.  The recent calls for NZ to abolish police follow a US trend.

There are alternatives to violence and civil war.  Media and politicians are preparing the world for an alleged second wave of coronavirus, which may have implications for New Zealand’s elections in September.  Another lockdown would at least hinder campaigning and democratic participation at meetings, distributing leaflets etc – it could mean the cancellation of the election.  If you can achieve so much through fear – fear of disease on the part of the majority, fear of the consequences of dissent on the part of the minority – there is no need to resort to overt violence.

See also:

American Conservative, The Chilling Censorship of the Christchurch Shooting

New Zealand Police Can Bust Into Your House & Do Anything They Think is Reasonably Necessary To Enforce Lockdown

Three Academic’s From Victoria University’s Institute of Criminology Explain Why Armed Police Officers in Patrol Cars Will in Fact Make Us Less Safe

Ron Paul, The Media is Lying About  Second Wave

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Second American Revolution Or The First American Bolshevik Revolution?

By Slobodan Solajic; originally published at OneWorld

The situation the US today resembles the early days of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. It is almost a copy and paste of it: paid mercenaries, paid agitators, false flag terror, endless brainwashing propaganda, and fully controlled mainstream media. There is looting and destruction of the people and nation by thugs, agents, activists, mercenaries, and people motivated by anarchy, chaos, destruction, death, as well as the pain, misery, and enslavement of their fellow productive Americans. They are destroying their small businesses to fit the needs of the parasitic and unproductive segments of their class.

Karl Marx set the standard of Communist ideology through his assertion:

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!”

Lenin elaborated this even further:

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”

“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”

“It is necessary – secretly and urgently to prepare the terror.”

“People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics.”

Sound familiar today? Does it raise any alarm?

The horror that Bolshevik “revolutionaries” brought to Russia and to Orthodox Christian Russians who were a large majority there would be better understood if we remember Trotsky’s words as he explained how the Christians and whites of Russia were going to be treated:

“We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white Negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny, not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one. We mean the word ‘red’ literally, because we shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars pale by comparison.”

And

“If the Revolution has the right to destroy bridges and art monuments whenever necessary, it will stop still less from laying its hand on any tendency in art which, no matter how great its achievement in form, threatens to disintegrate the revolutionary environment or to arouse the internal forces of the Revolution, that is, the proletariat, the peasantry and the intelligentsia, to a hostile opposition to one another. Our standard is, clearly, political, imperative and intolerant.”

The situation the US today resembles the early days of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. It is almost a copy and paste of it: paid mercenaries, paid agitators, false flag terror, endless brainwashing propaganda, and fully controlled mainstream media. There is looting and destruction of the people and nation by thugs, agents, activists, mercenaries, and people motivated by anarchy, chaos, destruction, death, as well as the pain, misery, and enslavement of their fellow productive Americans. They are destroying their small businesses to fit the needs of the parasitic and unproductive segments of their class.

The “revolutionary” initiatives in the US that Tucker Carlson talked about in his monologue about “Why mobs are tearing down America’s monuments” chillingly remind me of what was happening during the dying days of the Russian Empire and the Romanov dynasty, and the unimaginable horror imposed by the Bolshevik ideology in the years during and after the revolution:

  • Constitutional rights of Americans are continuously eroded through various coercive measures, judicial and legislative precedents, etc
  • Perpetual attempts to disarm Americans through so-called “gun control”
  • Criminal banking and financial system looting the average middle and low class Americans (and the rest of the world)
  • Lack of proper investigation or prosecution in the face of exponential growth in government corruption
  • Forced displacement: a strategic development recognised and described by Kelly M. Greenhill in “Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy
  • Institutionalized assaults on health and choices regarding health
  • Mainstream media is entirely controlled, spewing propaganda for systematic brainwashing and social/mental engineering
  • Degradation of American culture and history (also through destruction of monuments and historical and cultural sites)
  • Social education which encourages a hateful and racist view of European-American citizens which could be considered as “reverse racism”
  • Campuses are the centers of indoctrination
  • Unnatural, oftentimes deviant, moral dogmas normalizing unhealthy and dangerous lifestyles which cause the long-term destruction of family, culture heritage, and achieved civilization levels
  • Violent false flag events being used as a pretext to disarm Americans and further increase the police/security state
  • Deliberate attempts to create racial tension leading to a race or civil war in America, while at the same time promoting multiculturalism and diversity which are then used to add more fuel to the already present racial problems.

Considering all of this, is America on the threshold of its own Bolshevik revolution?

Cultural Marxism and the NZ Sex Education Curriculum

Critical Theory is a play on semantics. The theory was simple: criticize every pillar of Western culture—family, democracy, common law, freedom of speech, and others. The hope was that these pillars would crumble under the pressure (Zero Hedge, ‘The Birth of Cultural Marxism’).

Through all of human history societies have protected children.   When a society stops looking after its young, it has reached a level of degradation from which recovery could well be impossible.

The campaign to ‘protect the sexual rights of children’, ie to eroticise them from a young age, is bedded in the cultural-Marxist strategy of undermining the family (aka Critical Theory) by making it hard for people to form permanent relationships. While the stated intention of Critical Theory was to undermine the institutions which stood in the way of the adoption of Communism, early sexualisation and of course transgenderisation also serve the purposes of the associated eugenicist movement.

Education departments throughout the Western world are incorporating programmes to further the Marxist goal of sexualising the young.  The World Health Organisation recommends instruction in masturbation for European toddlers from birth to four years of age.  Importantly, an association is created between tenderness, physical closeness and sexuality.

WHO

Eroticisation of pre-schoolers may not yet be applied in New Zealand, but it cannot be far away, particularly under a hard-line Marxist administration.  The teachers’ resource for the New Zealand sex education curriculum, Navigating the Journey: Sexuality Education: Te Takahi i te Ara: Whakaakoranga Hōkakatanga (overview here):

  • Recommends the sexualisation of children from the age of five
  • Forces small children to question their gender identity
  • Reinforces and exaggerates male-female stereotypes, and
  • Presents a raft of ideas for undermining a child’s feelings of self confidence and self-worth which, while reinforcing the strong and successful, are threatening to the vulnerable.

Sexualisation of Young Children

(The volumes referred to here are for Years 1-2 and Years 3-4, principally, and Years 5-6, abbreviated to 1, 2, and 3.  Thus 1/20 indicates Years 1-2, page 20.)

At present sexuality education in New Zealand begins at Year One, i.e. normally the age of five. The Guide to LGBTIQA+ Students: Plan Sexuality and Gender Education Years 1-8, which applies to all students (not just LGBTIQA), recommends:

‘Design learning programmes that meet students’ developmental
stages:

‘Some children in this age group may be aware of the connection between
“making babies” and sexual pleasure.’

The actual teacher’s resource is more specific.  As the sub-heading, ‘A blossoming takes place, a journey is set out on’, implies, it is intended that children are awoken sexually from the age of five.

From years one and two children are encouraged to talk to their families about ‘sexuality’:  ‘what are some of the elements their whanau believe are important to growing up in all areas of our lives, including sexuality. (1/ p.10)

In the lesson on parts of the body (1/49), pupils are expected not just to learn, but publicly name, parts of the body including genitalia.  This would normally be done in a mixed class – it goes without saying that any embarrassment a small child might feel in a discussion about private parts is heightened by the presence of the opposite sex.  In some classes the number of boys versus girls is disproportionate – again this will increase the embarrassment or humiliation the minority sex will feel, whether male or female, and the likelihood of bullying.

Working in pairs, they are asked to write the names of body parts on labels and attach them after discussion to an enlarged body outline. They then cover the bodies with paper clothes and then hang them on the wall. Students can then lift the clothes to check on the accuracy of the placement – the purpose of the clothes is to prevent embarrassment apparently.

In years 3-4 (circa 7-8 years of age), pictures of naked people are presented to the children, who are taught and asked to identify what used to be called private parts, i.e. breast, testicles etc.  They play ‘body bingo’. The teacher describes the sex act in detail, including sexual excitement (how the teacher should explain sexual excitement is not described).

‘Gender Fluidity’ and the Destruction of Identity

British figures to 2015 show that gender dysphoria amongst school children quadrupled in five years.  Some argue that this reflects a widespread condition that has been hitherto suppressed, but it is impossible to overlook the part played by the active policies of educationalists in the English-speaking world.

The position of the New Zealand Ministry of Education is that transgenderism – which includes a gamut of options from gender self-identity to chemical puberty blocking to physical mutilation – is natural, common and to be encouraged.  From the age of five or six, children are told that it is somehow natural for a boy to ‘identify’ as a girl and vice-versa. The conditioning starts in Years 1-2:

‘Encourage students to recognise that some people’s biological sex is different to their gender identity. For example somebody born with a penis may identity as a girl’ (1/49).

And is then reinforced in Years 3-4:

Gender diversity yr 3-4

Encouraging gender dysphoria is a primary function of the curriculum for years 5-6, i.e. for children aged about 9 to 10.  Of the four ‘themes’ in this resource, the subject is discussed in Themes 2, 3 and4: there are repeated calls to ‘affirm diversity’ and ‘affirm diverse genders’, and children are encouraged:

  • to regard having a gender identity that does not match their biological sex as natural
  • to envisage themselves having gender dysphoria.

‘Ask the students to use their imaginations and consider the following scenario:
Imagine waking up one morning and discovering that your gender has changed. What that would that be like? Allocate two questions per group for the students to discuss:
How would your life be the same? How would it be different?
• Would any of your ambitions change?
• What could be some negatives about living with this “new” gender?
• What could be some positives about living with this “new” gender? [etc]
  (3/30

What could be some negatives‘ is the closest to an acknowledgement that gender self-reassignment is the beginning of a road that leads to puberty blockers, sterility and ultimately mutilation, including castration for boys.

A 2008 study of the incidence of transsexualism among New Zealand passport holders gave a figure of ‘at least’ 1:6364.  The ratio of male-to-female transsexual people to female-to-male transsexual people was 6:1: the prevalence of male-to-female transsexualism was estimated at 1:3639, and the corresponding figure for female-to-male transsexualism was 1:22 714.

There is no reason to believe that natural gender dysphoria amongst young children – a feeling that they are shut off from an identity they relate to – would normally even match this figure, particularly given the breaking down of stereotypes in modern life: girls can play almost all sports available to boys, boys learn to sew and cook,  women travel the world on their own, and few careers are closed to either sex.

Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes

In order to facilitate gender dysphoria, there is a strategy to reinforce stereotypes, and then to make people who do not fit the stereotype feel threatened or different (1/p. 28). A correlation is created between choice of clothing, colours, hobbies etc and gender identity.

‘Where do messages come from about what boys and girls should wear and do we have to follow these messages.  Encourage students to recognise that some people’s biological sex is different to their gender identity’ (1/50)

The purpose of the manual is sensitise children to gender stereotyping, ensuring that minority preferences within a gender are at the least a cause for self-consciousness.

‘Encourage the students to consider and question gender roles. Ask, for example, ”Who mows the lawn?” “Who does the cooking?” “Is this the same in all our families?” Gender roles can be different in different cultures and in different families. Avoid making
generalisations and encourage students to see diversity in gender roles.’ (1/41)

‘You could invite parents who live in non-traditional roles They could share how their gender does not affect their ability to do their job well.’ (1/29)

In years 3-4 students are asked to consider how they would behave in various situations: in the mall, at the beach etc (2/38). They are then asked to form groups of mixed gender, to consider the following questions:

  • Do boys and girls make different choices to each other? Or similar choices?
  • Do girls have to act in a certain way?
  • Do boys have to act in a certain way?

And then (crunch question):

  • What if you don’t feel like a boy or a girl?

In a group of 10 children, 5 of each sex, what if there is only one girl who likes climbing trees? How is she supposed to feel?  And why does a threatening discussion on gender stereotyping have to lead to the even more threatening question of whether some boys should really be girls and vice-versa?

We have moved backwards from ‘girls can do anything’ to ‘if you don’t fit the stereotype, maybe you need a sex change’.

Undermining the Child’s Feelings of Self-worth

The more outrageous aspects of the programme – blatant sexualisation of children, forcing children to reevaluate their gender – are the tip of the iceberg.  The recommended teaching style is intrusive, heavy-handed, patronising or preachy.  The goal of the teaching programme is to invade children’s privacy, to make them expose themselves, and to feel competitive, uncomfortable, embarrassed, self-conscious, threatened, humiliated:

  • ‘Ask students to brainstorm all the things that make them happy’ (1/41)
  • ‘Ask the children how they are feeling today.’ (2/50)  (It is not part of New Zealand culture to ask just anybody how they are feeling – a question which demands a certain level of intimacy.  Otherwise, we ask, ‘how’s it going?’)
  • ‘write down a goal to work on to contribute to family relationships’ (1/59)
  • ‘ask the class to identify good listeners in the classroom’ (1/p. 16)
  • ‘What do you like about your name?’  (Some children do not like their names) 1/(p. 18)
  • ‘Explain that they are going to identify strengths in other members of the class. […] For example, “I think Marama is kind to other people because …”’ (1/p. 22)
  • ‘Create a compliments kete and encourage your students to write notes to their classmates telling them what they do well […] and share with the class at the end of the week.  If you notice that some students aren’t receiving compliments, you can write some for them to include in the kete.’ (1/p. 23).  This serves to reinforce the well-established, popular, outgoing and successful at the expensive of the new, the shy, the less successful socially, academically and sporting-wise.  (A good teacher would apply the alternative strategy of complimenting the more vulnerable members the class.)
  • ‘How am I the same, how am I different? […] Why is it OK to be different’ […] Have the students describe what makes them different. What special quality, skill or interest do they have that is different from their classmates’ (1/p. 24-25)
  • ‘Have students identify a part of their body that they like (2/66)
  • Have the students draw ‘something they are really good at doing‘ (rather than something they like doing) (2/32)
  • Children are asked to fill in a ‘pepeha’ template: ‘A pepeha is a way of introducing ourselves in Māori. A pepeha identifies who we are, where we’re
    from, and where we belong’ (threatening to children who know they’re adopted) (1/p. 21)

Sex Education as a tool for teaching Maori language

The Sexuality Education programme has been designed to serve concurrently as a Maori language teaching resource.  Children are frequently encouraged to use Maori instead of English, for example:

  • ‘You could encourage your students to use te reo Māori as they talk about their whānau’ (1/20)
  • ‘Encourage the use of te reo Māori vocabulary for feelings:
    harikoa – happy
    riri – angry
    hōhā – annoyed [etc]’ (1/48)
  • ‘The students should be encouraged to pronounce the Māori names for body parts’ (1/49)
  • ‘Students could practice te reo Māori phrases to describe how they are feeling’ (2/51)

Maori words and phrases are embedded throughout the text, and not always translated.

‘Discuss values and concepts for caring for others, such as wairua, whānau, hapū, iwi, whanaungatanga.  Encourage the students to consider and share examples of these values and concepts from their own lives, for example, kaumātua caring for their whakapapa, hapū and iwi; sisters and brothers caring for each other, older siblings caring for younger siblings, parents, aunties, and uncles caring for children and so on. […]

‘Harakeke is unique to Aotearoa New Zealand and is one of our oldest plant species. Harakeke has important historical and contemporary uses. Many of the whakataukī and waiata associated with harakeke, such as “Tiakina te pā harakeke” and Hutia te rito o te harakeke, express values that are important to Māori.

‘Talk with your school whānau group, kuia, or kaumātua about their kaupapa (protocols) around gathering and using harakeke. Make links between taking care of the harakeke and taking care of people in our classroom, school, and families.e harakeke and taking care of people in our classroom, school, and families.’

According to the Guide for Principals, Boards of Trustees and Teachers:

‘The majority of Māori students attend English-medium schools. Research indicates that Māori students can thrive when “being Māori” is affirmed by the school, Māori culture is valued, and teachers are supported to challenge their attitudes, skills, and practices in relation to Māori students (Tuuta et al, 2004; Bishop et al, 2003).  The revised guide aims to help schools to plan and deliver sexuality education and affirm the strengths and contributions of Māori students, whānau Māori, and Māori communities. The guide also recognises the diverse needs and strengths of students from Pākehā, Pasifika, Asian, and other communities within New Zealand.’

There are a number of issues associated with this policy:

  • Major questions of curriculum should not be taken lightly – who decided on this strategy?
  • In a case of mandated teaching οf Maori, is this the most effective, most empowering way to teach a second language?
  • A number of New Zealand school children have English as a second language – should they be forced to learn another language, especially in this inefficient manner?
  • Do Maori children want their language to be forever associated with the names for genitalia?  Is this another device to expose children to humiliation and bullying?
  • Is giving special emphasis to the ‘strengths and contributions’ of one minority culture at the expense of other minority cultures and the majority culture conducive to racial harmony?
  • Is the purpose of using Maori vocabulary not to teach the Maori language in a coherent fashion, but to artificially insert Maori vocabulary into New Zealand English?

Some Background

There have been protests about the direction of New Zealand’s sex education programme at least since 2015, but to no avail.  In 2015 a press release was issued by Family First New Zealand relating to concerns about the sex education programme in New Zealand schools. Concerns included:

  • Reports in 2011 revealed that children as young as 12 are being taught about oral sex and told it’s acceptable to play with a girl’s private parts as long as “she’s okay with it”.
  •  14-year-old girls were being taught how to put condoms on plastic penises,
  • One female teacher imitated the noises she made during orgasm to her class of 15-year-olds.
  • A mixed class of boys and girls were asked by the AIDS Foundation if they had masturbated lately and were given condoms and strawberry-flavoured lubricant.
  • The same class were also given a leaflet featuring graphic pictures, terms including “co*k” and “wa*k”, and advice on the best condoms.

Reference was made to a 2013 Family Planning conference in 2013 – one of the sessions was Health Promotion and Sexuality Education with the specific topic of ‘Let’s start at the beginning! Sexuality Education for Year 1-4 students’. This piece of research has proved very hard to locate, but the recommendations of the paper have been adopted.

The plan to sexualise small children goes back to the 1940s, when the Rockefeller Foundation funded paedophile Alfred  Kinsey.

‘In his 1948 book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” Kinsey naturally claimed proof that children are sexual from birth and unharmed by sex with adults. He even showed his “proof” on five tables timing the alleged “orgasms” from serial sexual abuse and rapes of children as young as 2 months old. (The babies and children screamed, fainted and/or convulsed during the abuse; Kinsey, an S&M bi-homosexual pedophile, called these reactions “orgasms.”)’ (‘Rockefeller’s Legacy Enabling Sexual Revolution’)

NZ Family Planning is affiliated to the the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation.  The Rockefeller Foundation also funds the Tavistock Institute, whose Gender Identity Development Service has been accused of fast-tracking children into changing gender.

The purpose of New Zealand’s sex education programme is to sexualise children, to damage them psychologically, to make them easier prey for child groomers and reduce their chances of building stable relationships and successful families in the future.  It does not merely seek to create tolerance of transgenderism, but to actively direct children towards transgenderism.

It is clear that the intentions of the resource are destructive – just as we do not give a paedophile the benefit of the doubt when s/he is with children, we should not be giving Family Planning any lee-way.  The Family Planning Clinic should play no role in our children’s upbringing.

 

See also:

30,000 Sign Petition to Stop New Zealander Schools Teaching Gender Diversity

‘Daniel Andrews’ Labor left government in Victoria [Australia] invokes neo-Marxist rhetoric to defend highly questionable school programs that encourage the sexualisation of children. […]

‘Like Safe Schools, the BRR program promotes a radical agenda divorced from its stated program objective. It promotes the sexualisation of children by inculcating techniques and beliefs centred on the premise that children are sexual. Instructors are encouraged to sexualise children, and children to sexualise themselves and their peers. They are asked to view highly sexualised personal ads and write their own, discuss transgenderism and anal sex. Program authors acknowledge that one exercise may cause “disassociation” in children.

‘Sexualising and inducing a dissociative state in children are methods of pedophilic predation. They are not methods of domestic violence prevention.’

The first three volumes of Navigating the Journey, years 1 to 6, are only available by purchase from Family Planning, but Years 7-8 is on-line.

 

 

Jacinda Ardern Creates a Totalitarian Regime on the Back of a Cold Virus

Barbara McKenzie

‘ the most dangerous bill that’s ever been placed in Parliament’, Brian Tamaki, Destiny Church
‘This Bill places unprecedented limits on rights and freedoms of association and movement‘, Nicola Willis, MP, speaking to the Bill.
‘This is a great failure of our democratic process. The new legislation [..] will result in sweeping police powers unseen in this country for many years’Paul Hunt, Chief Human Rights Commissioner
‘We are witnessing a totalitarian takeover of the world in real time, yet there are some people who still think this is about a virus‘, Tony Heller@Tony__Heller
‘This is a Bill that gives one person enormous power’, Simon O’Connor, MP, speaking to the Bill
‘Congratulations New Zealand. We are officially a police state’, Winston Smith@saltyreign

New Zealand will effectively be in a state of emergency for up to two Years

Under New Zealand law a state of emergency is something that must be reassessed week by week.  With the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 the government has created, in fact if not in name, a state of emergency that will last at least three months, with provision to be extended a number of times, up to a maximum period of two years (the original Bill specified a default period of two years).   Furthermore, Jacinda Ardern has already flagged that the country may return to the even more draconian restrictions of Level 3, entailing for example virtual house arrest for most of the population, if the number of cases (no matter how mild) rises again, see the video at bottom.

The original Bill specified a default period of two years, unless a conscious decision was made to shorten it through an Order in Council: this was only altered after amendments from the National and Act Parties.   Jacinda Ardern has already granted herself special powers with regard to immigration, to be in force for 12 months.

Jacinda Ardern has passed a bill that gives the government, the police and ‘authorised persons’ undreamed of powers to control the lives of New Zealand citizens, for up to two years.  All this is on the back of a disease that the New Zealand experience and a vast body of research show to be no different from any other seasonal virus, and milder than many.

‘The purpose of the Act is to support a public health response to COVID-19’

There is nothing in the Act that indicates why such a response is necessary – it is taken as read.

Bypassing due process

The government had seven weeks to prepare its measures for ‘coming out of the lockdown’.  However, it has continued the precedent it set with the gun legislation of choosing without justification to fast-track highly controversial legislation, with no select committee, and no consultation with the public.  Furthermore, no regulatory impact assessment has been carried out – the government has suspended regulatory impact assessments  for all ‘COVID-19 responses’  until 31 August 2020, by decree of Cabinet (not parliament).

The Act  gives the government extraordinary powers

The government can now legally make orders that limit freedom of association and of movement, require quarantining, require intrusive testing – even though there is no known reliable test for Covid-19 – and make decisions based on that unreliable testing.

An order may be made by the Minister or Director-General of Health to require a person to:

(i) stay in any specified place or refrain from going to any specified
place:
(ii) refrain from associating with specified persons:
(iii) stay physically distant from any persons in any specified way:
(iv) refrain from travelling to or from any specified area:
(v) refrain from carrying out specified activities (for example, business
activities involving close personal contact) or require specified
activities to be carried out only in any specified way or in
compliance with specified measures:
(vi) be isolated or quarantined in any specified place or in any specified
way:

(vii) refrain from participating in gatherings of any specified kind, in
any specified place, or in specified circumstances:
(viii) report for medical examination or testing in any specified way or
in any specified circumstances:
(ix) provide, in specified circumstances or in any specified way, any
information necessary for the purpose of contact tracing: (Section 11)

These powers also can be applied to ‘different classes of persons’ (section 12). An example of this would be permanently quarantining all those over 70 years of age ‘until a vaccine is available’, as mooted in the UK.

The Act can be easily amended to impose mandatory vaccination – Jacinda Ardern and her advisers constantly refers to a vaccine as the only solution to the ‘Covid crisis’. Coronavirus vaccines have been described as both  unnecessary and dangerous.  The vaccine against the so-called swine flu of 2009, led to severe neurological damage and lawsuits in the millions.  For this reason Bill Gates, who sponsors the pandemic project and has extensive vaccine interests, is demanding indemnity for any Covid19 vaccine.

The Act gives the police, health officers and ‘authorised persons’ extraordinary powers, including powers of entry

‘State-sanctioned vigilantes’

‘The Director-General may authorise a suitably qualified and trained person […] to carry out any functions and powers of an enforcement officer under this Act.’  In his speech to the Bill, Simon O’Connor MP referred to such authorised persons as ‘state-sanctioned vigilantes [..]. They will have the power, not only to watch and report on what you do, but to shut you down’.

Any enforcement officer can enter place or vehicle without a warrant, with the exception of private dwellings, if they have ‘reasonable grounds’

‘An enforcement officer [ie a police officer, an employee of the health department, or any authorised person] may enter, without a warrant, any land, building, craft,
vehicle, place, or thing if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person
is failing to comply with any aspect of a section 11 order.’

Police officers, but not other enforcement officers, can make a forced entry into private dwellings without a warrant (section 20).

‘(3) A constable may enter a private dwellinghouse without warrant only if they
have reasonable grounds to believe that people have gathered there in contravention
of a section 11 order and entry is necessary for the purpose of giving a
direction under section 21.
‘(4) A constable exercising a power of entry under this section may use reasonable
force in order to effect entry into or onto the land, building, craft, vehicle,
place, or thing if, following a request, a person present refuses entry or does
not allow entry within a reasonable time.’

Power to give directions to stop or carry out activity

‘An enforcement officer may direct a person to stop any activity that is contravening or likely to contravene the order or to take an action that ensures compliance with section 11’ (section 21)

Power to close roads and public places (section 22)

If a section 11 order provides, ‘a constable or an enforcement officer acting under the authority of the constable may totally or partially prohibit or restrict public access, with or without vehicles, to any road or public place in that area’.

‘Enforcement officers’ have the power to demand identifying information (section 23)

Non-compliance

Non-compliance renders the culprit liable to a fine or imprisonment, e.g.

‘A person commits an offence if the person intentionally fails to comply with a
section 11 order.
(2) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction
to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months; or
(b) a fine not exceeding $4,000.’

The government knows it’s a cold virus

Numerous eminent professors of virology, epidemiology, pulmonology etc have said from the beginning that this is just another seasonal virus; that the best strategy is to allow the healthy to develop natural immunity and protect the vulnerable – i.e. do what we’ve always done.  The response of Prof Alexander Kekulé, chair of Medical Microbiology and Virology of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, is typical – ‘Infect the young and protect others at risk’.

Assessments of the virus have continued to downgrade its lethality over the months as more information has come to light. A new antibody study with Danish blood donors shows a very low Covid19 lethality (IFR) of 0.08% for persons under 70 years of age: a  new antibody study from Iran also shows lethality of 0.08% to 0.12%.

The early conclusion that the virus attacks people who are both old and ill, and that children are immune still holds good – there has not been a single reported instance of a child under 10 transmitting the virus, even in contact tracing carried out by WHO.

The New Zealand government has made it very clear that it is aware of the true nature of Covid19.  At the regular press briefings we are told (repeatedly):

Ashley Bloomfield (Director-General of Health) ‘As we have seen around the world, Covid-19 CAN be a deadly disease – particularly for older people, and those with underlying pre-existing health issues.’ (Bloomfield’s emphasis)

Jacinda Ardern (Prime Minister): ‘our older NZers, and those with underlying health issues, are BY FAR at the most risk.  It is critical that we all stay at home to give our older NZers as much protection as we possibly can.’ […] (Ardern’s emphasis)

Caroline McElnay (Director of Public Health): ‘As we have said previously, this can be a very serious disease, particularly for elderly people and also for those with underlying health conditions’.

So no more than a seasonal flu, which can be dangerous for those who are highly immune-compromised, who should be protected.

Considerable license is applied when it comes to determining whether a death is from Covid19.  This report given by Ashley Bloomfield at a ‘Daily COVID-19 media conference’ is typical (4:00 mins):

‘Sadly today, I have another Covid-19 related [sic] death to report. […] The person who passed away […] had underlying health conditions and was considered a probable case of Covid-19 due to her clinical presentation and past exposure history, despite testing negative.

The New Zealand experience of Covid19 confirms the scientific assessment:  the average age of the deceased is 80; all  had serious underlying health issues; many had advanced Alzheimers.  No caregiver has died from Covid19, nor any international traveller.  (International flights from Auckland, for example, are more than half of what they were a year ago – a traveller on an international Air New Zealand flight has reported that no social distancing is applied at all.)

The Hamburg experience has been similar to that of New Zealand: again, the average age is 80, and the deceased had multiple comorbidities.  Klaus Püschel, head of forensic medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, and his team have been autopsying all the people who died in Hamburg in connection with the coronavirus. He has concluded that the hysteria over the coronavirus is ‘completely exaggerated’  as all fatalities he examined had serious previous illnesses which would have soon resulted in death with or without the virus.  There is no killer virus.’

It has been known for months that the sensational reports of mass numbers of deaths overseas have been grossly exaggerated. Administrations in countries such as Italy, the US, and the UK have had policies of declaring deaths to be Covid19 in case of any doubt – sometimes on the flimsiest basis.  Media reports have ignored local factors, such as Northern Italy’s high pollution rate (the highest in Europe), its problem with pulmonary disease, and its antibiotic resistance rate (again the highest in Europe) – data from the Italian authorities show that around 80% of the deceased were treated with antibiotics, indicating bacterial superinfections (the deaths would still be recorded as being due to coronavirus).

There is doubt whether anyone has died from Covid19.  Jacinda Ardern has declared what amounts to a two year state of emergency for something she knows to be nothing more than a seasonal virus.

The World Health Organisation is now hinting that Covid19 may not be eradicated, and that ‘countries may have to learn how to live with the virus even if a vaccine is developed’.   This will give Jacinda Ardern the justification, should she be re-elected, for continuing and further entrenching her totalitarian regime for as long as she remains in power.

See also:

Facts about Covid-19, which monitors and reports all new research and developments relating to the Covid19 project.

If You Want to Create a Totally False Panic About A Totally False Pandemic – Pick a Coronavirus

HR 6666: The Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act. Towards a Totalitarian State?

Faulty Coronavirus Kits Suspected as Goat and Fruit Test Positive in Tanzania

 

 

COVID-19 in NZ: Is the State of Emergency Legal?

On 23 March the NZ government declared a Level 3 State of Emergency, to be quickly upgraded on the 25 March to Level 4, which meant the suspension of civil liberties, and of virtually all social activity and all ‘non-essential’ commercial activity.  It is questionable whether the imposition of the lockdown can be legally justified, or its continuation.

How the government and its officers see the threat

At the regular press briefings we are told (repeatedly):

Ashley Bloomfield (Director-General of Health) ‘As we have seen around the world, Covid-19 CAN be a deadly disease – particularly for older people, and those with underlying pre-existing health issues.’ (Bloomfield’s emphasis)

Jacinda Ardern (Prime Minister): ‘our older NZers, and those with underlying health issues, are BY FAR at the most risk.’ […] (Ardern’s emphasis)

Caroline McElnay (Director of Public Health): ‘As we have said previously, this can be a very serious disease, particularly for elderly people and also for those with underlying health conditions’.

So we have been in lockdown, with enormous implications for people’s jobs, welfare and civil liberties, for something that ‘can be serious for older people, and those with underlying pre-existing health issues’.  In other words, for something which sounds  suspiciously like seasonal flu, and not necessarily a severe one.  The very frail have always been vulnerable both to seasonal viruses, or infections, or anything that taxes an already compromised immune system – there is no indication that we are dealing with anything different from other years.

Who is ‘dying from Covid-19’?

As at 6 May 2020, there have been 20 ‘Covid-19 related’ [sic] deaths in New Zealand.  The 20 deaths comprised:

  • 5 people in their 90s
  • 5 in their 80s
  • 7 in their 70s
  • 3 in their 60s

The average age of the diseased, then, is roughly 80 years.  14 were resident in care homes, 11 in the high-security dementia wing of the Rosewood Care Home who were transferred to Burwood Hospital in Christchurch. 

There are almost no cases where Covid-19 is the sole factor. With one exception, multiple underlying health issues were associated with all cases.  Covid-19 was at most only a contributing factor to their deaths, and in fact there remains a question whether Covid-19 played any part at all.  It is likely, moreover, that a traumatic move to strange surroundings accompanied by the cruel deprivation of emotional support from friends and family would have been a significant contributing factor in many cases.

The Director-General of Health, Dr Ashleigh Bloomfield, has made it clear in the Press Briefings that deaths are attributed to COVID-19 where there is any doubt.

This report given by Ashley Bloomfield at a ‘Daily COVID-19 media conference’ is typical (4:00 mins):

‘Sadly today, I have another Covid-19 related death to report. This is associated with the cluster at the Rosewood rest home and hospital. The person who passed away was a woman in her 60s; she had underlying health conditions and was considered a probable case of covid-19 due to her clinical presentation and past exposure history despite testing negative. […] a staff member was comforting her when she passed away.’ (My emphasis)

But if we hadn’t suspended civil liberties …

To date, there have been no deaths from care workers, or travellers from abroad  assumed to have infected the deceased, or their fellow travellers, or the crew of the Voyager of the Sea where Bob James is alleged to have contracted the disease, or from Marist College, where there is a ‘cluster’ of cases.  If Covid-19 is so dangerous, why not?

Oh yes, but overseas …

Numbers are hugely inflated in some countries by attributing, as in New Zealand, ALL deaths to COVID-19 where the patient tests positive or shows symptoms,  eg  the UK, the US.

The example of high mortality in countries like Italy is not what it seems:

  • A key study from Italy found that 99% of those who have died had other illnesses and almost half had three or more co-morbidities.
  • Northern Italy is the most polluted region of Europe, with high rates of pneumonia every year.
  • Italy has the highest antibiotic resistance in Europe. In fact, data from the Italian authorities show that around 80% of the deceased were treated with antibiotics, indicating bacterial superinfections (the deaths would still be recorded as being due to coronavirus).

A study in Nature Medicine comes to a similar conclusion even for the Chinese city of Wuhan. The initially significantly higher values for Wuhan were obtained because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not recorded.

The research

The New Zealand government is ignoring the countless virology and epidemiology specialists who have been saying that COVID-19 is no more than seasonal flu and the best course of action is to protect the vulnerable and let the healthy, especially children, acquire natural immunity, see Professor Alexander Kekulé , and Dr Knut Wittkowski.  Their view is born out by research that shows there has not been a single case of a child infecting an adult with COVID-19.

Epidemiological studies show that:

  • The virus is widespread but usually asymptomatic, ie generally not dangerous –50% to 80% of test-positive individuals remain symptom-free. Even among the 70 to 79 year old persons about 60% remain symptom-free, many more show only mild symptoms.
  • Lethality is far lower than previously claimed:

‘The lethality of covid19 (IFR) is between 0.1% and 0.36% (i.e. in the range of a severe influenza). In people over 70 years of age with no serious preconditions, the mortality rate is expected to be less than 1%. For people over 80 years of age, the mortality rate is between 3% and 15%, depending on whether deaths so far were mainly with or from by the disease. In contrast to influenza, child mortality is close to zero.’ (The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), University of Oxford, my emphasis)

The basis for the government’s lockdown decision

‘You are locked in your house right now because of some buffoon at Imperial College’, Mark Windows

The NZ government was influenced by the hysterical fear campaign conducted by the corporate media, in combination with alarmist projections from institutions such as Imperial College, London and the University of Otago Covid-19 Research Group, which have failed to stand up to either analysis or reality.   One analysis of the projections of Imperial College (which already had form for costly alarmism) concluded that they had exaggerated the risk by 131 times.  Otago University’s Covid-19 projections have likewise  been demolished , e.g by economist Ian Harrison, who specialises in risk modelling.

The government can also point to the World Health Organisation’s (rather slow) declaration of a pandemic on March 11, but the WHO has declared pandemics before without such drastic measures being imposed.

The Costs

‘[The lockdown measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […].  The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound.’ (Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, specialist in microbiology, emeritus professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.)

The costs are of course immeasurable, from the assault on normal business activity and the lives damaged by the consequent loss of employment, to the social costs of isolation,  the general breakdown to the health system, the dangerous undermining of civil liberties.  The long term economic consequences are unfathomable.  If we look at one easily understood example:

‘The money squandered on saving us from the common cold, optimistically estimated at $1 billion a day, has been [in the first three weeks of lockdown]:

– More than our entire health budget for the year
– 42 times what we spend on cancer every year
– Our entire education budget for 1.5 years.
– Roughly 10,500km worth of median barriers (Auckland to Wellington 16 times)
– 10 times the entire NZ Police’s budget (maintenance of law and order)
– 525 times what was allocated as a boost by the government to the Suicide Prevention (remembering suicide claimed 668 lives)
– Almost 15 brand new, modern hospitals’. (Alex Davis,
$21 billion: We Have Lost All Sense of Proportion With Covid-19′)

Well then, cui bono?

COVID-19 is a project of Bill Gates, who is the second biggest funder of the World Health Organisation after the United States, and generously funds the medical research institutes which are supporting the pandemic narrative. His dream for many years has been universal mandatory vaccination, and universal micro-chipping of humans.

The wealthy are making a killing out of crashing the global economy, and will be able to profitably fill the gap left by the destruction of small business; vaccine manufacturers are hoping for mandatory mass vaccination programmes with them having total indemnity; the manufactured crisis is being used to argue for increased powers to the United Nations.

Is the state of emergency legally justified?

COVID-19 was notified as a quarantinable disease, 11 March 2020

The Epidemic Preparedness Act at section 5, provides that:

With the agreement of the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare that he or she is satisfied that the effects of an outbreak of a stated quarantinable disease (within the meaning of the Health Act 1956) are likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand (or stated parts of New Zealand) significantly.

It is clear that the major disruption to government and business activity has been caused by the state of emergency.  However the Prime Minister has not applied Section (3) (c) which provides that she can lift the notification of a quarantinable disease at any time simply by a notice in the Gazette.

On 18 March 2020, Covid-19 was de-classified by the UK authorities, in the light of more information coming to hand. This meant that Covid19 was no longer regarded as a highly infectious disease.  The decision made no impact on subsequent actions by the UK and the NZ authorities.

The notification of Covid19 was followed by the Prime Minister’s declaration on 23 March of a ‘state of emergency’ under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (CDEM).

Under Section 66 of the CDEM, declaration of a national state of emergency requires a finding that:

(a) an emergency has occurred or may occur; and

(b) the emergency is, or is likely to be, of such extent, magnitude, or severity that the civil defence emergency management necessary or desirable in respect of it is, or is likely to be, beyond the resources of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups whose areas may be affected by the emergency.

The stated purpose of the COVID-19 declaration is “Because of the unprecedented nature of this global pandemic, and to ensure the government has all the powers it needs to slow the spread of COVID-19 and reduce its impact”.

There has been no evidence in New Zealand of an emergency of such extent, magnitude, or severity that it is beyond the capacity of NZ civil defence forces. There is no reason for civil defence emergency management groups to be involved in the response to the situation, let alone ‘beyond the resources’.  Furthermore, any stress on the health system has been caused solely by the lockdown.

Each such declaration automatically lapses after 7 days, indicating a clear intent that these civil defence emergency powers be short-lived and reserved for exceptional situations. The Prime Minister’s decisions to serially roll over the Covid-declaration week after week in the absence of an epidemic, is surely open to challenge.

The purpose of CDEM must be to:

(a) improve and promote the sustainable management of hazards (as that term is defined in this Act) in a way that contributes to the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being and safety of the public and also to the protection of property; and

(b) encourage and enable communities to achieve acceptable levels of risk (as that term is defined in this Act), including, without limitation:

This requires a balanced risk assessment, with consideration of social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being, public safety and protection of property. It required acceptance of some risk. (Sue Grey, ‘When the “Cure” is more disruptive than the Virus’)

There is no evidence whatsoever that the government has made any kind of risk assessment, balancing the thin evidence of Covid-19 threat against the undoubted damage to the economy, the health system, and human welfare, including the cruel treatment meted out to the very people the government claims to care about, those in care homes.

Neither the legislation, nor the threat presented by Covid-19 in New Zealand, appear to justify the draconian and immensely harmful measures taken by the government.

The government is undeterred: it is now expected that the state of emergency will continue in some form all year.  The New Zealand International Film Society, normally held around the country July-August, has been cancelled, to be replaced by an on-line version.  New Zealand’s biggest Agricultural Show, the Canterbury A & P Show, to be held in November, has been cancelled for first time since WWII.

Even more concerning, the NZ government is granting itself special powers for 12 months to deal with immigration issues arising out of the (manufactured) Covid-19 crisis.  In other words, the state of emergency could continue in some form for at least another year – is the idea to roll it over until a vaccine is developed?  And if so, will this vaccine be compulsory, or at least required in order to move freely and assemble?

There is uncertainty, therefore, about the implications for the general election to be held in September – if the election goes ahead, will meetings be held, or will campaigning be conducted on line?  This would prevent any physical leafletting of the audience by candidates or activists.

The way forward

Action against the state of emergency has been impossible: rights of assembly have been removed, and even leafletting problematic.  While there have been sizable demonstrations against the lockdowns in the US and in Europe, many New Zealanders seem happy to go along with whatever the government decides, believing implicitly that power ennobles and absolute power ennobles absolutely.  Sue Grey’s view, however, is that ‘New Zealanders are increasingly questioning our government decisions, and its single focus on a virus to the detriment of our other health considerations, our lifestyle, economy and freedoms’.

Legal Action against the state of emergency

While a first attempt to take legal action against the lockdown has failed, there is now a new challenge which alleges that Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the Director-General of Education, has used powers that he doesn’t actually have.  It is likely there will be other lawsuits.  Even if they were to succeed, however, enormous harm, much irreversible, will have been done.

See also:

Facts About Covid, a regularly updated compilation of research relating to the ‘Covid crisis’, by a Swiss doctor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NZ Police Portrayed as Gunslingers from the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Below is a tv commercial designed to promote the New Zealand Police as a force for good that is protecting the public by ‘shooting-down’ the COVID-19 virus.  The advertisement shows a scene based on the spaghetti western ‘The Good, The Bad and the Ugly’ with a New Zealand policeman depicted as a gunslinger, with the difference that, instead of a gun, he is  armed with a can of hand sanitiser, in order to shoot down the bad guy, ie. the corona virus.

 

 

 

 

The commercial is imbued with symbolism.

The New Zealand Police as gunslingers

Portraying the NZ police as gunslingers fighting COVID-19 is an interesting choice, given that 2019 was the year in which the NZ government both normalised armed police and fast-tracked gun-control legislation.  There have been ugly incidents of armed police intimidating families, and the police in New Zealand, as elsewhere, are seen less as servants of the people, who task is to make people feel safe, but rather as proxies of an increasingly authoritarian state.

New Zealand is being referred to more and more as a police state, with police being given draconian powers, simply on the back of this year’s seasonal flu.  University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis has warned the state of emergency has given police  ‘extreme and unprecedented powers’ to constrain basic freedoms of movement guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Humanity is a virus

The presentation of humanity itself as some kind of disease is common in the environmentalist/eugenicist movement.  UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: has said ‘We are a plague on the Earth.’  The most famous equation of  humanity with a virus comes from the film The Matrix:

‘I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure.’

The Importance of Being Plugged Into the Matrix

In the Matrix:

‘The world “seems” to still be normal, but in fact the bodies of humans are contained in chambers on large “farms” and their minds are linked into a worldwide virtual reality computer program called the Matrix. Nothing is real.  Of course, the other major theme of The Matrix is the concept of being plugged-in.’ (Review)

Group-think is a major feature of the ‘Covix crisis’.  Anyone who questions whether the year’s flu is really worse than other seasonal viruses is a conspiracy theorist and/or a psychopath.   From a former senior lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington (comment now deleted), after I presented a detailed argument against the lockdown on Neighbourly:

Monika

All dissent, no matter how objective, no matter how fact-based, is heresy.  Germany recently committed to a psychiatric institution a lawyer who spoke out against the lockdown, releasing her after a couple of days when there was a public outcry.  After the Christchurch shooting, the New Zealand government threatened to imprison for 10 years any one who possessed the supposedly livestreamed video.  Legal avenues for protest are restricted because of the lockdown (presumably even leafleting is outlawed) – it remains to be seen how far the New Zealand government is prepared to go to repress all dissent to its measures.