The Second American Revolution Or The First American Bolshevik Revolution?

By Slobodan Solajic; originally published at OneWorld

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

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

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

Lenin elaborated this even further:

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

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

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

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

Sound familiar today? Does it raise any alarm?

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

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

And

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Marxism and the NZ Sex Education Curriculum

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

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

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

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

WHO

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

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

Sexualisation of Young Children

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

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

‘Design learning programmes that meet students’ developmental
stages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Gender Fluidity’ and the Destruction of Identity

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

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

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

And is then reinforced in Years 3-4:

Gender diversity yr 3-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reinforcing Gender Stereotypes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then (crunch question):

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

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

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

Undermining the Child’s Feelings of Self-worth

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

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

Sex Education as a tool for teaching Maori language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a number of issues associated with this policy:

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

Some Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

Barbara McKenzie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bypassing due process

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

The Act  gives the government extraordinary powers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘State-sanctioned vigilantes’

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

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

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

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

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

Power to give directions to stop or carry out activity

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

Power to close roads and public places (section 22)

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

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

Non-compliance

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

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

The government knows it’s a cold virus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

How the government and its officers see the threat

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

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

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

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

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

Who is ‘dying from Covid-19’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But if we hadn’t suspended civil liberties …

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

Oh yes, but overseas …

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

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

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

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

The research

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

Epidemiological studies show that:

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

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

The basis for the government’s lockdown decision

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

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

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

The Costs

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

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

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

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

Well then, cui bono?

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

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

Is the state of emergency legally justified?

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

The Epidemic Preparedness Act at section 5, provides that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose of CDEM must be to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way forward

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

Legal Action against the state of emergency

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

See also:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

The commercial is imbued with symbolism.

The New Zealand Police as gunslingers

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

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

Humanity is a virus

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

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

The Importance of Being Plugged Into the Matrix

In the Matrix:

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

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

Monika

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

 

 

 

 

 

Open Letter to NZ MPs – the Lockdown is a Disastrous Error

Thanks to a massive gaslighting operation on the part of the media and vested interests, the public and politicians in New Zealand and elsewhere have been conned into believing that COVID-19 is something that it isn’t.

It is now time to acknowledge the further information that has come to hand, and that, with hindsight, the response of governments has been a disastrous mistake.  The only responsible course is to walk back from the lockdown.

COVID-19 is no more serious than any other seasonal virus

COVID-19 is a corona virus, one of a set of seasonal viruses which includes some manifestations of the common cold.

‘There is no evidence to show that the 2019 coronavirus is more lethal than respiratory adenoviruses, influenza viruses, coronaviruses from previous years, or rhinoviruses responsible for the common cold.’ (Dr Pablo Goldschmidt , virologist specializing in tropical diseases and Professor of Molecular Pharmacology at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris. )

The vast majority of people testing positive for COVID-19 show few or no symptoms.

Oxford University researchers found that fewer than one in a thousand people infected with COVID-19 becomes sick enough to need hospitalisation, while the vast majority have only mild symptoms or none at all. Their assessment of the fatality rate for the virus in the UK is around 0.002 percent, far lower than the seasonal flu.  Extensive testing in Iceland has had similar results.

It is indisputable that ‘those who die from COVID-19 are already vulnerable’ (Dr Sucharit Bhakdi)

According to the latest data of the Italian National Health Institute, the average age of the positively-tested deceased in Italy is currently about 78 years.  Only 3.3% had suffered from no underlying condition at all; 82% of the deceased had suffered from two or more chronic diseases; 61% o f the deceased had suffered from three or more chronic diseases.  Amongst those chronic diseases predominated cardiovascular problems, diabetes, respiratory problems and cancer.  It has always been the case that the last trigger for people with advanced age and deteriorating health is frequently a flu related condition.  The chances of a healthy person, even of advanced years, dying of COVID-19 is probably non-existent.

Protect the vulnerable – allow healthy people to develop herd immunity

‘If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune’, (Dr Pietro Vernazza, Swiss specialist in infectious diseases and professor of health policy).

There is no reason why time-honoured procedures for dealing with seasonal flu should not be applied now, ie protect and quarantine those most as risk, encourage others to stay warm and eat healthily, and otherwise allow the virus to take its course.  Care homes have always locked down when there is an epidemic scare, people with cold symptoms have kept away from new-born babies. This year should be no different, according to specialists without vested interests.

The unprecedented policy of mass quarantine to ‘flatten the curve’ is only prolonging the coronavirus pandemic, according to Knut Wittkowski, former head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Research Design at the Rockefeller University in New York.

‘As with every respiratory disease we should protect the elderly and fragile, because when they get pneumonia, they have a high risk of dying of pneumonia. This is one of the key issues to keep in mind. On the other hand, children do very well with these diseases: they are evolutionarily designed to be exposed to all kinds of viruses in their lifetime, and they should keep going to school and infecting each other. That contributes to herd immunity, which means after about four weeks at the most, the elderly people could start joining their families because then the virus would have been extinguished.

‘People are trying to flatten the curve, but I don’t really know why. What happens when you flatten the curve is you also widen it, and it takes more time. I don’t see a good reason for a respiratory disease staying in the population for longer than necessary. (video , transcript)

Distorted projections

The WHO and corporate-funded research institutions have exaggerated the danger from COVID-19.  An analysis of a study by Imperial College London finds that the College, which influenced decision-making both in the UK and in NZ, exaggerated the risk by 131 times. In the United States, health official Antonio Fauci has claimed that the risk from COVID-19 is at least 10 times that of ordinary flu, with no apparent basis.

Authorities from countries such as Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all admitted that they are including deaths from other causes in their COVID-19 mortality figures.

The media beat-up

The media is playing the major part in creating panic, filling their pages with sensational but easily discredited stories (newspapers are supposed to sell more copies in time of war, and perhaps this ‘war on coronavirus’ is no different).  The BBC reported on a 21 year old woman ‘who died of Covid19 without any previous illnesses’ –  it subsequently became known that the woman did not test positive for Covid19 and died of a heart failure.

Governments have ignored new evidence

Corona is ‘an epidemic of mass panic […]. Logic was one of the first victims.’ (Danish researcher Peter Gøtzsche, founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration.

The dismissive response of virologists and other specialists as well as published official reports from mid-March, both well-documented here by Facts About COVID-19,  provided ample warning that the virus is not the creature it is claimed to be.  Governments have chosen to bow to the media-engendered hysteria, and to ignore available information contrary to the media narrative.

In a fact sheet published March 23, the World Health Organization reported that COVID-19 was in fact spreading slower, not faster, than influenza by a factor of about 50%. Moreover, pre-symptomatic transmission appeared to be much lower with COVID-19 than with influenza.

On March 24 UK removed COVID-19 from the official list of High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID), stating that mortality rates were ‘low overall‘.

Despite the information that came available prior to declaring a state of emergency, the New Zealand government insisted on imposing a Level 4 Lockdown from 25 March.

The damage arising from the lockdowns is incalculable

Other years have seen more deadly flu outbreaks, without such drastic measures being imposed. Great harm is now being done to the global and national economy, the viability of small businesses, the functioning of health systems, people’s mental and physical health, people’s futures.

The progression towards a police state

Perhaps the most concerning aspect is the immediate suspension of our democracy and uncertainty about its future.

With neither a bang nor barely a whimper, barely one week ago New Zealand put being a long established and respected Parliamentary democracy on hold to become a virtual Police state in the ongoing fight against COVID-19. […]

We have settled into a life regime more restrictive than at any previous point in our history – including wartime.

We have no freedom of movement, limited access to essential goods and services, and our borders have been sealed […] (Peter Dunne, former NZ Cabinet Minister,   ‘Democracy On Hold)

Victoria University’s associate law professor, Dean Knight, believes that, with so much discretionary power, there is a very real risk that the discretion could be used in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.  University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis has warned  that police can useextreme and unprecedented’ powers to constrain basic freedoms of movement guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

While lockdowns are a global event, worrying trends in New Zealand have already manifested themselves over the past year.   After the shooting in Christchuch, the government imposed draconian censorship and fast tracked gun control while at the same time creating an armed police force.  Measures to further reduce free speech are under way, via ‘Hate Speech’ legislation.

The bizarre threats to imprison anyone who watched the shooting video, the recorded incidents of armed police terrorising families, and now the increasingly common experience of law-abiding citizens of being harassed by police officers, are creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust in the law.

Despite all the talk of ‘being kind’, a culture of dobbing in one’s neighbours is being actively encouraged. The Police Commissioner Mike Bush proudly announced that the website set up for that purpose crashed within the hour due to the volume of reports about lockdown infringements – 4,200 were received in the first 24 hours.

There has been an increase in on-line censorship.  Of great concern is the Danish Parliament’s adoption of a new law that prohibits the publication of information on COVID-19 that does not comply with the government’s guidelines and allows the deletion of websites and the punishment or imprisonment of authors.

Avenues for dissent and the dissemination of accurate information are severely restricted.  Organised public protest is out of the question while the lockdown is in place, leafletting too presumably.   Despite these restrictions on communication and dissent, the NZ government is continuing to push ahead with controversial legislation – oral submissions for the Urban Development Bill, which constitutes an assault on traditional property rights, were heard in the early days of the lockdown.

References to ‘bringing the country out of lockdown’ suggest that restrictions may continue.  (Bill Gates is recommending the US stay in lockdown for another 10 weeks.)

The crisis is seen by players such as Bill Gates as an opportunity to further other initiatives, such as further plans for compulsory vaccination, firstly making vaccines a requirement to participate in public meetings or travel.  Gates has just announced plans to launch human-implantable ‘quantum-dot tattoos’ to show vaccine status.  Vaccines will be fast-tracked and without liability.

Eventually what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person, who’s a vaccinated person […]. Because you don’t want people moving around the world where you’ll have some countries that won’t have it under control, sadly. Bill Gates, How To Respond to the Coronavirus Pandemic  (video, from 34:14)

The COVID-19 scare has spawned calls for the abolition of the family, e.g ‘The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake’, and ‘The Coronavirus Crisis Shows It’s Time to Abolish the Family’, which also condemns ‘the fundamentally unsafe space that is private property’.

The executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Program, Michael Ryan, has suggested that as transmission is happening within families, those testing positively, according to the very questionable testing process, should be removed from their homes, the implication being that could be by force:

‘Now, we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.

COVID-19 tests are not reliable:- the manufacturer’s description for the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR testing kit has the instruction, ‘For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.’

‘This is why you’re hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. That’s because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms.’ (‘If You Want to Create a Totally False Panic About a Totally False Pandemic – Pick a Coronavirus’).

So children may be forcibly taken from their homes, on the basis of testing positive for what? the common cold?

Conclusion

Fear, not the fact, of deadly disease has led politicians to take draconian steps with huge implications for the global economy, the  balance of wealth and power, and civil liberties.   The public have been psyched into accepting that COVID-19 infection must be stopped at all costs, ignoring all evidence of its relative harmlessness.   There is a real danger that the public will continue to accept hitherto undreamed-of restrictions on their rights.

This disastrous situation can only be rectified if the mistake is acknowledged and rectified, the measures repudiated and the state of emergency lifted.  Any other course leaves the way for ongoing abuse of power by the police and the authorities.

 

See also:

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

’12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic’: OffGuardian has assembled a group of medical specialists – eminent virologists, microbiologists, pulmonologists, etc – who all questioning the Coronavirus panic and the desirability of extreme measures.

’10 MORE Experts Criticising the Coronavirus Panic’: another 10 specialists from OffGuardian.

‘Facts about Covid-19’: a completely referenced timeline of evidence relating to the COVID-91 scare.

‘New Zealand becoming police state: Covid-19 lockdown to be taken seriously, but reporting neighbors & abuse of power goes too far’.  Another observer who believes the hype about COVID-19, but still believes there is an abuse of power.

 

 

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

Anonymous account sent to Julian Rose, here edited.  In full:  Insider Exposes COVID-19 Coronavirus Scam

‘Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus.  Not specifically for COVID-19.  There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus.  There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. […]  Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply can not make accurate assessments.

‘This is why you’re hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms.  That’s because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms.  The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues. […]

‘If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus. […]

‘There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time.  All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a coronavirus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease.  Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die.

‘You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on.  Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist.

‘Now just run the same scam in other countries.  Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically.  Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people, you are mislabeling your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic.

‘But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways.

  1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.
  2. You can tell people that ‘minimizing’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.
  3. You can talk crap about made up numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience.
  4. You can start testing well people (who, of course, will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptom-less cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen).’

It’s worked a treat.

 

See also: COVID-19: Bill Gates Engineers a Global Crisis from Seasonal Flu

 

 

COVID-19: Bill Gates Engineers a Global Crisis from Seasonal Flu

With carefully planning, and a huge financial investment, Bill Gates has shut down the global economy and caused harm to countless people, by turning seasonal flu into a totally unjustified pandemic crisis.  The purpose of the engineered crisis is to crash the world’s economies, normalise authoritarianism  and further the elites’ goal of global government.

The COVID-19 beat-up

‘The Emperor has no clothes’ (Wolfgang Woburg)

Subsequent to the pronouncement of what has been described as a new, lethal and highly infectious coronavirus, COVID-19, a state of panic has been engineered by the corporate media.  Enormous pressure has been put on governments to ‘act’ – citizens have been begging for the draconian and economically disastrous measures which are been imposed.

Protests by scientists that the danger is exaggerated are ignored by media and politicians, who are being morally blackmailed into taking extreme measures.  Anyone who suggests that a targeted measure to safeguard those at risk from corona or any virus (as is usual practice) would be far preferable to locking down the country and thereby causing enormous damage to the economy and to people’s livelihood, well-being and rights, is promptly labelled cynical and callous.

Virologists, epidemiologists, pulmonologists and other scientists in  relevant fields have from the outset criticised the scare with regard to the efficacy of the test, the reliability of data, the level of danger presented by the virus, and the damage to the economy and society presented by the draconian measures, see, for example, 12 here and another 10 hereNew evidence emerging as time goes only confirms what these medical experts have been saying – that COVID-19 is no more than seasonal flu, not shown to be more dangerous than in other years.  Medical scientists have pointed out that figures for infection are a vast underestimate.

‘All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook’ (Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, specialist in microbiology, emeritus professor at  Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz)

The view of John Lee, emeritus professor of pathology, is that if we tracked any other seasonal virus in the same way, we would also see an exponential increase.

  • Much of the response to Covid-19 seems explained by the fact that we are watching this virus in a way that no virus has been watched before.’
  • ‘We have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the world.’
  • ‘When drastic measures are introduced, they should be based on clear evidence. In the case of Covid-19, the evidence is not clear.’
  • ‘We have decided on policies of extraordinary magnitude without concrete evidence of excess harm already occurring, and without proper scrutiny of the science used to justify them.’

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, pulmonologist, has pointed out that the test protocol for coronavirus was fast-tracked by the World Health Organisation without the usual tests being run (it was given the stamp of approval in mid-January).

It seems that virologists contrived something sensational, which impressed the Chinese government. It became a political sensation completely exceeding the virological frame. Face recognition installed everywhere, ‘the clinical thermometer controlled the traffic on Chinese streets’.

COVID-19 – a Bill Gates Project

David Rockefeller’s environmentalism and ‘climate change’ narrative has the world believing that anthropogenic CO2 is about to destroy the planet, and this can only be diverted by huge sacrifice on the part of ordinary people.  Rockefeller’s project has now arguably been eclipsed by that of his colleague, Bill Gates, who has always held the medical portfolio of the Club of Rome.

The leadership role of Bill Gates in the coronavirus panic is unquestionable.

World Health Organisation

‘having sold its soul to Gates and other business donors, the WHO no longer represents the interests of patients’ (Dr Rath Foundation)

The World Health Organisation fast-tracked the first COVID-19 test protocol, and since then has played its part in creating hysteria over COVID-19.  The Gates Foundation is the biggest private donor to the WHO and the second biggest funder after the United States.  It has given over 2 billion to the WHO since the 1980s.  Other major private ‘partners’ of WHO are the Rockefeller Foundation and parmaceutical/vaccine companies such as GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Pasteur.  WHO and Gates Foundation, along with UNICEF and the World Bank, are ‘core partners’ in the vaccine alliance GAVI

Medical Research

The Gates Foundation funds a number of medical research institutes, all of which are actively promoting his plandemic.

The German Center for Infection (DZIF)

The initial test protocol approved by the WHO was developed at the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF) at the Charité University of Medicine in Berin. The DZIF partners a number of governments and NGOs, foremost amongst them the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in The Global Antimicrobial Resistance Research and Development Hub, located in Berlin under the roof of the DZIF.  The DZIF has also collaborated with Rockefeller University in New York.

Imperial College London

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

Epidemiological data which has influenced decision making in countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand has been provided in a study by Imperial College London.  The College has claimed that deaths from COVID-19 could amount to over half a million in the United Kingdom and 2 million deaths in the United States.

While Bill Gates has suggested that Imperial College reporting is if anything too optimistic,  its projections have been widely criticised as unneccessarily alarmist – one analysis finds that the College has exaggerated the risk by 131 times.  Such criticism has not stopped governments imposing extraordinary measures on the back of Imperial College modelling.

The College is heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: the total amount by 2018 has been calculated as $184,872,226.99.  The Gates Foundation is the second biggest donor to Imperial College after the Wellcome Trust, whose donations amount to $400,322,589.00. The Wellcome Trust works closely with the Gates Foundation in a number of endeavours, such as the founding of CEPI, whose mission statement reads,  ‘The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation’s (CEPI’s) mission is to stimulate and accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.’

Others include the Institut Pasteur , likewise supporting corona alarmism.  (This video investigates the Institut’s claim that France’s hospitals are full of people desperately ill from coronavirus.)

Coincidences

Event 201

In Oct 2019, six weeks before COVID-19 appeared, a Global Pandemic Exercise called Event 201 took place involving the Western Governments, agencies and key players including the US and Chinese CDC, which focused on a Coronavirus originating in pigs.

Event 201 was co-hosted by the Gates foundation, the World Economic Forum and John Hopkins University.  As Spiro Skouras has pointed out, news reports fabricated for this exercise are eerily similar to reports we are currently seeing with regard to the real pandemic.  Segment four of the five hour simulation talks of the suppression of misinformation, through draconian measures such as shutting down the internet.

The 7th Military Games and the Virus Drill

The Chinese Government simulated a coronavirus outbreak in a drill on September 18th 2019, 30 days before the Military Games, held in Wuhan. Thus this drill was held exactly 30 days before the key date of October 18th, 2019 – the same date when the Wuhan Military Games began and also the very same date when Event 201 (Big Pharma, Bill Gates, China’s CDC, America’s CDC, etc.) was held in the USA which was also simulating a ‘fictional’ scenario of how to handle a coronavirus epidemic. (Chinese Government Foreknowledge?  See also report from Hubei Daily, Google translation, original)

Given the role of China in these events, and in the COVID-19 outbreak itself, questions must be asked about how closely it has worked with Bill Gates in ‘managing’ the epidemic.  China has been accused of downplaying its mortality figures – it is possible that the opposite is the case.  Certainly it has taken the opportunity to crackdown on its citizens.

2015 Bill Gates predicts a deadly flu epidemic

In a TED talk of 2015, Bill Gates predicted that the next catastrophe was likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war – microbes, rather than missiles.  Some would say informed guess, an attempt to prepare people for a genuine epidemic – others would say a deliberate softening up, so that people were prepared and compliant when the designated epidemic was declared (as they have been).

Rockefeller Foundation Report Describing How to Use a Pandemic to Create Global Authoritarian Power

The Rockefeller Foundation published a report in 2010 described a scenario in which a pandemic could be used as an excuse to create a world of total government control and authoritarian leadership (pdf).

Outcomes

‘We don’t want to squash a flea with a sledgehammer and bring the house down.  (Simon Thornley, epidemiologist at Auckland University, Dominion Post 1 April 2020, speaking for himself at least.)
‘The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on world economy threatens the existence of countless people.’ (Dr Sucharit Bhakdi)

Shutdown of the economy:   The US has lost 10 million jobs in two weeks.  International tourism is at a standstill, with huge implications for everyone from airlines to hotels to souvenir sellers.  New Zealand’s two biggest earners are tourism and the agricultural sector – the shutdown comes just as the government has adopted the economically dubious strategy of replacing farming with forestry.

The personal cost: Lives will be wrecked due to the loss of jobs, and increased alcoholism and drug abuse.  In New Zealand, increased domestic abuse is likely.  The restrictions on activity will also impact on health – walking round the block is no substitute for hiking in the hills, long bikes rides, or playing sport.  In New Zealand those shopping for food are forced to wait for long periods in the cold outside supermarkets – these shoppers still include a worrying number of elderly people.

Implications for the tax payer:  The New Zealand government has announced a $12 billion support plan;  the US has announced a $2 trillion economic packageBailouts or buy-ins of the airline industry are expected.  Bank bail-outs are expected.

Implications for the small business model:  In the short term the impact will be greatest on small businesses.  Todd Horwitz of Bubba Trading said on RT’s Boombust (3 April) that, ‘The companies that survive will be stronger and will take on staff.  People just won’t be going back to those small businesses they were working for.’  Whether the small business model will bounce back as economies recover is questionable.

The Markets: The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) finished Monday 9 March with its worst loss since December 2008, with the Dow Jones declining by more than 2,000 points. The collapse was spurred by an anticipated economic downturn caused by the spreading COVID-19 coronavirus and its associated quarantines, travel restrictions and decreased trade. Corona-scare apologists say that the crash was coming anyway after a lengthy bull market,  aggravated by strangely coincidental oil war.  However it is hardly credible to claim that the crashing economy due to the lockdown would have no effect on the market at all.

The Police State

With neither a bang nor barely a whimper, barely one week ago New Zealand put being a long established and respected Parliamentary democracy on hold to become a virtual Police state in the ongoing fight against Covid-19 (Peter Dunne, former NZ Cabinet Minister) ‘Democracy On Hold

Measures taken have perforce impacted negatively on the rights and freedoms of citizens, in a way that could not have been predicted, and completely unknown in democratic societies.

‘We have settled into a life regime more restrictive than at any previous point in our history – including wartime.

‘We have no freedom of movement, limited access to essential goods and services, and our borders have been sealed; we are encouraged to snoop on our neighbours and report them if we believe they are breaking the rules, and to report businesses if we think they are price-gouging.’ (Peter Dunne)

Police in New Zealand and abroad have been heavy-handed in the administration of their new duties to enforce the lockdown.  People taking their dogs to deserted beaches in Wellington have been sent home by police.  In England, the police are sending out drones to harass people walking in national parks.  People have been harassed for reading on park benches.  One former British police officer called for the tasering and the use of rubber bullets on non-compliant citizens.

Both in UK and New Zealand there is uncertainty over the law, what the police are actually mandated to do under the law.

‘This is what a police state is like. It’s a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers’ wishes’ (Lord Sumption).

Even those who agree that COVID-19 is exceptionally dangerous have expressed concern about the level of police intrusion into people’s lives.

‘New Zealand – the “land of the long white cloud” – has evolved into a police state overnight amid the fallout of Covid-19, with people now being encouraged to dob in fellow Kiwis who flout lockdown rules.’ Darius Shahtahmasebi, ‘New Zealand becoming police state: Covid-19 lockdown to be taken seriously, but reporting neighbors & abuse of power goes too far’

The level of risk presented by the COVID-19 virus cannot possibly justify this assault on democracy and this level of harm to humanity.

Cui Bono

Financial Gain: Larger businesses – and especially the corporations – will ultimately benefit from both the failure of small businesses and the crashing of the market.

The principle goal, however, is to further the aims of the globalists, e.g.:

Compulsory Vaccination:  Bill Gates has called for vaccine certificates as a requirement for travel.

Digital ID:   The Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, GAVI, Microsoft, Accenture and Ideo-Org have formed a partnership called the ID2020 alliance, whose purpose is to introduce (by the end of 2020) a ‘digital ID’ . (Bill Gates is a strong proponent of microchipping the human race, e.g. for vaccines, and for contraception.)  Gates has just announced plans to launch human-implantable ‘quantum-dot tattoos’ to show vaccine status.

More money to the (corporate-owned) UN: UN chief Antonio Guterres has asked for 10% of the word’s annual income to fight the current corona virus.

Calls for global government: Former British politicians Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and of course Bill Gates himself, have all called for global government.

Normalising of totalitarianism:   The declaration of a state of emergency and the speedy abandoning of democratic and natural rights has been remarkable easy, as Peter Dunne said, with neither a bang nor barely a whimper.  The majority of citizens are so scared of catching cold that they do not even think to question either the dangers or the draconian measures.  If the populace is so compliant now, will they notice if rights and freedoms are not fully restored, or object if lockddowns become common practice?  Climate activist group and globalist tool Extinction Rebellion has pointed to the lockdowns as a suitable model to stop climate change.

Perhaps the most concerning, the cleverest, aspect of the epidemic scare is that it provides an excuse to shut down important avenues of dissent.  The corporate media is, of course, on side anyway, but parliaments have been prorogued, public meetings are banned, leafletting is hardly likely to be tolerated.  Anyone who tries to organise a public protest is likely to be detained.

With governments like that of New Zealand totally under the thumb of the United Nations (i.e. of the corporations), a compliant populace, and huge damage already inflicted on the world, Bill Gates’ engineered crisis is  resounding success.

 

See also:

Bill Gates’ Busy Busy World

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petition: Stop Wellington SNAs – Stop Agenda 21

Sign the petition that Wellington Regional Council rescind their illegal policy of creating Significant Natural Areas on private property.

‘Significant Natural Areas’ (SNAs) are an illegal policy vigorously promoted by Forest & Bird, and being implemented by local authorities in urban and rural parts of New Zealand.  The policy declares that any green areas on private land, regardless of cover – whether gorse, garden shrubbery, pine or scrub – can be declared as protected land with corresponding loss of property rights.

In a country with ample reserves and forest throughout the country, even in the major cities, SNAs aim to replace suburban gardens with areas for rewilding.  The assumption is that backyards, though enjoyed by birds, bugs, bees and humanity, old and young alike, have no intrinsic value to man or beast.

Local councils insist that SNAs are based on the Resource Management Act, specifically 6c, which says:

‘all persons exercising functions and powers under [this act …], shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: […](c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna’

Nothing in section 6 or anywhere in the RMA authorises the placing of protection orders on private suburban land. Indeed, the RMA makes it clear that human rights, welfare and happiness do have a value.

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while— […] (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

The SNAs are now to be given legitimacy by several legislative measures – the National Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NSIB), the Biodiversity Strategy, and the Urban Development Bill.  Taken together, these measures will drastically undermine private property rights.  The measures aim to:

  • Replace private land with areas for rewilding;
  • Enable the compulsory acquisition of private land for development (Urban Development Bill);
  • Place biodiversity as a paramount value, so that the most common native weed or animal in NZ has greater rights than humanity, always;
  • Restrict options for development and facilitate high-density living in New Zealand.

The policies do not derive from formalised NZ policy but are purely ideological.  They are based on the UN’s Agenda 21, now referred to as ‘sustainable development’, ‘smart growth’ etc.  Long established UN policies include the elimination of private land, urbanisation, open-ended rewilding, and depopulation.

Sign the Petition: https://www.change.org/p/greater-wellington-regional-council-rescind-the-policy-of-creating-significant-natural-areas-on-private-property

 

For more detail, see:

The Erosion of NZ Property Rights

Significant Natural Areas (SNAs): How NZ Cities Are Implementing Agenda 21 and the American Wildlands Project

 

 

 

The Erosion of NZ Property Rights

NZ has a tradition of encouraging home ownership, seen as a buffer against poverty and providing security and a high quality of life for families.

‘’When you dispossess people of their land, regardless of the colour of their skin, it drops those people into poverty’ (West Coast iwi)

Core values, our democracy and our sovereignty are now under threat as New Zealand politicians prefer to apply an ideology sponsored by the United Nations bureaucracy and associated interest groups rather than to be guided by the wishes, needs and values of New Zealanders.

There is a concerted move in New Zealand to:

  • Undermine private land ownership
  • Encourage or enforce high density living
  • Prioritise ‘rewilding’ over human welfare
  • Change our way of life for the worse

Almost 30% of sparsely-populated New Zealand is reserve Crown land.  This does not include the Te Urewera forest, formerly the North Island’s largest national park, or the many reserves managed by local authorities. A third of New Zealand is covered in forest, most of this native bush.  In addition there are scraps of bush on suburban sections, and large stands on farms, with more and more farmers planting to combat erosion. Over 40% of land is in pasture.  Home gardens are parks in themselves providing food and living space for birds, bugs and human beings – native fauna appreciate New Zealand gardens with their flowers and trees.

There is no indication that the majority of New Zealanders want a dramatic increase in reserve land at the expense of private property, or a change to policies on compulsory acquisition, which so far has been used only to enable major public works.

Government and local authorities are launching a full-frontal attack on long-established policy, private property rights and the New Zealand way of life.

  • Local authorities have instituted a policy of claiming rights over private property in the interest of biodiversity (Significant Natural Areas or SNAs).  Regional councils are falsely claiming authority from the RMA, and the policy is informed by sources which are not revealed.
  • The government has now introduced measures to legitimise SNAs and further facilitate control or acquisition of private land in the name of biodiversity, in the form of the proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity and the proposed Biodiversity Strategy.
  • The Urban Development Bill gives local authorities sweeping powers to enforce the acquisition of private urban land on behalf of developers.
  • The government has signed the UN Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration  whose manifest purpose is to facilitate unchecked migration. Mass immigration will justify high density urbanisation and the egregious provisions of the Urban Development Bill, and is likely to undermine the culture of home ownership.
  • The new measures introduced by government repeatedly flag a greater say by iwi on (non-Maori) private property, though without details.
  • Authorities are flagging zoning decisions to be made on ludicrous claims of dramatic sea rise.

New Zealand authorities, at both local and government level, are putting in place a series of measures that constitute a concerted attack on private property, and which taken together will ensure that nobody can feel secure in their own home.

There is an ideological commitment to restore as much of New Zealand as possible to its assumed original state, and to push human beings into as small a space as possible.  A number of serious philosophical issues arise with regard to these intentions:

  • Biodiversity is considered to trump human rights and human happiness, always.
  • Respect for the intrinsic value of private property is being undermined.
  • There has been no proper discussion about whether New Zealanders are on board with a dramatic reallocation of land use, or whether instead they support former policies of ongoing environmental improvements.
  • The public is being misled about both the legal framework for what is being done, and also the ultimate goals.
  • The contribution to biodiversity of private property in the form of home gardens and farmland, and the positive nature of past environmental policies are undervalued or distorted.

A feature of the process is its opacity: the Significant Natural Areas policies of local authorities, which established the precedent of taking control of private land for reserves, is NOT justified by the Reserve Management Act, as claimed by the Regional Councils.  The closest one gets to legal justification is the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (see below, ‘The Role of the United Nations’).

 Significant Natural Areas (SNAs)

‘Nobody owns property’ (Jill Day, former Deputy Mayor of Wellington, NZ)

The Significant Natural Area policies of local authorities claim authority from the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which requires councils to maintain and protect indigenous biodiversity.  The provisions of the act are being used to drive SNA designations on private property in both urban and rural areas.

Wellington City

Wellington’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, modelled on a directive from the Greater Wellington Regional Council and approved by the City Council in 2015, says:

To achieve our biodiversity goals, we will aim to protect the ecologically significant areas on both private and public land.

The SNAs are areas selected from aerial photography to form protected pockets of land,  ignoring  boundaries, with the intention of rewilding them, and with implications for private land rights.   There are over 160 land areas in Wellington city itself that meet the criteria, only about half of which are on Council land, and 1700 property owners are affected (from Council website Backyard Taonga).  A map of the designated areas can be seen here.

The intention of Wellington City Council is to create, not protect, rewilding areas at the expense of private property and building options.

The council has set out to create as many SNAs as possible regardless of quality, choosing any spaces between houses which add up to the the minimum size of 0.5 hectares, whether they be covered in gorse or scrub or pine or agapanthus or regenerating bush, camellia hedges, possibly even lawn and garden beds.

SNAs nicholson

It is abundantly clear that the SNA policy is designed not to protect significant natural areas, but to create them, in an urban area that already has substantial bush reserves.

One designated SNA in Khandallah consists of some back gardens and at least one  developed building site, where building has been delayed so it is now overgrown with  blackberry and other low-grade vegetation – no council reserve is involved.  Exotic garden shrubbery is also incorporated.  Discussion with affected owners has revealed other properties where plans to develop or subdivide are now in question.

SNA

The SNAs are intended to be open-ended:

We will restore these areas, create safe buffer zones around them and connect them together.

All areas are to have buffer zones, then, not just to function as such but to allow expansion, as the buffers themselves become part of the ‘significant biodiversity area’.  The corridors, too, could expand in the same manner.

One of the qualifying features for an SNA is that sites ’connect ecosystems or habitats for rare indigenous species‘ –  potentially every tree in Wellington. Protected native birds such as tuis, fantails and even wood pigeons are abundant in Wellington, liking both native and exotic vegetation, bush and gardens. There wouldn’t be a scrap of bush, in some areas hardly a tree, native or exotic, that doesn’t see a tui at some time. The American experience is that it only takes a single sighting of a protected bird or animal, even when it has clearly strayed from a nearby reserve, to halt all development (see ‘Agenda 21: a Plan to Take Your Land and Give it To Tortoises and Pagosa Skyrockets’).

The SNAs are to be offset by high-density human habitat.  In parallel with expanding protected areas Wellington City Council claims a shortage of land for housing.  The Council has a policy of Smart Growth, which translates as a ‘vibrant’, compact city, to be achieved by an ever-increasing number of apartment buildings, leading inevitably to the eventual destruction of our suburbs as we know them. Child-friendly cafes rather than backyards are portrayed as meeting the needs of the modern family.

As suburban gardens are progressively destroyed, and bushy banks bulldozed, native birds will be forced away from homes and into the SNAs, which will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

A further issue that needs clarification is that by coming under the RMA, there could be a requirement to consult iwi for those affected by the SNAs and wishing to even build a shed – this can entail further costs and frustration.

The West Coast

After a Department of Conservation appeal to the Environment Court in 2012, the West Coast Regional Council was ordered to add a further 215 schedule 2 wetlands to its Soil and Water Plan.  It is estimated about 5000ha of wetlands on private land are affected, with landowners required to pay for ecological assessments to see if the land qualifies for full protection under schedule 1.  The government is refusing to pay compensation.

West Coaster Tony Barrett has seen 70% of his 607-hectare block designated as an SNA.  Much of the land is now undeveloped, having a history of passing from its original bush-clad state, to being cleared, dug over and mined for gold, then left to gorse and scrub, which has provided host to regenerating bush.  The SNA designation means that Barrett or subsequent owners ‘would need resource management consent from the Department of Conservation to fell trees, run stock, convert to dairy and possibly to pick moss’   (DomPost, Wednesday, February 19, 2020).

There is an expectation that West Coast residents will be particularly hard hit when the government strengthens SNA provisions (see below, ‘Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity’).

Are SNAs legal?

SNAs represent an hitherto unseen assault on private property rights, which has not been discussed and approved by the public, and whose legality is questionable.  There is now a convention, promoted by councils and environmental agencies, that the SNAs are based on the RMA, that the Act requires that councils take control of private land to protect (and restore) biodiversity.  For example:

‘The Resource Management Act 1991 places obligations on local authorities to protect and maintain indigenous biodiversity on land in private tenure. However, how this should be done is not explicitly prescribed. Authorities are guided by a variety of means (e.g. ecological guidance and case law), and implement their responsibilities to varying degrees and with inconsistent success.’  (Advances in the identification and assessment of ecologically significant habitats in two areas of contrasting biodiversity loss in New Zealand)

Likewise email correspondence from both the GWRC and the environmental NGO Forest & Bird confirms that their SNA policies rely on the RMA.  ‘RMA Section 6(c) directs councils (under sections 30 and 31) to protect significant biodiversity within their jurisdictions’ (GWRC); ‘Section 6(c) of the RMA places a responsibility on Councils to protect “areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna” as a matter of “national importance” – these areas are usually referred to as “significant natural areas” (SNAs) in District Plans’ (Forest & Bird) .

SNA Policies are NOT based on the cited provisions of the RMA

Section 6 of the Resource Management Act, Matters of national importance states:

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and
powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection
of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following
matters of national importance:

(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant
habitats of indigenous fauna:

Not mentioned by either correspondent but affecting not only the West Coast but landowners in the Wellington Region is 6 (a):

(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment
(including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and
their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision,
use, and development:

Section 5 of The Resource Management Act, Purpose and principles, states:

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

There is nothing in the act which provides that ‘biodiversity’ should trump human rights and human welfare.  The RMA provides for the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and of significant habitats, while acknowledging the importance of  the social, economic, and cultural well-being of people and their communities.  The RMA makes it clear that while all efforts should be made to protect the environment, protect endangered species and preserve significant natural areas, the welfare of people and communities should come first.

The only reference to private land in the RMA is to to protect it with regard to heritage orders, eg:

189 (1A) (1A) However, a heritage protection authority that is a body corporate approved under section 188 must not give notice of a requirement for a heritage order in respect of any place or area of land that is private land.

No provision in the RMA authorises the claiming for rewilding of gorseland, building sites, agapanthus or rhododendron shrubbery on private land.

 The Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB)

The NZ inspiration for the GWRC’s Policy Statement appears to be the Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity (2011), which has no legal effect: it was announced by the Minister for the Environment in early 2011, but ‘was not progressed due to a lack of stakeholder agreement on its content […]’

The statement recommended:

  • the retention of as many ‘elements’ as possible
  • the retention of existing vegetation, whether indigenous or not (but not including recognised pest plants), that provides habitat for indigenous species or seasonal food sources for indigenous species (i.e. every tree in Wellington)
  • buffer zones
  • corridors (‘ecological linkage’)
  • ways to address the problem of private property.

The proposal was developed by the Biodiversity Collaborative Group, an environmentalist lobby group whose core members are all non-government organisations.

That proposal may have been rejected, but now an updated version has been presented for consideration. The new  National Policy Statement for Biological Diversity is intended to legitimise and strengthen the SNA policies of local authorities, which have no authority under existing legislation.  Like the SNAs and the failed NPSIB of 2011, the revamped NPSIB seeks to establish a policy of ever-increasing protected areas as the expensive of private homes.

‘The proposed NPSIB provides direction to councils on their responsibilities for protecting and maintaining indigenous biodiversity under the RMA.

‘The primary objective of the proposed NPSIB is to maintain indigenous biodiversity (Part 1.7(2) and (3) and Part 2.1 Objective 1 of the proposed NPSIB). Maintaining indigenous biodiversity requires, at the least, no reduction in:
a. the size of populations of indigenous species
b. indigenous species occupancy across their natural range
c. the properties and function of ecosystems and habitats
d. the full range and extent of ecosystems and habitats
e. connectivity between, and buffering around, ecosystems
f. the resilience and adaptability of ecosystems.’

The objective, however, is not preservation of biodiversity but restoration as far as possible to what is assumed to be the original state.

‘Native forests once covered about 80 per cent of New Zealand’s land area. About 65 per cent of our original native forest has been removed […].  Reversing the decline of indigenous biodiversity in Aotearoa New Zealand is a long-term policy objective.’ (p.12)

Again, the proposal repeatedly insists on the legal right of authorities to encroach on private land; again, it claims authority from the RMA:

‘The RMA is the key piece of legislation for managing New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity outside public conservation land, including on private land’

Again, the  proposal cites no authority from within the RMA. ‘The RMA’s key provisions recognising biodiversity are outlined on the following page [14].’  These key provisions contain no reference to private land.

The Biodiversity Strategy

New Zealand’s Department of Conservation has produced a draft Biodiversity Strategy,  which is a national strategy applying the same principles as the regionally based SNAs, and very similar in scope to the NPSIB.  The strategy demands the ongoing expansion of reserved land and/or  land zoned for rewilding: this will be achieved by increased ‘tools’ (regulations)  to facilitate taking of private land or limiting the use of private land.

DOC’s vision for New Zealand by 2070

‘Our species, habitats and ecosystems (especially those that are currently rare
and threatened) are increasing, not declining, in number and extent, across
private as well as public land and in the sea’

Expansion of biodiversity areas – restoring biodiversity

The strategy aims to ‘restore biodiversity’ (p. 20), without defining what is meant by this goal decision.  At the extreme, of course, all human inhabitants would depart, leaving New Zealand to revert to the avian paradise it once was.  The Agenda 21 compromise is penning human beings in high-density cities, leaving most of the country zoned for ‘biodiversity’.

What is planned is ‘a complete network of biodiversity hubs across New Zealand […].  As with the SNAs, these will be connected by corridors: ‘Eco systems will be connected from the mountain tops to the ocean depths’.  The hubs will be protected by buffer zones to allow expansion.

The Strategy reiterates the need for the government to have access to private land:

Biodiversity is core to all decisions about land and water management, including on private land’ ‘private landowners […] are a crucial part of the system’; ‘Implement a consistent national approach to rates relief for covenanted and other protected private land’.

The end of suburbs and small towns as we know them

The draft emphasises the New Zealand love of ‘nature’: ‘Nature in Aotearoa is healthy, abundant, and thriving.  Current and future generations connect with nature, restore it and are restored by it.’ While there is a comprehensive list of outdoor activities such as sport and tramping, a notable omission is the home garden, though this provides the greatest access to nature for New Zealanders over their lifetime.  The words ‘garden’ and ‘suburb’ occur neither in the Biodiversity Strategy nor the Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity.  New Zealand is described in the Strategy as an urbanised society:

  New Zealand is one of the most urbanised countries in the world.  There is significant opportunity to restore nature in cities and integrate it into urban planning, which will, in turn, help reconnect urban dwellers with nature. P. 52

This falsely conveys an impression of a people living in high density cities like Singapore, nothing like New Zealand cities with their preponderance of single-use dwellings and private yards.

The language and goals of the draft Strategy echo those of the American Wildlands Project, which aims to turn 50% of the United States into reserve land largely off-limits for human beings, connected by corridors to allow bison to roam the continent, and with large buffer zones (exposure of the Wildlands Project led to the United States refusing to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity).

Department of Conservation Empire Building

Biodiversity should be ‘core to all decisions about land and water management’. To enforce this, and to facilitate taking or imposing restrictions on private land,  more powers need to be given to local and central government.  There are repeated references to the need for improved ‘legal and regulatory frameworks’ .

‘A mix of regulatory and non-regulatory tools should be used to achieve the best outcome, recognising that incentives, regulatory guidance and backstops are important elements of an effective response.’ (p. 29)

As a consequence the Department of Conservation will be involved in all decisions involving land and water use.

The Urban Development Bill

‘Objective of Bill is to better co-ordinate use of land, infrastructure, and public assets
to maximise public benefit from complex urban development projects’

In the past private property in New Zealand has only been seized for essential public works such as roading.  The Urban Development Bill gives the housing authority Kāinga Ora sweeping powers to force the acquisition of private property on behalf of developers.

‘Kāinga Ora will have land acquisition and transfer powers when undertaking any urban development […] The Bill has safeguards in place to ensure that the use of land acquisition powers strikes an appropriate balance between the need to meet urban development outcomes and the need to maintain certainty of property rights.’

Under this legislation, anyone with a home and garden is vulnerable and insecure.  In America, authorities can come to arrangements with developers, whereby property owners are forced to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.  This will certainly happen in New Zealand if  government measures to undermine land rights are permitted to proceed.  See Kelo v. City of New London Ten Years Later

‘Climate Change’ and The Threat to Coastal Development Property Rights

‘Draconian policy […] is destroying coastal communities on the back of projections which are basically lies.‘ (Mark Windows, Sea Level Expert V Climate Lies Destroying Communities, 0:10)

The most reliable sea rise gauges world-wide indicate an average global rise of 1-2mm per annum, and not accelerating.  See, for example, Wismar, Germany data, that shows a long-term trend of 1.4mm with no acceleration; an analysis of the 225 tide stations more than 50 years old,  which gave an average of 1.4mm pa;  an analysis of the 212 tide gauges with 60 years of recorded data in 2014, of which the most common SLR was +1.25 mm/year in 37 tide gauges.  Members of the School of Surveying, Otago University, and GNS NZ  found  an average annual sea level rise of 0.9 mm over four main NZ centres, once subsidence is taken into account

Coastal property is now under threat of rezoning purely on the basis of extravagant claims of global sea-rise.  Dr David Kear, former Director-General of New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, noted that the Ohope Council declared a landwards inundation at Ohope Beach, contrary to local advice and the conclusions of their own consultants.  Kear concluded that councils seem to feel that (unknown) higher authorities insist that they must ignore evidence that supports accretion.

Despite all the factual evidence to the contrary, Wellington local authorities, as well as the corporate media, are projecting sea rise of several metres within a short time: according to one report, the Lower Hutt suburb of Petone could be swallowed up by sea rise in just 80 years.

In the United Kingdom, over 50 villages on the Welsh coast are facing their demise, not because of rising seas, but because of rezoning on the basis of alarmist claims.  Not untypical is ‘Some of Wales’ major coastal towns and cities could be underwater in the next 100 years, experts warn’; apparently sea rise ‘could be at least 6 metres’.  ‘Experts’ are a consortium of climate scientists and journalists called Climate Central, funded according to Sourcewatch by a number of impressive bodies such as Google, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, NASA, the Turner Foundation and certainly by the Rockefeller Foundation, founder of the global warming movment.  World-renowned sea level authority such as Nils Axel-Mörner has declared the claims to be completely unfounded, and some Welsh villages are suing the  UK government over their alarmism.

Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

The NZ Government is signatory to the UN’s Global Compact on Migration, designed in fact to facilitate migration.  The reasons for supporting or opposing the mass movement of people are complex.  It should be pointed out, however, that aside from the pressure on housing that is created by a large number of arrivals from overseas, their presence is likely to favour urbanisation and undermine the tradition of home ownership.

Maori Aspirations:

‘Many iwi, hapū and whānau have significant aspirations to play a greater role in managing biodiversity on public and private land’.  ‘[by 2020] Mana whenua feel that they can genuinely practice their role as kaitiaki [guardianship]’.  (Biodiversity Strategy)

In all the proposed legislation – the Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity, the Biodiversity Strategy, Urban Development Bill – the demand for an increasing role for iwi is reiterated time and again, but not explained.  It is unclear what the role of kaitiaki entails, whether the proposals flag Maori having a greater say over (non-Maori) private land usage, or its compulsory acquisition, or they are paving the way for the Treaty of Waitangi being amended to cover private land, as has been mooted recently.

The Role of the United Nations

The main focus of Agenda 21 is to take control of the land because once they do that, they can control any human activity (Lucille Femine, Agenda 21 Revealed)

The inspiration for the assault on private property comes not from a movement within New Zealand but from policies developed by the United Nations bureaucracy.  At present, the only legal authority for SNAs and the new policies regarding claiming private land for ‘biodiversity’ is the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity 1992.

The Convention on Biological Diversity

Signatory countries, regardless of their different circumstances, agree ‘as far as possible’ to:

(a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;

[…]

(e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas;
(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of threatened species;

The Convention thus commits signatory countries to open-ended reversion of private land to its ‘original’ state.

As Michael Coffman (Agenda 21 Wildlands Project) points out, state control over private property has been central to every international treaty since the 1970sOne of the most explicit UN position statements on private land is contained in the Official Report of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements 1976, also known as Habitat 1:

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.

Agenda 21

Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan which was presented for signature, along with the Convention on Biological Diversity, at the Rio Earth Summit 1992. The document Agenda 21 serves as the text for the UN’s Agenda 2030 and its ‘Sustainable Development Goals’.   Agenda 21 proposes the expansion of government control over all areas of life, on the basis of the two prongs of environmentalism promoted by the elite foundations, ie ‘biodiversity’ and ‘climate’.   Agenda 21 is closely linked to the elite globalist movement, is sponsored by the mega-corporations, and has been referred to variously as Marxist, fascist, totalitarian and Orwellian.

A number of local authority networking platforms have been founded and funded by Rockefeller and other elite foundations specifically for the purpose of promoting Agenda 21, including ICLEI and 100 Resilient Cities, the latter founded by David Rockefeller himself.  Because of the threat they present to private landowners, more than half of American states have introduced legislation to the implementation of policies or recommendations emanating from Agenda 21, ICLEI, or even the United Nations, with varying results.

See also: Agenda 21 and How it Plays Out, and Ryan Cristian, Agenda 2030 (aka New World Order) Decrypted, which includes an analysis of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

The Way Forward

The establishment of SNAs shows that decisions are already being implemented which are not based on New Zealand legislation and New Zealand values but are guided by undeclared forces.  Government measures now seeks to legitimise public control or purchase of private property, which will mean that nobody can feel secure in their own home.

It is clear that the only way to protect traditional private property rights is to pass specific legislation to that end, including amending (or repealing) the RMA.

Consideration should also be given to banning local authority networking platforms such as ICLEI, whose raison d’etre is the promotion of Agenda 21 and the undermining of what New Zealand sees as essential values.

At the very least, there should be proper debate in New Zealand over whether they accept policies that place all non-human nature above humanity, and whether they accept the scenario that native fauna should enjoy unlimited space and unlimited rights while those of human beings must be severely curtailed.