New Zealand’s National opposition has released its strategy ‘to tackle COVID-19, end lockdowns and reopen to the world’. The plan is based heavily on ‘elimination’, and emphasises vaccinating children, first from the age of 12, and then from the age of five, once approval has been fast tracked.
Vaccinate 12+ year olds in schools before the end of the year
Be ready to go immediately with 5-11-year-olds […]’
From the point of political expediency, the plan has some merit. Who in the media, or parliament, cares if it’s breathtakingly immoral?
The Clever Bit
Vaccinating children are an obvious solution if the only concern is to raise the vaccination statistics. Small children are an easy target, and can be cajoled or blackmailed into having the vaccine.
At the moment the vaccine is approved for 12 year olds, who do not need to have parental approval for ‘informed consent to vaccination’. Given the failure of the authorities to fully inform the public, it seems most unlikely that children will be properly informed. Nor is there any guarantee that this right to informed to consent will not be extended to five year olds. In any case pressure will be put on the children to convince parents to allow vaccination.
The novelty of the pandemic is wearing off, as the lockdowns bite into the economy and people’s livelihoods. Instead of wondering why we are sacrificing so much for a disease that on average kills people over the age of life expectancy, many New Zealanders are embracing the view that the vaccine is the magic bullet. Little dissent has been voiced over the child-abusive measures so far (e.g. masks, distancing, isolation); few are going to fuss over health risks to children from the Pfizer vaccine.
The Immoral Bit
The vaccine is well proven to be not indicated (and certainly not for children), not at all effective, and very unsafe.
The risk to children from the virus is statistically zero – for those under age 20 survivability is around 99.995%. Figures out of China as early as March last year, published in our leading newspapers, indicated that children were not getting covid. This has been subsequently confirmed by figures showing that the median age in most Western countries is higher than life expectancy. It is impossible for politicians not to know that covid does not present a quantifiable risk to children.
Furthermore children do not present a risk to adults. Again this was shown early on and has not been disproven. But even if children could infect adults, those they come in contact with, such as teachers and parents, are themselves not at great risk. No doubt those who are worried would be vaccinated, and it is possible to protect the elderly.
There is no possible justification in health terms for putting children at risk by forcing an experimental vaccine on them.
That the NZ government – and the opposition – have been talking about allowing vaccinated people to serve a reduced time in quarantine, but only if they come from safe countries, shows that they know full well well that the vaccine isn’t effective.
Israel has now declared that a person is considered unvaccinated unless they have had a third shot. There is no evidence whatsoever that constant boosters will provide immunity – if anything, the opposite.
A recurring theme throughout 2021, both in terms of reported adverse events and in academic research, has been the association between Covid-19 vaccines and blood clots leading to thrombosis. As the age of vaccination came down, it became clear that young people, especially young men, were particularly vulnerable. Just some of the clues:
In April leading Israeli health experts published a report into the Pfizer vaccine, which found that the side effects indicate damage to almost every system in the human body. They noted that a significant number of adverse reported are related, directly or indirectly, to coagulopathy (myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, disruption of blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism). There were a relatively high rate of cardiac-related injuries. 26% of all cardiac events occurred in young people below the age of 40, the most common diagnosis in these cases being myocarditis or pericarditis.The verdict was that ‘there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people’. (Report in Appendix)
The June 10th report of America’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that there were 216 reports of heart inflammation after the first doses of the Pfizer and Moderna shots, and 573 reports after the second shots.
In July, a Harvard Medical School publication acknowledged that: ‘Currently, about 1,000 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported after vaccination against COVID-19 with one of the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna. The cases have been most common in male adolescents and young adults, occurring most often after the second dose, and usually within several days of receiving the vaccine.
Top German pathologists who investigated 10 post-vaccination deaths found clumps of red blood cells (which ultimately cause clots and thrombosis), and giant cells that formed around trapped foreign bodies. In three cases out of the 10 they found rare autoimmune diseases.
In September Slovenia announced the suspension of Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine, while it investigates the death of a young woman who died after developing ‘blood clots and bleeding in the brain at the same time’ according to medics.
30 September: Health experts have been left baffled by a big rise in a common and potentially fatal type of heart attack in the west of Scotland. During the summer there was a 25 per cent rise in the number of people rushed to the Golden Jubilee National Hospital in Clydebank with partially blocked arteries cutting blood supply to the heart.
October: Sweden and Denmark have decided to halt vaccinations with Moderna’s Covid-19 shot for younger people – Sweden for under 30s, Denmark for under18s – citing new data on the increased risk of heart inflammation.
It should be noted that New Zealand’s vaccine provider of choice, Pfizer, has a dreadful record, having paid out billions for fraud and injury. A notable case was its Swine Flu vaccine, which it brought out after the WHO handily changed the definition of pandemic so that mass deaths weren’t necessary, and then designated Swine Flu thus (the new definition holds for the current pandemic). The vaccine was withdrawn after six months due to the deaths and injuries, and Pfizer has paid out millions in compensation.
NZ politicians have refused to take cognisance of Pfizer’s history, or past lack of success on the part of pharmaceutical companies in developing a safe coronavirus vaccine, nor quibbled about Jacinda Ardern granting Pfizer immunity from prosecution.
It is clear that the vaccine presents a far great danger to children than the virus itself – it is hard to believe that National MPs, or any New Zealand politicians, are unaware of this. Given the lack of a safe vaccine for Covid-19, vaccinating children can only be justified in terms of political expediency, and not at all on health grounds.
The ostensible purpose of the ‘Significant Natural Areas’ being established throughout New Zealand is to protect indigenous biodiversity of national importance on public and private land. However the policies being implemented go far beyond the requirements of the cited legislation, the Resource Management Act.
The controversy over Significant Natural Areas has largely focused on private property rights. However, following a public meeting held in Khandallah, Wellington, I was contacted by Peter Steel of the Thorndon Residents Association (TRA), who offered a new perspective – public parks.
The TRA Committee has been working to oppose an SNA designation on Queens Park, a space of lawns, exotic trees and native bush above the old suburb of Thorndon.
‘This area is part of the Town Belt and has been a colonial deciduous/exotic park for over 130 years. The Council currently proposed to include Queens Park with most of Te Ahumairangi Hill as an SNA which will require native vegetation in place of the existing planting.’ (Peter Green)
The Council appears to see no value in the special characteristics of the park as it is, a place of lawns, deciduous trees and flowering shrubs. While a lawn area has been excluded, the SNA takes in the bulk of exotic plantings.
‘[In July of this year] following the TRA approaching the Council to oppose the proposed SNA listing for Queens Park, a Council group accompanied by three of our Friends of Queens Park group did a walk-through assessment of Queens Park, to allow the Council team to decide whether to retain or drop Queens Park as an SNA. As I understand it, this walk through simply assessed whether the vegetation in the area was more or less than 50% native – the Council attendees said that if they assess the native vegetation as more than 50%, they intend that the SNA proposal should remain and be included in the draft District Plan. We haven’t yet heard the outcome of this.’
This suggests that any park that retains a certain percentage of native bush can be earmarked for rewilding of the whole, regardless of its original purpose. Overall biodiversity will be reduced.
‘ As far as I can see, none of the checks and follow up work that Wildlands recommended before determining SNA areas appears to have been done. It appears that the Council have simply taken all of the SNA proposals directly from these reports and included them in the Spatial Plan.’ (Peter Steel)
It is notable that while Boffa Miskell have assessed Te Ahumairangi Hill as a ‘special amenity landscape’, this does not include any of Queens Park (the two smaller areas to the east, separated from Te Ahumairangi Hill by Wadestown Road).
Other parks that combine open space with native bush are also affected: some examples are most of the Botanical Gardens, including the bush surrounding the very popular Dell, and the bush edging of Appelton Park.
Also designated as SNA is the whole of the reserve on Mount Kaukau, including the large bare area around the top. Down in the bush there is a sizeable clearing with a table and benches, and a separate seat towards the other end, with wonderful views over Wellington suburbs to the harbour. The clearing is popular but could do with more seating, as it is an obvious place for groups of walkers to have a rest stop.
However rather than improving seating, or eliminating the gorse and broom, the Council has already started to plant more natives of common species around the edges, presumably with a view to rewilding the whole area.
The lawn area is very obvious in aerial photographs, but this did not deter the Council.
Wellingtonians on the whole enjoy the different experience that walking through native bush gives. But when did we decide that lawns and specimen trees had to give way to ‘indigenous biodiversity’, even when this consists of fast-growing natives, which in the wrong place are normally considered weeds? Who decided that New Zealanders did not ever want parks with deciduous trees and flowering shrubs, or rather, that the needs of human beings had no value ?
There are major issues about overlaying the management of bush reserves, parks with open space, and private property, with a ‘one-size fits all’ designation under the RMA.
Councils or local bodies will have no control over decisions on the parks, any maintenance work will require higher level approvals and any changes will need to go through a comprehensive RMA planning process. The same will apply to volunteer community groups, who will be heavily constrained.
While existing paths through the bush can be maintained, no new paths can be created, except via a resource consent under the RMA. Likewise any enhancements such as benches or noticeboards along the paths will be problematic.
There are of course serious concerns about the implications for private property rights where relevant, but there is also the question of who is responsible for care or enhancement.
The totality of areas like Kaukau have been zoned for rewilding with no respect for present usage.
Expansion of popular parks or edging them with colourful shrubs will be virtually impossible.
There has been no call for the native plants edging spaces like the Dell or Appleton Park to be replaced by exotic shrubs. However if Wellington City Council achieves its vision of replacing our suburban gardens with high-rise apartments against a backdrop of monochrome green, with maybe the odd bed of native grasses, many will be desperate for the sight of some daffodils, a camellia or a flowering cherry.
At its 2021 Annual Conference in August, the NZ National Party voted to include as point two of its ‘Values’, ‘Recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand’.
The argument in favour is that this is no more than historical truth. However two objections can be made to this decision:
1) The Treaty as Partnership
The text of the Treaty of Waitangi, and subsequent interpretations by people like Apirana Ngata, make it clear that Maori chiefs were conceding sovereignty to the Crown:
‘The Chiefs assembled including Chiefs not present at the assembly hereby cede absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all of their lands’ (see the Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata, ‘The Treaty of Waitangi: an Explanation’, 1922)
In recent years, however, the Treaty of Waitangi has been reinterpreted as meaning that those chiefs entered into (equal) partnership with the Crown. From the new school History curriculum:
‘It is clear that Maori did not cede their mana to the Crown, and that they signed in the belief that it would give them power to govern in partnership with the Governor’ (See The Big Lie)
Claims by Maori elites for special rights, even inequitable power-sharing, on the basis of this ‘partnership’ model have become increasingly strident. This year Wellington City Council, which already has two self-identifying Maori councillors out of its 14, agreed to invite two iwi representatives on full salary and with full voting rights, citing the Treaty. A few weeks later, the Council (including two National members) voted overwhelmingly to establish a Maori Ward, again citing the treaty, once the government removed the Electoral Act provision for binding polls.
‘If we are honouring Te Tiriti, we are looking at a co-governance structure and that is 50/50 representation’ Teri O’Neil, Councillor, Wellington City Council, video submission, 19:45 – 25:38
Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University, refutes the existence of a Treaty partnership and outlines the strategy being used by the Maori elite to gain control of the country, pointing out that the extremists behind this power grab are relatively small in number and hardly representative:
‘The exclusive biculturalists driving the separatist agenda are actually a rather small group of individuals, numbering only in the hundreds. They are ethnically diverse and include iwi-Maori leaders, intellectuals, lobbyists, academics, activists, lawyers, officials, media figures, and politicians. Tight self-referential networks, strong personal relationships, and a willingness to play the long game have led to their remarkable success. These are all features common to those who lead revolutionary change.’ (The Road to He Puapua – Is there really a Treaty partnership?)
In including a reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in its constitution, the National Party could have taken the opportunity to explain what it means by ‘the Treaty’, but has chosen to leave it to politicians to interpret as they will.
2) The timing – He Puapua
‘He PuaPua: the Report of the Working Group on a Plan to Realise the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in Aotearoa/New Zealand’, was completed in 2019 but kept secret until released to the public this year after a freedom of information request from ex-MP Muriel Newman (ACT).
The He PuaPua report is essentially a road map for co-governance with iwi, ie replacing Western democracy with tribal rule – by 2040.
‘Like a runaway train, the pace of change of this separatist takeover of our culture and institutions, is escalating to new heights. Everything from crushing local government democracy, to changing the country’s name to ‘Aotearoa’, to introducing a separate Maori health authority – with the power of veto over all health decisions – is set out in He Puapua.’ (Muriel Newman, He Puapua)
The report was attacked vigorously in the media by both ACT and National. While Labour insisted that the report was not government policy, National’s leader Judith Collins has pointed out that many of the provisions have already been implemented. So why did National chose this particular year to include a reference to the Treaty in its list of essential values?
National, Three Waters and Taumata Arowai
NZ’s Labour/Green government has introduced a proposal that the control of water management pass from local bodies to four new authorities, know as the Three Waters reforms, 50:50 co-governed by iwi. The proposal has been described as He Puapua in action:
‘Minister Mahuta’s plan will result in freshwater, stormwater and wastewater assets and infrastructure owned and controlled by the country’s 67 local authorities – and paid for by generations of ratepayers – being transferred to four new regional water agencies 50:50 co-governed by iwi. Although local authorities will provide all of the assets, they will be given only 50 percent of the control. The other 50 percent will be given to local iwi.
‘Not only will councils effectively have control of their assets cut in half, Cabinet papers reveal an extraordinary requirement: all decisions undertaken by these new agencies “will require a super majority decision of 75 per cent”. That means no decisions can be made without the approval of iwi. In effect, iwi will have a veto right and be in control of all New Zealand water services decision-making.’
The National opposition’s shadow minister for local government, Chris Luxon, has just published an open letter to the government (see Appendix), criticising the project for the following reasons:
The touted scale benefits as well as the financial assumptions and cost savings have not been properly explained
Ratepayers may end up cross-subsidising neighbouring communities
They will remove local control from communities: ‘We review the entity model as a continuation of the Labour Governemments/
Nowhere does Luxon address the transfer of power to Maori elites. Rather, the letter indicates that National is throwing its full support behind the new water authority in charge of the reforms.
2. We fully support Taumata Arowai, the new water regulator. New Zealand has never had a body to both set and – importantly – enforce drinking water standards. We believe this will be a game-changer and a very important organisation going forward
Luxon is thereby implying support for the model of equal partnership with iwi. Taumata Arowai’s web page spells out the intention to ‘operate from a ‘te ao Maori perspective’ and its commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, inevitably in the sense of ‘partnership.
Taumata Arowai will operate from a te ao Māori perspective aspiring to higher outcomes for wai and tangata in Aotearoa. We will work in partnership across Aotearoa, taking our lead from Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to regulate and influence the water services sector to improve outcomes and reflect on the importance and interconnectivity of the health of tangata and of wai.
‘The National Party stands for equal citizenship for all. We must be one people underneath the law despite all of our diversity. We will not support a system of co-governance that undermines our democracy and treats people differently based on ethnicity.’
The mixed messages could come from a reluctance to grasp the issue of governance, thereby bringing down on National the full force of the government-funded mainstream media media. However there are real signs that important forces within the National Party support the progression from a Western democracy to tribal rule. The Party’s position needs to be clarified, and soon.
John Scarry, BE (Hons), ME, is a New Zealand structural engineer. This is a letter he sent to New Zealand Members of Parliament on 20 July 2021. So far he has received no reply, aside from a message from the office of Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson, which said that because it fell into the portfolio of Minister of Health Chris Hipkins, they were forwarding the e-mail to Hipkins’ office.
Dear Member of Parliament,
1. The irrefutable facts are that the risk of death and serious injury from COVID-19 vaccines and the ongoing irrational response to COVID-19 are far worse than the illness itself. The vaccinations must stop now, or horrific more harm will be done.
This is especially so for people under 70 who do not have serious pre-existing conditions, and most especially for young people and children.
Last week in the US, according to the government run Centre for Disease Control (CDC), more people died from the COVID vaccines than from COVID itself. Enough said – the vaccinations must stop immediately.
These vaccines have not been tested, and the only available credible information regarding them is that they must not be administered – the real and potential risks outweigh any possible good.
These vaccines have not been tested, and the only available credible information regarding them is that they must not be administered – the real and potential risks outweigh any possible good.
Please read the accompanying letter to the New South Wales Minister for Health for information additional to that contained in this e-mail, and for detailed references. [Unable to link, ed.]
2. As of this week, the official US CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) stated that 9125 people in the US had died from the COVID-19 vaccines. This is after about five months of widespread vaccination. On a pro-rata population basis, this means that in the first five months of widespread vaccination in NZ, 140 people can be expected to die from the COVID-19 vaccine, over 5 times the official number of deaths from COVID-19. On that basis alone, the vaccinations must stop, now.
3. The VAERS scheme is known to significantly under-record the actual number of deaths from a vaccine, and the actual number of COVID-19 vaccine induced US deaths is likely over 90,000 so far. In addition, there have been hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions, many very serious, including a very high rate of spontaneous abortion in pregnant women injected within the first tri-mester. The New England Journal of Medicine has just published the results of a study into the COVID-19 vaccination of pregnant women. Of 127 women who were vaccinated in the first trimester or the early part of the second trimester, 104 suffered spontaneous abortions before the pregnancy reached the 20 week mark. That is an 82% spontaneous abortion rate. The vaccinations must stop now, and all orders and pressure and coercion to force people to get vaccinated must stop now.
In Europe, the official COVID-19 vaccine figures are 10,784 deaths and 1,353,292 injuries, many serious, to 19 June 2021. [As of 3 July 2021, these totals appear to have risen to 17,503 deaths and 1,687,527 injuries].
Ongoing vaccination cannot be justified on any scientific or humanitarian ground, in any country.
4. The figure below shows the annual number of deaths in the US caused by all vaccines according to VAERS. It can be seen that deaths so far this year from the COVID-19 vaccines exceed by far the total number of deaths from all other vaccines combined over the last 31 years.
Previously, vaccines have been withdrawn once 50 deaths were recorded by VAERS. Why have the COVID-19 vaccines not been withdrawn, given that they have killed nearly 10,000 people in the US so far, and given that the risk of death from COVID-19 in healthy people is very, very low, and given that there are excellent and effective therapeutics available?
Note that, as explained below, the worst effects from the COVID-19 vaccines will take several months if not up to 2 years to develop in most people, so the problem with the vaccines is much worse than the already appalling situation shown in this figure.
5. Why have the Prime Minister, Mr Hipkins and, for National, Mr Bishop, not been telling the public of the deaths and severe adverse reactions the vaccines have been proven to cause already? Why hasn’t the ‘mainstream’ news media?
6. Despite the official silence, secrecy and suppression, some estimates already put the COVID-19 vaccine death toll in NZ at greater than the (inflated) official COVID-19 death toll of 26. Given that excellent effective therapeutics are available, the vaccinations must stop now.
7. As a result of e-mails released under a Freedom of Information Act request, it has been proven beyond all doubt that COVID-19 was genetically engineered in the Wuhan Lab, part-funded by money directed there for illegal gain of function research by Anthony Fauci.
Anthony Fauci has therefore committed crimes against humanity, on multiple levels. Why has the NZ Government and Opposition not demanded his immediate imprisonment and trial for these crimes? Not only does he lie all the time, he changes his lies minute by minute. Why are his demands for masking and now forced injection with lethal vaccines given any credibility? Why is not getting shot up with a dangerous ‘vaccine’ being treated as a crime, yet Fauci is treated as an authority who must be obeyed?
What sanctions do the Government and Opposition propose to demand against Communist China, and what reparations will be demanded, given Communist China’s clear crimes against humanity in regard to the creation and release of this (admittedly rather mild) bio-weapon?
8. Despite appalling mis-management, deliberate infection of the elderly in many US states, numerous ‘false positives’ and the suppression of effective therapeutics, COVID-19 has been proven to be, overall, no worse than seasonal flu.
Even with the deliberate infection of elderly people in US nursing homes, the suppression of effective therapeutics, appalling forced ventilation ‘treatments’, the classification of any flu or pneumonia case as COVID-19, numerous false positives from PCR tests run at 40 cycles, and the death of any person even suspected of recently having had COVID-19 as being recorded as a ‘COVID death’, the total true global infection fatality rate (IFR) is now estimated to be 0.15%. For people under 70 the IFR is 0.05% and for younger people, the IFR is even tinier. The overwhelming majority of the population, especially those who are under 70, are at virtually no risk of death or even serious illness from COVID-19, unless the person has serious pre-existing comorbidities, especially obesity, severe respiratory illness or heart disease. Many people who are truly infected with COVID-19 don’t even know it, and develop no symptoms. In other words, except for the very old, a person has to be very ill already for COVID-19 to be a danger, and that is allowing for the continued suppression of very effective therapeutics.
COVID-19 has a steep age gradient in mortality, and children and teenagers are virtually free of risk – seasonal flu is far more of a risk to them. Of the very small number of children and teenagers who are known to have died from COVID-19, nearly all of them had serious pre-existing comorbidities.
Instead of locking down these young people, making them wear disease-creating masks, and subjecting them to mental torture, they should have been and should be encouraged and allowed to develop natural immunity, which will be a non-dangerous, real, effective and long-lasting immunity against COVID-19 and its inevitable (milder) variants.
Given the dangers embodied in the COVID-19 vaccines, any vaccination, forced or unforced, of young people will be a crime. On the incontrovertible evidence that is currently available, the COVID-19 vaccines are and will cause orders of magnitude more damage to young people than COVID-19 could possibly ever do. And that does not even consider the long term effects of these vaccines.
9. If no one had ever mentioned COVID-19, the worst anyone would have thought was that 2020 was a bad year for flu, with at most, a small rise in the number of deaths from flu and pneumonia. Deaths due to pneumonia and flu have disappeared, to be re-labelled “COVID deaths”.
COVID-19 is the first ‘pandemic’ in history that has lowered the death rate and increased life expectancy.
In the US, once the lockdown-induced increase in suicide and drug overdoses, and the increased murder rate due to ‘defund the police’ efforts are allowed for, the death toll in 2020 was less than in 2019.
In most countries, the average age of people officially dying of COVID-19 is higher than the life expectancy prior to the release/escape from Wuhan. In other words, it is the very old and sick who are most at risk.
10. Many competent experienced doctors quickly tried and identified very successful and safe therapeutic regimes for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.
These regimes used a combination of widely used, well known, safe and cheap drugs. These regimes include:
Ivermectin, or hydroxychloroquine plus zinc; plus
A corticosteroid such as Prednisone; plus
(The Lancet has retracted their much publicised ‘study’ that condemned HCQ as dangerous and ineffective.)
The anti-coagulants are required to deal with the micro-blood clots that form in the lungs, an injury that the ventilators made worse, not better.
This is the first time in history that experienced competent physicians were actively subverted and obstructed in their efforts to develop treatment regimes for a new illness.
This is the first time in history that drugs with a long history of safe use were suppressed or banned by the authorities, and their proponents ridiculed, censored and disciplined.
Not because the drugs were ineffective or dangerous, but because the drugs were safe and very effective, provided the patient was treated early enough. Can the Prime Minister, Mr Hipkins and Mr Bishop please explain the rationale for this criminal suppression, and why they have not acted to stop it?
Clearly, public health is subordinate to a dangerous vaccine agenda, and it was always going to be.
11. The 2002-2004 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak was caused by the SARS-CoV-1 corona virus. SARS had a case fatality rate of between 9.5% to 11%, which is well over 60 times that of COVID-19.
Attempts to develop vaccines for SARS-CoV-1 had to be abandoned because all of the test animals died. Most did not die immediately, but several months later (equivalent to about 2 years in human terms).
The test animals often died from cytokine storms (hypercytokinemia), in which the (vaccine affected) immune system causes an uncontrolled and excessive release of pro-inflammatory signalling molecules called cytokines. When suddenly released in large quantities, cytokines cause multisystem organ failure and death.
The SARS-CoV-1 vaccine attempts were halted because the resulting vaccines were lethal to the test animals. Not always immediately, but (in human terms), always within two years of the vaccination.
The genetically engineered (mild) bioweapon COVID-19 is also known as SARS-CoV-2. Note the name.
After all SARS-CoV-1 vaccine research had to be abandoned because the vaccines killed all of the test animals within the human equivalent of two years, why are similar SARS-CoV-2 vaccines now being effectively mandated, with ‘promises’ to track down the unvaccinated?
When the vaccinated are exposed to another corona virus infection, the cytokine storm hits.
12. Numerous world leading doctors, virologists and scientists in related fields have spoken out and against the COVID-19 vaccines, and demanded that the vaccinations be stopped, or at the very least restricted to only the most vulnerable.
Luc Montagnier is a world leading virologist who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2008 for being a co-discoverer of the HIV virus.
Montagnier has stated categorically that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are insanity. He has also identified protein sequences similar to brain prion disease in the vaccines.
13. Already, the lethality of the COVID-19 vaccines has become undeniable, and the vaccine death and injury toll has already proven to be far too high to justify any more vaccinations.
The ‘spike protein’ is found on the surface of the genetically engineered and released COVID-19 ‘virus’. The mRNA vaccines have a knowingly dangerous mechanism of action. They permanently alter the person’s DNA, and cause the body to make an uncontrolled quantity of pathogenic spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
This production of spike protein within the person’s body has already been clearly demonstrated to injure vital organs such as the brain, heart, lungs and blood vessels. Because the vaccines infect cells within these organs, the generation of spike protein within the heart and brain cells in particular causes the body’s immune system to attack these organs.
Women’s ovaries and men’s testes are particularly prone to attack and permanent damage – an involuntary sterilisation in fact. Why is it that children and young people must be vaccinated, despite them being at minimal risk of serious injury from COVID-19?
Vaccinated young people, especially teenage boys, are suffering from myocarditis (heart inflammation) at rates up to 25 times the normal. This inflammation does not represent a short term problem – it will cause ongoing heart problems.
The COVID-19 vaccines are causing horrific blood clotting problems. Healthy teenage athletes in the US are suffering multiple blot clots in the brain soon after being vaccinated.
Some vaccine victims have had massive bleeding or clotting in the brain, killing them. The treating physicians have stated that they have never seen damage like this before.
14. By the Prime Minister’s own public admissions in television interviews, the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent a vaccinated person contracting COVID-19, and they do not prevent a vaccinated person from infecting others with COVID-19! Enough said – the vaccines are, at best, worthless, and any risk they pose, no matter how small, cannot be justified.
The Prime Minister qualified her admission by claiming that, although the vaccines do not prevent infection and spread, they reduce the severity of the effects of the infection.
Given that there are very effective, cheap and safe therapeutics, and that so many infected people don’t even know they have COVID-19, the fact that the COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection and do not prevent spread means they are at best useless, and their use must stop immediately, because the risks are near infinitely greater than any benefits.
15. Lockdowns don’t work in preventing spread and infection, unless one is dealing with a disease as lethal and quick-acting as Ebola. In fact, they make matters worse, by preventing the rapid widespread development of natural immunity. Sweden went for natural immunity over lockdowns, and has reaped the benefits.
Remember when we in the western democracies were told the COVID-19 restrictions were just for two weeks, to ‘flatten the curve’ for hospital admissions. Now we are told that restrictions will be permanent, and every one must be vaccinated, and given booster shots in perpetuity. What we are told by ‘the authorities’ is wrong, and the best doctors in the world are saying ‘the authorities’ are wrong
The scientific evidence is clear – masks do not prevent transmission of COVID-19, and the masks are causing massive psychological and long-term physical health problems.
Finance director for the creation of this illegal gain-of-function virus, Fauci, said initially that masks don’t work, then said that we must never shake hands again, and then said that double masks plus eye goggles are essential protection, but then said it’s all right to hook up on Tinder to have sex with a stranger, and now, when he should be in prison, he is pushing for mandatory vaccination (despite the staggering vaccine death toll and injuries) plus mask wearing, and says that anyone who questions him is questioning science. He is an affront to science and an affront to humanity.
16. Clearly, the irrational official propaganda campaigns regarding COVID-19, which have continued unabated more than 15 months after the real facts and the real science put a lie to the panic, have caused widespread irrational fear and behaviour in the community.
People who wear masks while driving alone in their own cars are clearly disturbed. What they should be concerned about are the diseases they are prone to due to the oxygen deprivation and bacterial and fungal growths that mask wearing entails.
Having what should be mentally and physically healthy young men and women walk alone along a street with a mask on is insane.
17. Many if not most ‘cases’ of COVID-19 are false positives, because the (qualitative only) PCR tests are run at far too many cycles to produce realistic qualitative results.
If there are new cases of COVID-19 (real or false positive), that is irrelevant, and there is absolutely no scientifically justifiable reason to impose restrictions as a result.
Given that in most people, the infection produces no symptoms or mild effects, and given that there are excellent safe affordable and very effective therapeutics available, especially those based on Ivermectin, then the only required response to new cases is to treat the people who are ill, and especially those people who are morbidly obese or who have significant underlying conditions.
The current lockdown in NSW is based on the fact that of those people tested, 1 in 35,700 was seriously ill (and probably because of significant pre-existing conditions). To lock down a state in perpetuity and enforce insane mask wearing and other requirements, based on a tiny fraction of the population being infected, and of that tiny fraction, only 1 in 35,700 being seriously ill, is the very definition of insanity. The people currently in charge of NSW are, at best, deranged.
18. Very many of the new COVID-19 cases around the world are actually caused by the mRNA vaccines. These vaccines are designed and intended to turn the victim’s body into a COVID-19 spike protein producing factory, in other words, a COVID-19 producing factory. Those spike proteins then get spread to other people.
The (still manageable) death toll in India spiked only after mass vaccinations started, because it was the vaccines that were causing the new COVID-19 cases, and it was most likely the vaccine induced hyper-allergic responses that were causing the deaths.
In contrast, Mexico has significantly reduced COVID-19 related deaths, through the widespread use of Ivermectin as a treatment. With Ivermectin and the other safe and effective therapeutics, no vaccinations would be required, even if the vaccines were safe (they are not) and even if the vaccines were effective at preventing infection and spread (they are not, and even the Prime Minister admits that).
The vaccinations must stop immediately, a rational response based on the real risk must be finally implemented, the scare must stop, and the effective therapeutics must be used, and the public must be told these scientific facts, not subject to the political scare.
19. The Government and Air New Zealand have co-operated to create the most dangerous possible flying experience in the presence of COVID-19. Planes do have or soon will have many vaccinated crew and passengers on board, all of them shedding COVID-19 spike proteins to infect the sensible unvaccinated crew members and passengers, while vaccinated pilots in the cockpit are at risk of vaccine induced strokes or other sudden injury, with everyone at risk of getting dangerously sick from the masks they are forced to wear. Immediately, ‘safe flights’ must be instigated, in which only unvaccinated pilots, cabin crew and passengers are allowed on board, with no masks to be worn, with the planes serviced by unvaccinated ground crew, to produce the safest flying environment, both physically and mentally.
A flying environment free of COVID-19 spike protein shedding, mask related diseases, hysteria and paranoia.
Vaccination of the remaining sensible pilots and cabin crew must be prevented immediately.
20. New COVID-19 variants are irrelevant, and they represent a significant increase in risk only to the already vaccinated. All corona viruses become more contagious but less dangerous as they mutate – they want to be in as many hosts as possible, and they can’t do that if they are too virulent.
The Delta variant represents a reduction in the already small risk of serious injury and death to otherwise healthy people, compared to the Alpha variant, except for those who have already been vaccinated. The vaccinated are between 4 and 10 times more likely to die or be hospitalised from the Delta variant than the unvaccinated. That is the science and those are the facts. The ‘Delta scaremongering’ must stop.
21. If the apparent ‘COVID-19’ death toll starts to rise, it will not be because of the virus itself, but because of the vaccinations, which generate the spike proteins as well as cause the injuries resulting in death. A rising death toll will not require more vaccinations. Rather, it will require the vaccinations to stop because it will be the vaccinations that are causing the increased death toll.
22. Corona viruses are very common, and cause about 20% of colds. Once they are out in the general population, they cannot be eliminated. Attempts to eliminate COVID-19, especially through never ending alerts, lockdowns and restrictions cannot be justified in any way whatsoever – the science and known facts prove this to a certainty.
Given the very low infection fatality rate for COVID-19, the known at-risk groups, and the availability of excellent affordable therapeutics, the tracking, the lockdowns, the alert levels, the masks, the scares, the social distancing, the vaccinations, the propaganda must all stop.
Even with all of the false positives, the false attributions of death, the counter-productive government actions and the suppression of effective therapeutics, the COVID-19 death toll in countries of our type has been no worse or little worse than that caused by seasonal flu.
The only scientifically justifiable approach, consistent with our constitutional arrangements, rights and freedoms, is to get those who are ill to voluntarily self-isolate as they should with a cold or the flu, and for those who are truly sick with COVID-19 to be treated with the excellent available therapeutics.
COVID-19 is essentially a(genetically engineered)cold virus, the effects of which can be treated successfully if need be, a virus that has already proven to be little or no worse than seasonal flu. The utterly arbitrary and irrational repressive official response must stop.
The ongoing state of emergency is unlawful, because it is based on now provable lies. The curtailment of our centuries old rights and freedoms must stop. Why do National and Act MPs sit idly by, and allow this unjustifiable suppression of our basic human rights to continue, given the obvious and proven facts regarding the low risk of death or serious injury from COVID-19 itself for the vast majority of the population?
23. If vaccines work, then the vaccinated will be safe, and the unvaccinated cannot harm the vaccinated. The unvaccinated cannot overwhelm the health system, because only certain specific groups are at risk, and they can be quickly and effectively treated with safe, reliable therapeutics. Therefore, there is no medical, scientific, economic, moral or legal reason for those who do not want to be vaccinated with these dangerous vaccines to be pressured, coerced or forced to be vaccinated.
24. In addition to the children, the young, and the fit and healthy older people who are at near zero risk of dangerous harm from COVID-19, the people who have already been exposed to COVID-19 and who have developed natural immunity not only do not have to be vaccinated, they should not be vaccinated. Their natural immunity is far stronger and reliable than any vaccine, and it is in general not wise to give a vaccine to a person with natural immunity. For example, you do not give a smallpox vaccine to a dairy farmer who has had cowpox. The reaction is likely to be extremely bad, if not fatal.
25. This is the first time in history that during a ‘pandemic’, it was the healthy population that had to be quarantined. Why?
This is the first time in history that proven effective therapeutics have been suppressed. Why?
26. The three fundamental principles of medicine and medical science are:
(i) Doctors must do no harm.
(ii) People have a right to informed consent.
(iii) People have a right to decline a medical treatment.
Except for forced sterilisation under the ‘progressive’ eugenics agenda and the Nazi regime, and the use of medical and psychiatric torture in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Communist China and other ‘progressive’ communist eutopias, the COVID-19 hysteria and the COVID-19 vaccinations represent the first time in modern history that these fundamental medical principles have been violated. Why have they been violated, when the risk of death or serious injury from COVID-19 is very, very small, except for a small percentage of the population with readily identifiable pre-existing comorbidities?
27. The vaccines are far worse than the COVID-19 itself, and for young people and children the vaccines pose the only real risk. An horrific risk.
The vaccines don’t prevent infection, they don’t prevent spread, and they cause terrible side effects and death at unacceptable and increasing levels.
To promote, then pressure, then demand vaccination with such toxic and lethal vaccines, for a virus with a real death toll little worse than yearly influenza, is completely unjustifiable and unlawful.
If the intent is to protect people and their health, the established science demands that the COVID-19 vaccinations must stop now, never to be resumed.
28. As I am just completing this e-mail, I learn that 5 Texan Democrats who were in Washington DC, in part to meet the Vice-President, came down with COVID-19 despite them being fully vaccinated!
And I learn that the UK’s Chief Science Advisor, Sir Patrick Vallance, just publicly stated that 60% (later downrated to 40%) of recent UK COVID-19 hospital admissions were for people who were fully vaccinated.
In the name of saving from extinction the Maori language (te reo Maori or simply te reo), New Zealand authorities have embarked on a unique project, breathtaking in its scope and ambition: to demote, hybridise or replace NZ English, the first language of the vast majority of the country, as best they can.
New Zealanders are being led to believe that only way to revitalise the one language is via a full-frontal assault on the other.
In 2019, following the passing of the Maori Language Act of 2016, the Maori Language Commission produced the Maihi Karuna (The Crown Strategy for Maori Language Revitalisation 2019-2023). The purpose of the Strategy is to ‘protect and promote the Maori language’. However the text boasts of a ‘bold vision […] different from others that have come before it’. There are three ‘audacious goals’, the first of which is that people actually have to embrace the project with enthusiasm (or else?).
‘By 2040, 85 per cent of New Zealanders (or more) will value te reo Māori as a key element of national identity’
‘By 2040, one million New Zealanders (or more) will have the ability and confidence to talk about at least basic things in te reo Māori’
By 2040, 150,000 Māori aged 15 and over will use te reo Māori as much as English
The idea, apparently, is to create a bilingual country.
‘when you travel internationally, you realise how common, and normal multi-lingual communities are. And if you are like me, you think how awesome it would be if more people spoke te reo Māori in Aotearoa and we were a truly bilingual country. (Nanaia Mahuta, p.5)
But not as other countries know the term, ie providing texts, signage and education opportunities in more than one language. The aim is to impose Te Reo on the whole populace, willy-nilly.
‘Kia māhorahora te reo – Every day, by everyone, every way, everywhere […] te reo Māori is a normal part of daily life for wider Aotearoa New Zealand where te reo is used by everyone, every day, every way and everywhere.’
It will not be possible to work in the broader public service, consisting of around 2,900 organisations and employing 404,000 people, without being able to speak Maori.
‘In order for the Crown to recognise the value of the Māori language, and to deliver quality services to Māori communities, it needs to ensure the public sector can “speak’”the language itself. By doing so, it will have both a direct and indirect impact on language revitalisation. .
The strategies for achieving the goals include:
Insisting on ‘correct’ pronunciation of words of Maori derivation, while assuming that words from English should be adapted to Maori phonology and spelling;
Replacement: replacing English words with Maori words which are not usual in the context; dotting texts with terms that are completely unknown to non-speakers of Maori;
Insisting that all naming be in Maori, whether it be urban spaces, libraries or policies;
Consciously using government texts on unrelated matters as a tool for language instruction
Bribing the mainstream media to apply the above strategies.
Arguably the process of conscious Te Reofication started in 1979 when Victoria University linguistics lecturer Harry Orsman published his Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary. There is a time-honoured practice of adapting foreign borrowings to the phonology, cadences, spelling of the receiving language: everything from sine die to champagne to the numerous examples from English borrowed into Maori. However Orsman chose to cross the line from descriptive to prescriptive linguistics when he decided that the original Maori pronunciation (to the extent that it is agreed) should be preferred to common Kiwi usage. New Zealanders who had never known any pronunciation for the kakapo bird other than /kakəˌpoʊ/ (kackerpoe), found that the ‘real’ New Zealand pronunciation was /ka:ka:pɔ:/ (kahkahpaw). In his note on Maori words and pronunciation, Orsman argued disingenuously that:
‘[…] the trend in New Zealander is towards the use of formal Maori pronunciation rather than uninformed [sic] anglicization. Thus what may at first appear an anomaly is in fact in keeping with the standard approach to pronunciation in this dictionary – common usage’
This anti-intuitive policy does not apply to English words borrowed into Maori, which are automatically adapted to that language.
Following the move to ‘correct pronunciation’, official policy has made other linguistic concessions to the sensibilities of Maori radicals: saying Maori instead of Maoris, establishing Kia Ora (probably a neologism) as a formal greeting to introduce speeches and correspondence, saying te Reo instead of Maori (language). However since the release of policies to implement the 2016 Act, the pace of change has accelerated dramatically. Wellington City Council produced its own policy in 2018, with a stated vision of ‘Wellington: A te reo capital city by 2040’. And they’re serious. Compare Wellington City Council’s home page of 2020, with the current page.
Note that many of these concepts are expressed in Maori with vocabulary borrowed from English, though now just about unrecognisable as they have been adapted to Maori phonology and spelling (as you would expect).
Every public institution (and many private), every policy, every concept, every public space is given a Maori name which should there actually be an English name, takes precedence. Government departments are given Maori names which are increasingly used on their own without translation: The Ministry of Transport is routinely referred to as simply Waka Kotahi; the Climate Change Commission is He Pou a Rangi. The Maori Language Commission is now Te Taurawhiri, and the URL for its language policy is https://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/en/te-reo-maori/maihi-karauna/.
The strategic framework for Te Mana o te Taiao sets out how the different components of the strategy work together to achieve the long-term vision of Te Mauri Hikahika o te Taiao.
No meaning is offered for Te Mana o te Taiao; that of Te Mauri Hikahika o te Taiao is given in a box. The vast majority of New Zealanders would not be able to explain the meaning of the names being imposed on them.
The Wellington City Council’s Maori language policy is called Te Tauihu; Wellington City Council committees have been given Maori names, which councillors are expected to use in preference to the English ones. Civic Square is now Te Ngakau Civic Precinct while the Wellington Public Library has been renamed the mouthful Te Matapihi ki te Ao Nui – it looks like every library in Wellington will have a Maori name which takes precedence over or replaces an existing English name. Subject headings within new libraries naturally give greater precedence to the Maori version.
NZ cities have been given Maori names, which increasingly replace the traditional ones, with no discussion.
Wanganui or Whanganui is a town in the central North Island, but Te Whanganui-a-Tara seems to be a recently coined term for for Wellington. Wellington’s DomPost recently published an article in its travel pages which appeared to refer to an (obscure) attraction in or near New Plymouth, but it gradually becomes clear that the subject of the title is actually the city itself.
We can expect increasing pressure to change the names of small towns. Currently there is a proposal to change the name of the town of Maxwell to Pakaraka, on the basis of a disputed claim that its namesake, George Maxwell, was involved in a massacre.
Replacing English terms with the Maori equivalent
It goes without saying that NZ English has borrowed words from Maori (so let’s get that of the way), most notably native flora and fauna, as well as many place names. However it is now policy to artificially insert into English texts Maori vocabulary, even whole phrases. Words which have already been borrowed into English though not in common usage (being mostly used in a Maori context) are now mandatory, for example the word whanau must replace the word for family in every context, e.g the track and trace notice for Covid-19. Government texts and media articles are sprinkled with terms which are completely unfamiliar to the majority of New Zealanders, sometimes explained, sometimes not. A goal expressed in the language revitalisation strategy, ‘Te reo Maori is seen, read, heard by Aotearoa Whaanui’, uses a term, whaanui, which has probably never before appeared within an English text.
A newsletter of the former Royal Society of New Zealand, now reincarnated as the heavily political body Royal Society Te Apārangi, well illustrates the policy. The newsletter is headed ‘Kia ora from Royal Society Te Apārangi‘ followed by He wahine ngākau mahaki, he wahine toa (translated) and finishes with Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini (translated). It refers to Aotearoa (not New Zealand) and to Te Whanganui-a-Tara (not Wellington). The text is dotted with Maori terminology such as whare (house, in English more often shed but rarely heard now, meaning in this context incomprehensible), mātauranga, mihi maioha, wāhine toa. Most are totally unfamiliar – the fact that many are guessable from the context does not make them any the less alien.
TV1’s newsreaders, as well as using Maori greetings to begin the broadcast, regularly use a Maori expression after a commercial break – the context (and only the context), suggests that it means something like ‘welcome back’.
Communication takes second place to NZ-style bilingualism. Where other countries publish important texts either as separate documents, or at least having the languages completely separate, NZ documents like the Maori Language Act alternate Maori and English text throughout, so that they are just about impossible to read on-line.
Every text must be a conscious language learning tool
Government texts such as the Department of Conservation’s Biodiversity Strategy have as a primary goal the promotion of the Maori language.
‘Mauri and kaitiakitanga Mauri is the life principle or living essence contained in all things, animate and inanimate. Te mana atua kei roto i te tangata ki te tiaki i a ia, he tapu. The concept of mauri reflects ideas of interconnectedness, resilience and wellbeing of nature. Mauri reflects the intrinsic value of nature, but also our obligation to be stewards of its health. Kaitiakitanga can be described as the obligation to nurture and care for the mauri of a taonga; the ethic of guardianship, protection of that which is sacred. ‘
Through language DOC achieves a romanticisation of the Maori connection to the environment:
‘Tangata whenua are exercising their role as kaitiaki Kaitiakitanga is the obligation, arising from the kin relationship, to nurture or care for a person, place or thing. It has a spiritual aspect, encompassing an obligation to care for and nurture not only physical well-being but also mauri. Mana whenua aspire to exercise kaitiakitanga over their ngāhere, whenua and moana. However currently there are many barriers to this taking place. In order to strengthen kaitiakitanga there is a need to strengthen relationships between people and nature and re-establish cultural practices.’
Children of course are fair game: the teachers resource for the sexuality education curriculum, Navigating the Journey (manipulative on multiple fronts), makes it clear that that class at least operates as a language learning class.
‘You could encourage your students to use te reo Māori as they talk about their whānau. […] Use the following words in te reo Māori to describe feelings […] Encourage the use of te reo Māori vocabulary for feelings […] The students should be encouraged to pronounce the Māori names for body parts’ (Years 1-2); ‘Students could practice te reo Māori phrases to describe how they are feeling (Years 3-4)
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 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. (Years 1-2)
The change of name to Aotearoa
Aotearoa was one of several Maori names for the North Island: there was no Maori name for the whole country, and when Maori chiefs signed the treaty of Waitangi, presented in Maori, the term used for New Zealand was Nu Tirani. NZ continued to be referred to within Maori texts as Nu Tirani or Niu Tirani for another 100 years or so. At some point Aotearoa became seen as the original Maori name for New Zealand and in recent years there has been a move to change the name to the very clunky Aotearoa-New Zealand. Suddenly, however, without New Zealanders knowing quite how it happened, the government is using Aotearoa on its own as the formal name for New Zealand. For example Jacinda Ardern:
‘Medsafe only grants consent for a vaccine’s use in Aotearoa once it’s satisfied […].’
There is no democratic mandate for this change. There has been no referendum, and polls consistently show that the public reject a change even to Aotearoa-New Zealand. There has been no public discussion of the consequences, for example how this will affect New Zealand’s standing in the world.
The media as an arm of the Labour/Green Government
‘Applicants can show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo Māori.’
The taxpayer is therefore funding the media to promote Labour/Green ideology, including Te Reoglish and a name change to Aotearoa.
‘It seems like a hostile takeover of our country is underway and most people feel powerless to do anything about it’. (Quoted by Karl Dufresne)
These ‘audacious’ measures have no mandate, in that no party, no candidate has incorporated them into a platform and discussed them during an election: for example there is no mention of WCC’s te reo policy in this pocket profile of Jill Day, its principle driver. They are a source of frustration to the vast majority of New Zealanders, who have no interest in learning the language – and probably even less now. There are multiple inconsistencies: different rules of usage apply; total respect is demanded for Maori but none for English. They are perverse in that they obstruct rather than facilitate communication.
New Zealand English speakers have no authority over their own language, and are second-class citizens when it comes to Maori. Any objective criticisms, any appeal to the norms of language, any comparison with foreign usage, are met with accusations of racism.
Richard Treadgold, a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition, recently wrote to Cindy Kiro, chief executive of the Royal Society Te Apārangi:
Ahorangi Chief Executive Dame Cindy Kiro,
Thank you for your latest newsletter Alert, Issue # 1146. dated today. An activist production if ever there was one.
I must complain that it is 90% inaccessible and functionally illegible because of the Maori language.
From Ahorangi Chief Executive through Royal Society Te Apārangi to hangarau learning, Matariki hunga nui (no English hints at all with this one) and Pito mata in action, large portions of your once-captivating newsletter are blank to me. Worse, it reeks of activism, with the Society blatantly forcing the Maori language down Kiwi throats. In years past, it never did, so something fundamental has changed, something ugly has taken its place. I feel inadequate, trampled on and excommunicated (emphasis added).
Where does this come from?
The divisive policies of the government are consistent with measures applied elsewhere in the world to create disempowerment and racial disharmony. Te Reofication is promoted in New Zealand by adherents of other policies stemming from the UN and the global elite: faux environmentalism (eg ‘climate change’); negation of property rights; the mass movement of people; critical race theory; child abusive education. These are all policies of the New Zealand Labour and Green parties; government departments such as DOC in its Te Mana o te Taiao – Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020 and the Ministry of the Environment in He Kura Koiora i hokiapromote Te Reoglish along with undemocratic powers to Maori elites, the erosion of property rights for ordinary people, and climate change alarmism based on junk science.
We can conclude that there is an overriding principle at play. It certainly isn’t the long-term welfare of the Maori people, or New Zealanders as a whole.
‘This is an appalling document, written from a completely subjective viewpoint, it is basically an instruction on how to use propaganda, the govt, the education system and our social institutions to force Maori language and culture upon the country. Of course it involves massive indoctrination of young NZers.’
‘Did 52% of New Zealanders vote for the virtual cultural conversion of our country? How could they when Jacinda Ardern never told them it was on her agenda.’
On Wednesday it was revealed that a weekend visitor to Wellington from Sydney, who had presumably taken advantage of the ‘bubble’ that has been created between New Zealand and Australia, ‘tested positive’ when he returned home.
We are told that the Ministry of Health has identified more than a dozen locations of interest, mostly eateries and tourist locations, as being visited by the Covid-positive Australian man and his partner. Apparently up to 2500 people visited Te Papa around the time he attended. Those who used the bathroom at 4 Kings Bar at 8.45pm on Saturday are being asked to quarantine for 14 days and get tested immediately.
Even when we take the uncertainties of testing into account, the results can tell us a few things.
A positive test tells us that a person either has COVID-19 (whether they have symptoms, or not) or has had COVID-19 recently. We may not be able to distinguish whether the person is currently infectious or not so we will take a precautionary approach.
A positive test cannot tell us:
if the person is currently infectious
how ill the person is likely to become.
The inventor of the pcr test, Kary Mullis, always insisted that it should not be used for diagnostic purposes.
Furthermore, there is doubt whether the test picks up exclusively SARS CoV-2 residue, and not that of other coronaviruses, such as the common cold. In fact authorities in New Zealand and around the world have failed to show, in response to freedom of information requests, that the virus has been isolated . Evidence that the ‘deadly Delta variant’ has been isolated or its symptoms defined is proving very hard to locate.
Nobody seriously expects a wave of death or hospitalisations to follow from his contacts, any more than when ‘cases’ escape from quarantine, or a plane arrives with a passenger who tests positive on arrival. No-one expects deaths of the ‘deadly, infectious virus’ amongst the 2500 people who were at Te Papa at the same time. Nobody expects the alleged carrier himself to be ill at all, let alone hospitalised.
No matter. Experts, including Otago University Professor of Public Health Nick Wilson, called for increased measures against covid, including
Working from home as much as possible for all non-essential workers;
Consider temporarily closing all potential super-spreading settings (such as cafés, restaurants, bars, night clubs and gyms);
Introduce mandatory QR code scanning for the above named potential super-spreading settings if they are not closed;
Consider cancelling indoor events with more than 20 people;
Extension of mask mandates.
The government, supported by the opposition, soon ratcheted up the state of emergency. ‘Alert Level 2’ measures were put in place for the whole of the greater Wellington region, including the Wairarapa and Kapiti Coast to the north of Otaki. Level 2 measures came in at 6pm Wednesday evening, will be in place for four days while testing and contact tracing is underway, and then reviewed by Cabinet on Sunday.
Alert Level 2
Alert Level 2 means limits on the size of gatherings to 100 people. Gatherings pose the biggest risk of spread, so this includes weddings, birthdays, funerals, tangi and church services.
It means social distancing: 2 metres in public places, and in retail stores like supermarkets and clothes shops, and at least 1 metre in most other places like workplaces, cafes, restaurants and gyms.
Face masks remain compulsory on all public transport. […]
Businesses can open but must follow public health rules, including ensuring physical distancing, record keeping and the cap of 100 people. Schools and ECE services also remain open. Hospitality venues can open but must apply the three S’s – Seated, Separated, and Single Server.
All these rules are accompanied by exhortations to take measures which are presumably voluntary.
I encourage people to also wear their masks while waiting for public transport, and in taxis and rideshare services.
I also ask that people wear a face covering in any situation where physical distancing is not possible. […]
If you are sick, please stay at home; don’t go to work or school and don’t socialise. If you have symptoms of a cold or flu, or aches and pains, call your doctor or Healthline and ask about getting tested.
Keep track of where you’ve been at all times. This case is a reminder of the need to use the COVID Tracer App and maintain an accurate record of your movements.
Being at Level 2 for a few days will not greatly inconvenience a lot of people, though very hard on anyone who has organised a big wedding for this weekend. They do serve however, to heighten up the fear, firstly of the disease for those who are genuinely concerned about it, and secondly of further measures such as another lockdown. The government measures can therefore be seen as a muscle-flexing exercise. And of course a spate of testing will mean more bogus ‘cases’, justify more measures to limit people’s freedom to move and meet, and provide a greater incentive to comply.
‘[…] there are risks that, if done poorly, compulsory history in our schools could veer into the realm of indoctrination. It is no coincidence that one of the first functions authoritarian regimes undertake on assuming power is to produce new history books in order to emphasise the “correct” version of history that is passed on to students.’ (Paul Moon on the proposal to introduce a new compulsory NZ history curriculum)
Moon may not realise that the programmes being developed by the Ministry of Education show only too clearly that it sees its purpose as the brainwashing and the undermining of young children. This is apparent not only in its use of critical race theory, ie the inculcating of white guilt, but in other modules such as the Sexuality Education and Climate Change curricula.
The Histories Curriculum: Critical Race Theory Meets Maori Radicalism
The Aotearoa New Zealand Histories Curriculum presents New Zealand history purely and unashamedly through the lens of Maori radicalism, with no respect for historical fact.
An important function of the curriculum is to affirm the permanent special status of the Maori migrants to NZ and thus their descendants, and the permanent special status of the period of pre-European Maori settlement. ‘Maori history is the foundational and continuous history of Aotearoa New Zealand’. The draft declares baldly that:
‘Māori voyaged across the Pacific and became tangata whenua: the indigenous people of this place. Māori navigation to Aotearoa New Zealand was deliberate and skilful.’
Oral tradition indicates that the Maori canoes arrived by misadventure. In support is a lack of evidence that Maori tribes were able to emigrate once food supplies diminished or if they were under pressure from more powerful tribes.
It should also be noted that
Tribes named the areas they controlled, and there was no name for the whole of what is now New Zealand. (See Kerry Howe, What’s In a Name)
The intention is to impress on small children the evils of colonialism, while consciously perverting history and ignoring:
1) That it was the Maori who were keen on NZ becoming a British colony, not the the British themselves, either because the British had become more moral over the years or because they could see no benefit to Britain in taking over a group of islands which could not sustain their inhabitants decently.
2) The parlous state the Maori were in – New Zealand may have have been a paradise for birds but certainly wasn’t for humanity. They had wiped out several bird species, including their best food supply the moa; there was a culture of cannibalism, slavery and female infanticide. They had no pottery, no smelting, no way of working stone for building purposes.
3) The benefits of Old World civilisations that colonialism provided both at a mundane level, ie a higher standard of living which more than doubled their life expectancy, and at a spiritual/intellectual/cultural level. The colonials brought reading and writing, literature, higher mathematics, science, melody (Maori music consisted largely of monophonic chants with a very limited range of pitches) and musical instruments, rugby. The introduction of deer and deer hunting, often reviled because of environmental implications, has been embraced with enthusiasm by the Maori.
It should be possible to devise a syllabus for older students which explains the history of New Zealand, explains the difficult conditions that the Maori lived under while totally cut off from the rest of humanity, celebrates their practical and cultural achievements – like people everywhere, they enriched their lives with dancing, carving, weaving etc – and refers to crimes and misunderstandings on all sides while aiming for neutrality and objectivity. Instead little children are brain washed with false or inadequate information and expected to make ethical judgements about the past.
Critical Race Theory
The Histories Curriculum and other programmes from the Ministry of Education represent the strategy called ‘critical theory’, whose function is to divide and weaken society, in this context ‘critical race theory’.
Critical race theory is rooted in cultural Marxism; its purpose to divide the world into white oppressors and non-white victims. It uses personal narratives of marginalized minority “victim” groups (black, Hispanic, female, and homosexuals) as irrefutable evidence of the dishonesty of their mostly white heterosexual oppressors.
When it comes to race, there is no way out. Critical race theory assumes that racism is permanent and affects every aspect of our society to include political, economic, social and religious institutions. […] This flawed theory of the world suggests that race and ethnicity will always taint and pollute every decision, the result being that racial minorities will consistently lose out to whites because of structural racism. Critical race theory can create anger, frustration, and despondency among anyone in the victim categories who internalize the destructive message.
The application of critical race theory is becoming entrenched in Western schools, especially in the English-speaking world, for example Canada, the United States, Australia . In October 2020 the UK’s Minister of Education, Kemi Badenoch, declared teaching white privilege and critical race theory to be illegal:
‘We do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt’
The NZ Ministry of Education, however, openly espouses the practice of critical theory:
Critical theories represent a range of theoretical perspectives and practices through which people may pursue social justice, address inequality, and work to produce a fairer, more inclusive and equitable society. […]
To create a fairer and more just society, critical theorists ask for the critique of social structures and practices – big and small – that privilege certain groups and marginalise others. (NZ Ministry of Education, Critical Theories archived here)
In the New Zealand context, both critical race theory and the distortion of historical fact will further the cause of an equal partnership between the Crown and Maori, with implications for democracy. Note that the minority party TOP, which seeks a parliamentary upper house, proposes that this upper house has 50% Maori representation, despite the Maori population being less than 17% of the total.
The Histories Curriculum will join other Ministry modules that implement critical theory.
The Te Hurihanganui syllabus is another educational strategy which is designed to demoralise one group (specifically those of European descent), arouse a sense of victimhood in another (especially Maori) and create racial hatred. The syllabus sets out to instill in small children a sense of their ‘white privilege’, including in-class race-shaming rituals such as getting children to stand up in front of their classroom and say what they had done to acknowledge their white privilege .
‘Racism and discrimination must be recognised, challenged and overturned in all parts of the system. At the heart of racism and discrimination is a conscious or unconscious belief of superiority over another which does not reflect the mana and inner potential of all people.
‘People who demonstrate a ‘critical’ understanding of racism, discrimination, white privilege and power in education, are capable of influencing change across the education system and in the fabric of wider society. Without critical consciousness it is unlikely that the system will challenge the dominant cultural narrative that views Māori in deficit terms or places the mana of a teacher over that of a learner.
‘Critical’ understandings must be developed through an iterative research and design process that respects and is inclusive of diversity and innovation.
‘Embedding this principle in education will require…
‘Developing critical consciousness about power and privilege.’ (NZ Ministry of Education, Te Hurihanganui)
‘[…] systemic racism seems to be defined as the existence of disparities between races. This “proves” systemic racism.’ (Lewis Andrew)
The course depends heavily on completely one-sided anecdotal evidence. Again the dichotomy is white versus Maori. There is no acknowledgement that Maori versus European disparities also apply to Pasifika (versus European and Asian), so that health and achievement issues are officially equated, and similar compensatory measures are applied (in 2020 Otago School of Medicine allocated nearly 40% of its places to Maori and Pacific students, although the two ethnic groups make up only 25% of the total population). And New Zealanders of Asian descent, their achievements and contribution, are effectively buried, here and elsewhere.
Other programmes follow the same pattern of undermining and disempowering young students combined with multi-level dishonesty:
The syllabus is devoid of academic rigour, and represses all critical thinking. Children are expected to swallow without question junk science claims about, for example, global warming leading to the extinction of polar bears (currently about 30,000 or more, up from 5,000 in the 1950s). (See 10 Good Reasons Not to Worry About Polar Bears)
Children from age 10 are encouraged to consider veganism in order to ‘save the planet’, starting with ‘Vegan Mondays’ – no matter that pasture is a more effective carbon sink than repeatedly milled monoculture pine.
Child activist Greta Thunberg is presented as a role model, and by extension Extinction Rebellion, possibly leading to civil disobedience, law-breaking and arrest.
Having callously pressured and enticed children into experiencing overwhelming emotions by telling them what is in effect a pack of lies (see Dr. Jock Allison’s comments in the Appendix here), the Ministry of Education kindly offers advice to teachers and in turn parents on how to deal with traumatised children, with a long list of counseling services.
The Climate Change programme is not simply manipulation of the young in order to serve a political end – it is intentional, shameless child abuse.
If the purpose of schooling is to educate children, to stimulate critical thinking and respect for empirical truth, and to empower them, the NZ Ministry of Education has shown itself not fit for purpose.
As part of the gaslighting operations to prepare humanity for its Great Reset, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released in video form a set of predictions for the year 2030. The first of these is: ‘You’ll own nothing — and you’ll be happy.’ By ‘you’ll own nothing’ is meant, ‘you will be totally powerless’. You, not we, the megalomaniac elites.
‘Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never. (Klaus Schwab, WEF chairman, COVID-19: The Great Reset)
The global elites are waging a war on humanity.
The plan is to disempower and diminish the bulk of humanity, absolutely: politically, numerically, physically, intellectually, psychologically, morally and socially, in order to give the globalists unlimited, eternal control.
Democracy will be a sham, as politicians will be totally controlled by the elites with the help of their bought-up media and their bought-up institutions who will continue to ensure that there is no informed consent.
In defiance of all science, logic and commonsense, in defiance of the opinions of huge numbers of medical specialists around the world (see here and here and here and here), politicians have dutifully launched an attack on their economies, their citizens’ economic, physical and psychological well-being, and constitutional rights.
‘Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature’ (Georgia Guidestones, first ‘guide’).
The globalists have been insisting for decades that the population of the earth must: decrease to 500 million (Georgia Guidestones); be more than 500 million but less than a billion (Club of Rome); be decreased by 50% (Henry Kissinger); be cut by 90% (Mikhail Gorbachev); be reduced to 250-300 million (Ted Turner); or eliminate 350,000 people a day (Jacques Cousteau). (See The Green Agenda)
Anyone who doubts that this is feasible is not paying attention – if the elites want it to happen (and they do), they will find a way to make it happen. There are already policies in train which are conducive to depopulation:
the undermining of family and society, according to cultural Marxist best practice, including the promotion of promiscuity and gender dysphoria.
the skyrocketing number of children with developmental disabilities, thereby reducing the number of people capable of raising families.
A number of vaccine trials in the third world, involving the Gates Foundation, the WHO, and/or Pfizer (one of the developers of the Covid-19 vaccine) have gone horribly wrong – or been wildly successful depending on the point of view – causing a high number of deaths or sterility.
The determination to vaccinate everyone on the planet for a cold virus is a warning signal – billions could be wiped out in a couple of generations. Humanity will have no control over what’s in the vaccines, or their enforcement – science, commonsense and concern for human welfare are powerless.
Taken as a package, the globalist policies to:
enforce mask wearing
veganise the population
pump toxin-laden vaccines into children, completely disproportionate to the risk they avert
constitute an attack on human health, designed to produce a weak, unhealthy being.
‘In every measure examined, the fully vaccinated children had more problems than the completely unvaccinated children: more ear infections, more brain damage, more allergies, more dermatitis, more respiratory infections, more eczema—more everything.’
A two-pronged attack on the human intellect is in train.
Nutritional and Chemical Lobotomy: The same measures that undermine humanity physically are likewise damaging to intellectual capacity.
Masks: The association of oxygen deprivation with brain damage is well known, and the imposition of masks should be seen clear proof of intention to do harm.
‘There is no unfounded medical exemption from face masks because oxygen deprivation is dangerous for every single brain.’ (Margarite Griesz-Brisson)
Vaccination: the skyrocketing number of vaccines on the immunisation schedule has been matched by the increase in rates of encephalitis and thus brain damage.
Negation of critical thinking. The relentless brainwashing and pressure to conform with received narratives has born fruit. Anyone who questions and aspect of the globalist narrative is described alternately as a flat-earther, tin-foil hat wearer, conspiracy theorist, far-right, climate denier, anti-vaxxer, or in the context of ‘Covid’ a psychopath or granny-killer – derogatory terms now come more readily to the lips of most people than reasoned argument.
‘In recent months, the general well-being of children and young people has come under severe pressure. We see in our practices an increasing number of children and young people with complaints due to the rules of conduct that have been imposed on them. We diagnose anxiety and sleep problems, behavioral disorders and fear of contamination. We are seeing an increase in domestic violence, isolation and deprivation. Many lack physical and emotional contact; attachment problems and addiction are obvious. […] The mandatory mouth mask in schools is a major threat to their development’.
In the United States, lockdowns have been tied to increased thoughts of suicide from children, a surge in drug overdoses and an uptick in domestic violence; a study conducted in May concluded that stress and anxiety from lockdowns could destroy seven times the years of life that lockdowns potentially save.
The plan to sexualise small children goes back to the 1940s, when Rockefellers funded pedophile 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’)
Society will continue to be fragmented by mass migration and identity politics (both heavily sponsored by another globalist, George Soros; see also here). In Western countries anti-white racism is encouraged by ‘far-left’ parties, breeding resentment amongst the majority and a sense of victimhood amongst minorities. This weakens the capacity of societies to unite for the common good – nobody wants to fight for their country if they feel disenfranchised.
Self-ownership, also known as sovereignty of the individual or individual sovereignty, is the concept of property in one’s own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity and be the exclusive controller of one’s own body and life. (Wikipedia)
Covid measures have been used to justify, worldwide, a completely unprecedented negation of constitutional rights and freedoms, include rights of movement and assembly. Furthermore, there is no end in sight – governments have reserved for themselves the right to introduce draconian measurements on the thinnest of excuses (none comes flimsier than case statistics derived from the meaningless pcr test).
Restrictions will not end, we are told until there is herd immunity, and the new science says that immunity can only come with a vaccination – according to Jacinda Ardern, the question is: ‘What will it take us to get, through immunisation, up to that herd immunity [level]?’ The World Health Organisation has handily changed its definition of immunity, deleting any reference to naturally acquired immunity.
Vaccination passports – no jab, no movement
Many countries are planning vaccination passports which would enable the bearer to travel and attend large gatherings.
Agenda 21 aims to move humanity from rural areas and transform suburbs and towns into high density rental apartments. Urbanisation makes people easier to control, more dependent on systems which will be increasingly be controlled by government or monopolies. Home gardens, which allow food independence, will be eliminated as unsustainable.
Censorship has gone to extremes, with big brother Twitter, or big brother Facebook warning you if you are about to view an article they don’t approve of, ie any that questions the Covid narrative, masks, or the suppression of hydroxychloquine. According to the IMF, visiting the wrong websites – presumably one that questions globalist narratives – will lower your credit score.
Moving people to cities with their cameras, vaccination passports, microchipping, and eventually nanobots in the brain, all enable close surveillance and therefore greater control.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution – ‘redefining what it means to be human’
Schwab’s elitist Davos-man utopia is a trans-human, socially distanced, utterly soulless dystopia for the rest of us. Think of the most terrifying sci-film you’ve ever watched and that still doesn’t go anywhere near it. And the worst thing is that it is sold to us as some kind of ‘progressive’ vision. (Neil Clark).
Forget that stuff in the Georgia Guidestones about maintaining humanity ‘in harmony with nature’. The Great Reset encompasses Karl Schwab’s concept of the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, proposing a transhumanist ‘fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity’.
‘The UN Global Goals and the leading partners are closely intertwined with World Economic Forums Fourth Industrial Revolution – a megalomaniac transhumanist plan that will “redefine what it means to be human” and where every aspect of life will be monitored and controlled from above for the “betterment of humanity”’. (Jacob Nordangård, ‘The Elite Technocrats Behind The Global “Great Reset”’)
There have been a number of developments just in the past year or so which bring us closer to Schwab’s vision.
Robots to carry out human functions, including policing
Covid has given rise to the suggestion that people be chipped to show that they are vaccinated. However research is being carried out on microchipping people, not just to provide information to a scanner, but to release vaccines or contraception, remotely controlled.
Klaus Schwab, who has indicated that the fourth industrial revolution would ‘lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity’, is predicting the arrival of:
‘implanted devices [that] will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals.’
If chips relay information out and are controlled externally to provide vaccines or contraception, then the next step is obvious: directly controlling human activity.
Researchers at the University of Vermont and Tufts University have reassembled living cells from the African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, into robotic devices — transforming Xenopus into xenobot. ‘There are no electronics involved. Behaviors are programmed entirely through the structural arrangement of the pulsating heart cells held in a matrix of rigid skin cells.’
Nanobots in our brains
Google’s Director of Engineering, whose predictions on the future of technology have been 86% accurate to date, predicts that by 2030 we will have nanobots embedded in our brains.
In the wake of unconfirmed reports that China was developing bionic soldiers, a French military panel has cleared the development of bionic soldiers and other high-tech upgrades. The upgrades could increase human performance and detection, as well as improve a soldier’s mental state and other military-related functions.
Brave New World? 1984? Blade Runner? Tripods? Planet of the Apes? Failing some kind of miracle, in the very near future humanity will see realised every dystopian literary and cinematic vision.
Winter Oak, ‘Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset’. ‘The truth is that this highly influential figure, at the centre of the new global order currently being established, is an out-and-out transhumanist who dreams of an end to natural healthy human life and community.’
In the age of the Great Reset, it is time to have another look at another globalist project: the Georgia Guidestones, a set of commandments whose hour, it seems, has come.
On a high hill in Elbert County, Georgia, stands a huge granite monument. Engraved in eight different languages on the four giant stones that support the common capstone are 10 Guides, or commandments in eight different languages, English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, and Russian.
THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. 2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity. 3. Unite humanity with a living new language. 4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason. 5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. 6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. 7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. 8. Balance personal rights with social duties. 9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite. 10.Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.
A shorter message is inscribed at the top of the structure in four ancient languages’ scripts, Babylonian cuneiform, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs: ‘Let these be guidestones to an age of reason’.
The Guidestones are located in close proximity to what the Cherokee Indians called ‘Al-yeh-li A lo-Hee’—the center of the world.
The monument is commonly known as the Georgia Guidestones, or the American Stonehenge. Like the ancient Stonehenge of England, the Guidestones serve as a celestial clock, recording the passage of time through special features. The monument has been described as ‘a highly engineered structure that flawlessly tracks the sun’.
‘Built to survive the apocalypse, the Georgia Guidestones are not merely instructions for the future—the massive granite slabs also function as a clock, calendar, and compass.
The monument sits at the highest point in Elbert County and is oriented to track the sun’s east-west migration year-round.’
The significance of the Georgia Guidestones
‘[…] it confirms the fact that there was a covert group intent on
(1) Dramatically reducing the population of the world. (2) Promoting environmentalism. (3) Establishing a world government. (4) Promoting a new spirituality.’ (Radio Liberty)
Similarly: ‘The engraved messages can be subdivided into four major areas: governance and the establishment of a world government, population and reproduction control, the environment and humankind’s relationship to nature, and spirituality’ (Georgia Encyclopedia, The Georgia Guidestones).
In the summer of 1979 a man calling himself R. C. Christian came to Elberton in search of both a granite firm to execute his design for a monument and a suitable site for the construction of it. He claimed to represent ‘a small group of loyal Americans’ who had been planning the installation of an unusually large and complex stone monument. The man admitted that ‘Christian’ was a pseudonym, and while he was obliged to reveal his identity, or an identity, to the local bank manager, this was under on condition of absolute confidentiality. To this day, Christian’s real name and the true identity of his organization (described by him as ‘a small group of loyal Americans’) are unknown.
The Guidestones were unveiled 22 March 1980. Ownership of the land and monument was soon transferred to Elbert County, which still holds it.
The Georgia Guidestones as a Club of Rome / United Nations project
The Club of Rome, founded 1968, is one of a number of organisations founded or funded by David Rockefeller to further the cause of global government, including the United Nations – anyone who doubts that the United Nations is a globalist project need only look at the funding of its constituent organisations (try UN Women). Members of the Club of Rome have included some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world, e.g. CNN founder Ted Turner, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Prince Philip (extensive list here).
There is no direct evidence to show who commissioned the Georgia Guidestones. The circumstantial evidence that the Guidestones are a Club of Rome / United Nations project is, however, overwhelming.
Unlimited resources: The Guidestone project was extremely carefully planned, with money no object.
The goals: The goals set out in the Guidestones are closely aligned with the goals and projects of the ‘Club of Rome’, now more often referred to as the ‘globalists’, or the ‘global elite’. The goals of the Club of Rome are, or were at the time of the Guidestones’ erection:
World government by an elite, facilitated by
Environmentalism at the expense of humanity, and
Maurice Strong: protégé and close associate of David Rockefeller for over 50 years, several times Under-Secretary of the United Nations and mooted to be Secretary-General at one time, Maurice Strong provides an essential link to the Guidestones in that he has been a major force in promoting at UN level policies relating to New Age Religion, environmentalism and global government.
The timing: The Georgia Guidestones were requisitioned just a couple of years after Maurice Strong established a New Age religious centre in Colorado.
10 Commandments: The concept of 10 moral precepts, associated with the Old Testament, is echoed elsewhere by Club of Rome members. Ted Turner drew up what he termed 10 voluntary initiatives, which included population control (though expressed fairly moderately), resolutions to care for the environment in various ways, but also for humanity. There are two references to supporting the United Nations – almost as though the UN is a substitute for the jealous God of the Old Testament.
The sponsors of the Earth Charter, Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, have both referred to the Earth Charter as a new ‘Ten Commandments’ to guide the new age ‘global spirituality.
A New Spirituality
The United Nations is not a thing to appreciate, admire or adore. Rather, it is the way, the way of oneness, that leads us to the Supreme Oneness. It is like a river flowing toward the source, the Ultimate Source. The United Nations is the way that wants to lead the world to the destined Goal, where Light and Delight reign supreme. (Sri Chinmoy, former Hindu chaplain of the United Nations)
‘The United Nations has long been one of the foremost world harbingers for the “New Spirituality” and the gathering “New World Order” based on ancient occult and freemasonic principles.’ (Alan Morrison)
‘the crux of the United Nations’ new world order is global control, in part through a new world religion’ (Walter J. Veith)
The halls of the United Nations have long been a haven for New Age one-world religion spirituality. From its earliest years the UN has accorded status to the Lucis Trust, formerly the Lucifer Trust, started by theosophist Alice Bailey, and one of several NGOs of an occultist nature accredited to the UN. The Lucis Trust is, however, as much a political organization as an occult religious one, aggressively promoting a globalist ideology.
‘Within the United Nations is the germ and seed of a great international and meditating, reflective group – a group of thinking and informed men and women in whose hands lies the destiny of humanity.’ (Alice Bailey)
Former UN Secretary-Generals like Dag Hammarskjold (founder of the U.N. Meditation Room), U Thant and former Assistant Secretary-General Robert Muller were outspoken advocates of a new pantheistic global spirituality, using the U.N. as a vehicle to spread their doctrine. Robert Muller referred to the United Nations as the ‘body of Christ’.
The spiritual centre of the United Nations is the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, the largest Anglican church in the world. The Cathedral and the associated Meditation Room are managed by the Temple of Understanding, founded in 1960 and UN accredited. Both the Cathedral and the Meditation Room are characterised by New Age symbolism.
‘St. John the Divine is the headquarters of the Temple of Understanding, an interfaith effort to steer away from people from traditional religions to a hybrid kind of spirituality based on New Age philosophies, Neo-Paganism and a mix of organized religions’ traditions. [..]
Maurice Strong and his buddies are the driving force behind a New Age pagan religion known as Gaia. (Tom DeWeese)
In 1977 Maurice and his wife Hanne purchased a large tract of land in the Crestone area and created a spiritual centre there, giving land to religious groups to establish a presence. Visitors to the centre, known as Baca Grande, are said to have included such extremely high-powered personages as Laurence Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, Robert McNamara (then President of the World Bank), Edmond de Rothschild, British Prime Minister James Callahan, journalist Bill Moyers, and Henry Kissinger.
Maurice Strong and his buddies are the driving force behind a New Age pagan religion known as Gaia. And it is pure nature worship. The Strongs own a 63,000-acre ranch in Colorado known as Baca Grande… Baca Grande, Strong believes, is the Vatican City of the New World Order. (Eric T. Karlstrom, Is Crestone/Baca, Colorado, “The Vatican City of the New World Order”?: An Exposé of the “New World Religion”)
Hanne Strong was also involved in the organisation of spiritual ‘earth healing’ ceremonies in parallel with the Habitat 1 and Rio Earth Summit conferences, each lasting several days.
The Earth Charter
The Earth Charter Initiative was launched in 1994 by Maurice Strong as head of the Earth Council and Mikhail Gorbachev, acting in his capacity as president of Green Cross International. An Earth Charter Commission was formed in 1997 with Steven C. Rockefeller, professor of religion and trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as Vice-Chairman.
Both Strong and Gorbachev expressed the wish that the Charter be seen as a modern 10 Commandments. Further to this idea, an Ark of Hope was constructed to carry a copy of the Earth Charter, imitating the Ark of the Covenant in which the Israelites carried the original stone tablets given to Moses.
‘On September the 9th, 2001 a celebration of the Earth Charter was held at Shelburne Farms Vermont for the unveilling of the Earth Charter’s final resting place. […] ‘The “For Love of Earth” day-long celebrations began with an early morning pilgramage during which 2000 or so participants, led by Satish Kumar, walked to the “great barn” where they were greeted by the sounds of the “Sun Song” played by musician Paul Winter. The Pagan festivities continued with the words of Dr. Jane Goodall, Satish Kumar and organizer Dr. Steven C. Rockefeller. The Earth worshippers were treated to dance, music and paintings of several Vermont artists, after which they joined hands and offered an “Earth prayer” of “reverence” and “commitment” to Mother Earth and the “Ark of Hope”.’
9/11 occurred two days later, and the Ark was then carried to New York where it lay at the Interfaith Center.
‘The Ark of Hope is aptly named. The believers in the “earth-friendly” propaganda of enviro-socialism can only hope that elitist central planners like Rockefeller, Strong and Gorbachev actually have the interests of the peasants in mind. Anyone who studies history can be confident that they do not, and never did. This packaging of the Earth Charter clearly indicates that the promoters intend for it to be adopted as a matter of faith and hope rather than reason.’ (The Earth Charter and the Ark of Hope)
The corporate-funded climate action group Extinction Rebellion, founded in 2018, is continuing the theme of New Age spiritualism, with a taste for mystical routines and weird costumes. However, whether the New Spirituality is intended to be just a select club, or whether it is supposed to embrace all of humanity, and if so whether it is working, is open for debate – while climatism and compliance to the globalist narratives are often said to be cults, they reflect intellectual enslavement rather than anything spiritual.
‘Scratch a CoR member and there is a global depopulation misanthrope inside’ (Bill Elder, here in comments)
‘… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion’, Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind, 1976.
‘World population needs to be decreased by 50%’, Henry Kissinger, member of CoR.
‘the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage‘, Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of CoR.
‘A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal’, Ted Turner, founder of CNN, major UN donor, member of CoR.
‘In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it‘, Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer, member of the CoR.
‘If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels’, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, member of CoR. (The Green Agenda)
The Club of Rome has promoted depopulation on the basis of two conflicting reasons. The first was humanitarian, when the Club of Rome embraced the idea that humanity was threatened with mass starvation, due to over-population. In 1968 Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, which warned of mass starvation due to over-population.
“In the 1970s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death…”– Paul Ehrlich, the Population Bomb, 1968
The idea that the world’s population must continue increasing at the same rate, and that the planet will not be able to feed this population, has been discredited. However, another justification for depopulation quickly emerged: environmentalism – we must depopulate to save the planet.
Environmentalism At the Expense of Humanity
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974
The emphasis on reducing population for the good of humanity is largely gone, and the focus is now on the greater claims of the environment. The two prongs of the environmentalist strategy are
The concept of biodiversity, which has to take precedence over other rights, even (especially) of human life;
The Rockefeller catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.
Each of these facilitate the forced movement of people away from the countryside or the coast into high density cities, conducive to depopulation and to loss of private ownership.
Maurice Strong and other Rockefeller assets were involved in numerous conferences and reports focusing on the impact of humanity on the environment, from the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 to Rio Earth Summit (UNCED) 1992. The Summit gave rise to numerous reports and agreements, including Agenda 21, the ‘comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment’ (UN definition). They all repeat the same themes of climate change, biodiversity, urbanisation, government control of land and global governance, including more say for UN-accredited NGOs (Rockefeller Foundation, Gates Foundation, Open Society …).
The low value that is given to human welfare is no longer disguised. The aim is ‘restoration’ with the implication that this is completely open-ended, ie leading to the return of the country to pre-human occupation. While ‘indigenous’ native flora and fauna, down to the most common weed, are expected to have unlimited room to roam, humanity is to be squeezed into smaller and smaller spaces. See the American Wildlands Project, or New Zealand’s Significant Natural Areas, which aims to prioritise ‘biodiversity’ even in major cities, in the form of rewilding at the expense of human living space and the biodiversity inherent in home gardens.
See also Appendix 1 (below)
“Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority…National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” (Strobe Talbott, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration)
From 1990 to 2000 there was a concerted campaign to formally extend the powers of the United Nations and its constituent and associated organisations with a series of conferences and reports, all recommending more power to the United Nations bureaucracy and a review of the veto. Maurice Strong was heavily involved in all of them (see Appendix 2.) They culminated in ‘The Charter for Global Democracy‘ of 1999, summarised thus:
Consolidation of all international agencies under the direct oversight of the United Nations.
Regulation by the United Nations of all transnational organizations and financial institutions.
Independent source of revenue for the United Nations, and taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels, and licensing the use of the global commons. [The “global commons” is defined to be “outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and the related environment that supports human life.]
Eliminate the veto power and the permanent member status on the Security Council.
A United Nations ready reaction force.
Require United Nations registration of all arms and the reduction of national armies as a part of a multilateral global security system under the authority of the United Nations.
Require individual and national compliance with all United Nations Human Rights treaties.
Activate the International Criminal Court, make the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and give individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy social injustice.
Create a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring sustainable development.
Cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and equitable sharing of global resources as allocated by the United Nations. (Henry Lamb, edited)
Henry Lamb concluded:
‘The document is, in reality, a Charter for the abolition of individual freedom’.
Like all UN documents, the charter stresses the role of civil society – ‘open international institutions to increased participation by civil society’ – by which is meant the elite foundations who already control the United Nations through generous funding.
It was intended that the Charter be adopted at the Millenium Conference the next year, but instead a somewhat watered down version, the United Nations Millenium Declaration, was unanimously adopted at the Conference (text).
2020: the Covid Pandemic and the Great Reset
‘Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?’ (Maurice Strong)
Justinian II, it is said, on the completion of the great church of Haghia Sophia in Constantinople, looked up and said, ‘Oh Solomon, I have outdone thee’.
Bill Gates, as his plandemic unfurled throughout the world, looked down and said, ‘Oh David, I have outdone thee’.
However, the elites are not done with ‘climate’. At a World Economic Forum zoom meeting in June, hosted by WEF head Klaus Schwab and Prince Charles and attended by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres , the chief economist of the IMF and heads of major corporations such as Microsoft and BP a Great Reset was announced.
The ‘pandemic’, it seems, was not so much a disaster, as an ‘opportunity’ (for the globalists), to ‘build back better’, so as to protect the planet from humanity. There is an underlying assumption that as humanity has accepted draconian measures to protect us from ‘covid’, so humanity can without pause accept similar measures in the name of ‘climate’ – that dictatorial control by an elite, of humanity and all resources, is inevitable. (See Introducing the ‘Great Reset’: World Leaders’ Radical Plan to Transform the Economy.)
According to Klaus Schwab:
‘Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed, […] ‘all aspects of our societies and economies’ must be “revamped,’ ‘from education to social contracts and working conditions’.
‘The declaration by the World Economic Forum to make a Great Reset is to all indications a thinly-veiled attempt to advance the Agenda 2030 “sustainable” dystopian model, a global “Green New Deal” in the wake of the covid19 pandemic measures. Their close ties with Gates Foundation projects, with the WHO, and with the UN suggest we may soon face a far more sinister world after the covid19 pandemic fades.
‘So there it is folks. Just like that. By hook or by crook, they’re going to try and steamroll us into their idea of utopia, and it’s not going to be pretty.’ (The Reset)
The Great Reset entails smashing everything to pieces, using the cover of Covid-19, to radically change society and its structures, benignly sloganized as ‘build back better’. (German whistleblower exposes the Great Reset)
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Appendix 1: UN conferences and reports concerned with the human impact on the environment 1972 to 1992
Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, organised by Maurice Strong at the request of U Thant. Typically the Conference resolutions are strongly focused on reining in humanity rather than advancing it.
Maurice Strong is responsible for the preliminary planning of the first UN Conference on Human Settlements and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, 1976. The Conference epitomised the prioritising of nature over the rights and needs of humanity. While on the one hand there was a three day ‘Earth Healing’ ceremony, on the Conference condemned private property, supported urbanisation and was represented by a poster showing a block of apartments.
1980 UNEP, founded by Maurice Strong in 1972 produces the WorldConservationStrategy. which declares ‘The most acute climatic problem, however, is carbon dioxide accumulation as a result of the burning of fossil fuel, deforestation and changes in land use.’
In 1987 David Rockefeller, accompanied by associates Strong and Brundtland hijack the 4th World Wilderness Congress, organised by Maurice Strong – none of the three had attended previous conferences, but all three spoke, using the new language of sustainability and biological diversity.
1991, 14 months before the Rio Earth summit (UNCED), Prince Charles holds a private two day international conference aboard the royal yacht Britannia, moored off the coast of Brazil, bringing together key international figures ‘in an attempt to achieve a degree of harmony between the various countries that would happen at the Rio Earth Summit’. Those attending included Al Gore, senior officials from the World Bank, and chief executives from companies such as Shell and British Petroleum, and the key NGOs.
Rio Earth Summit (UNCED) 1992, organised by Maurice Strong. The Summit gave rise to numerous reports and agreements, including Agenda 21, the ‘comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment’ (UN definition). They all repeat the same themes of climate change, biodiversity, urbanisation, government control of land and global governance, including more say for NGOs.
An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;
A new parliamentary body of “civil society” representatives (NGOs);
A new “Petitions Council“;
A new Court of Criminal Justice;
Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;
Expanded authority for the Secretary General.
1997 New Secretary-General Kofi Annan appoints Maurice Strong as Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform in January 1997 with a view, according to a UN press release ‘to reform and streamline the Organization’ [sic]. July 1997 Maurice Strong produced his report, Renewing the United Nations, six months later, in July 1997.
Ever since the WHO rather strangely recommended that countries ‘test, test, test’ for SARS-CoV-2, a mantra quickly parroted by leaders such as Jacinda Ardern, cynics have been predicting a ‘casedemic’, ie a pandemic narrative based purely on the meaningless pcr test. And so it came to pass: the decrease in deaths was matched by frenzied media hype about ‘cases’. Swedish Covid statistics through November exemplify the tenuous nature of the relationship between reported cases based on positive testing and the lethality of the virus.
Sweden refused to overreact during the ‘first wave’ of the alleged pandemic earlier in the year, choosing to follow a policy of allowing healthy people to develop natural immunity, with few restrictions. The country’s administration is now caught up in the case frenzy, bringing in a ‘new wave of restrictions after daily coronavirus cases hit a record’.
Here are the figures for the ‘Daily New Cases’ in Sweden, showing a terrifying rise over the last month, several times that of the first wave between March and July:
You could be forgiven for concluding that Sweden’s most dangerous time for the pandemic to date began in October. But not according to the death statistics – the Daily New Deaths for the last few weeks, normally considered the beginning of the seasonal flu season, average about a third of the figures for the first wave:
The United Kingdom shows a similar contrast, with a death rate slightly higher than Sweden’s for the new flu season:
In Italy the death figures for the new season are higher still, but again they contrast markedly with the case pattern:
As the ‘casedemic’ narrative has worked so well, world-wide claims of a frightening increase in Covid-19 are still invariably based on cases, even now when the new flu season in the Northern hemisphere will inevitably lead to more deaths from influenza and pneumonia.