Fascism comes to New Zealand

It’s the abuser’s Swiss army knife for the empty-headed.

Multipurpose, its meaning has near-infinite elasticity. You can be labelled ‘fascist’ if you say that there are only two biological sexes, or that women should not have to undress in front of men, or that men should be excluded from women’s sports, or that men can’t get pregnant, or even if you voted for Trump.

Such is the ignorance of the 1930s and 1940s that in contemporary discourse, ‘fascist’ has lost all meaning. Yet, in a very real sense, New Zealand is now Fascist. If this seems an extraordinary statement, consider Mussolini’s widely reported (though not documented), definition:

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” (Emphasis added)

This definition may not be to everyone’s liking, but has the virtue of simplicity and clarity. Moreover, it is an accurate description of what is happening in America, Europe, Australia and as I shall show, New Zealand.

* * *

There can be no clearer illustration of the corporate rule of New Zealand than the stranglehold the pharmaceutical industry has on government and media.

A corporate wet dream: compulsory consumption with no liability

In 1986 President Ronald Reagan signed into law the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which protected pharmaceutical companies from financial liability resulting from adverse effects of vaccines.

Freed from litigatory constraints, childhood vaccination schedules exploded. Whereas in 1986 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended 12 vaccines in 25 doses, in 2023 it recommended vaccinations against 17 diseases, requiring 73 shots, of which 28 needed to be by the child’s first birthday.

Of course, ‘recommended’ does not actually mean ‘compelled’, but if you want your children to attend an American state school, it means just that.

Corporate coup complete: Covid-19

To anyone who had been paying attention, the enormity of the corporate coup had become apparent in March 2020, when the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and two days later President Trump declared a nationwide emergency.

This was just the beginning. Despite the fear stoked by governments and the media, Covid-19 was, like influenza, mainly a threat to life of the elderly and those with co-morbidities.

Almost in lockstep, governments round the world took away rights previously taken for granted: freedom of movement, freedom to be employed without being subject to political directives, freedom to criticise government policy via the media.

Yet when some of the world’s most eminent medical scientists raised doubts, they were censored or ridiculed.

Governments and mainstream media conducted a campaign of fear and in New Zealand, set out to create a two-tier society based on vaccination status.

Doctors were prevented from prescribing tried and tested (but cheap) treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

In response to the enforced denial of fundamental medical ethics, a small number of New Zealand doctors and other medical workers organised themselves into the campaign group New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (NZDSOS). These doctors had been deregistered by the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) for expressing views that were contrary to Pfizer’s business model (though in view of what follows, ‘excommunicated’ might be more apposite than ‘deregistered’).

The core value in good medical practice is informed consent, and in June 2021 the MCNZ issued a PDF document titled: Informed Consent: Helping patients make informed decisions about their care.

The document contained the following statement (emphasis added):

“Every time treatment is provided, a doctor must have permission to provide that treatment. The process of obtaining that permission is called ‘informed consent’. Without informed consent, the treatment may be unlawful. To help the patient decide whether they want a treatment, they first need to be given information, such as the risks and benefits of their treatment options”

On Planet Pfizer, risks to patients are too small to be considered, so any doctor who followed the MCNZ guidance regarding risks was guilty of ‘misinformation’. This, for a vaccine based on new, essentially experimental technology that had not been sufficiently tested.

It was against this backdrop that NZDSOS took legal action against the MCNZ. The case was heard at the High Court in Wellington on September 23-24, 2024. A detailed account of the case is given on the NZDSOS website here and here.

An important witness was Richard Aston, a former lay member of MCNZ. He described the dismissive culture in the council when discussing doctors who had reservations about the Covid injection. A quote from Aston’s testimony:

“The Chair [of the Medical Council] would introduce these COVID items with ‘Here we go—it’s flat earth time, get your tin foil hats on—we’ve got another anti-vaxxer in front of us,’ or, ‘The Vitamin C brigade has arrived.’”

This evidence alone should have been enough to shed grave doubts on the integrity of the MCNZ, but it proved insufficient.

* * *

So, how valid are the concerns of NZDSOS?

Vaccines produced without adequate testing

It normally takes several years to produce a vaccine after testing for safety and efficacy, but less than a year after Trump’s declaration of a nationwide emergency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorised Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine under Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) for the U.S.

Surge of all-cause mortality

In 2021, reports began to emerge of a sudden, unexplained increase in all-cause mortality. Most powerful is actuarial evidence from life insurance companies, whose business requires a detailed understanding of death rates in different sectors of the population. To give just one of many examples, in an on-line news conference on Jan 2022 Scott Davison, CEO of the Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica, reported that the death rate in the third quarter of 2021 was up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance, to employers in the state. Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica. Moreover, Davison said that most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma [three standard deviations] or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.”[a 40% increase would be a 12-sigma event, which would happen by pure chance every 2.8 x 1032 years. The universe is only 14 billion years old which is 1.4 x 1013]. Put another way, it would happen by chance every 1.4 x 1019 (that’s 14 million trillion) times the age of the universe. The event that happened is therefore not a statistical ‘fluke.’
Something completely unprecedented must have happened that involved the majority of the American population.

So what could that ‘something’ be?

Such actuarial evidence might have remained below the public’s ‘radar’, had it not been for Edward Dowd, a former Wall Street hedge fund guru. He was a portfolio manager for BlackRock, an American multinational investment company with larger assets than any country except the USA and China. When the Covid shots were rolled out, he was very suspicious because, as part of his work on Wall Street, he analysed health care stocks. He knew vaccines normally took 7-10 years to prove effectiveness and safety. The Covid vaccine had been approved in 28 days, in a programme initiated by the U.S. government to accelerate the production of Covid-19 vaccines (“Operation Warp Speed”), so he was highly suspicious from the beginning.

“Then in early 2021, he started hearing about cases of people who were getting sick, or injured, or who had died unexpectedly. He started reading about sudden athlete deaths, [and] suspected the vaccine. He began to look at insurance company results, which eventually led to his study of excess mortality statistics, and the publication of his best-selling book “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022”. In it he brought together the hundreds of reports of deaths of young people, many of whom were teenagers. Though individually reported in local media, as a national phenomenon it was largely ignored by the corporate media. Dowd put it this way:

‘From February 2021 to March 2022, millennials experienced the equivalent of a Vietnam war, with more than 60,000 excess deaths,’ he said. ‘The Vietnam war took 12 years to kill the same number of healthy young people we’ve just seen die in 12 months.’

Since this 12-month period coincides with the Covid vaccination rollout we might have expected to see a decrease in excess mortality, rather than an increase.

Evidence from an entirely different source has been obtained by Steve Connolly, an Iraq War combat veteran. Appalled by the number of unexpected deaths, he did a computer search of hundreds of thousands of obituaries that mentioned the words ‘unexpected’ or ‘suddenly’. He found a massive surge in unexpected or sudden deaths immediately following the U.S. vaccine roll-out.

Why hasn’t such a surge in sudden, unexplained deaths been headline news round the world, and why are governments ignoring it?

The answer lies in the vast web of criminality and corruption in the ‘health industry’, involving institutions that are household names – the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and, of even greater concern, the media.

And at the centre of the web sits the spider himself, multi-billionaire ‘philanthropist’ Bill Gates, who could form the subject of an entire column.

* * *

The CDC is the chief US national public health agency with the mission statement to
“work 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.”

The CDC’s pledge to the American people is that it will:

“be a diligent steward of the funds entrusted to our agency, base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively and place the benefits to society above the benefits to our institution.”

Marcia Angell is the author of the best-selling book The Truth about the Drug Companies, and the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. She told an associate editor of The British Medical Journal:

“The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with biopharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.”

The belief that as the CDC is a governmental agency it is free from the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry could not be further from the truth. In 2005 the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported that “the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly.”

By far the bulk of Big Pharma funding is indirect, and thus a form of deception. The route by which pharma’s millions reach the CDC is the ‘CDC Foundation’. It was created by Congress in 1992 as an organisation for “mobilising philanthropic and private-sector resources”, and it soon became the main conduit used by Big Pharma to influence the CDC. Large pharmaceutical companies contributed millions of dollars each year to the “separate, philanthropic CDC Foundation.“ The Foundation would then pass Big Pharma’s ‘philanthropic contributions’ to the CDC itself. Such sleight-of-hand enabled the CDC to claim that they never accepted money directly from Big Pharma. By the early 2000s the Foundation had raised $100 million in private funds “to enhance the CDC’s work.”

In this way the CDC Foundation became the chief marketing arm of Big Pharma. Any remaining doubt as to who the CDC actually works for was removed when the CDC added the COVID-19 vaccine to the recommended childhood vaccine schedule for all infants and children over six months of age.

This is an incredible decision when you consider the near non-existent danger that COVID poses to children and infants. But for those who have been paying close attention it also seemed inevitable that this would become the case.

Why is it so shocking that the CDC would recommend the jab to children? It comes down to known vs. unknown risks. In 2023, we have a very clear sense of how dangerous COVID is to children: The Covid-19 infection fatality rate for young children is 0.001%, meaning that there is a 0.00001 (one in 100 000) chance of death, 0.001 percent. As Robert Kennedy Jr. put it:

“This reckless action is final proof of the cynicism, corruption and capture of a once exemplary public health agency. ACIP members have demonstrated that fealty to their pharma overlords eclipses any residual concerns they may harbor for child welfare.”

The FDA

Another kind of corruption is regulatory capture, in which government regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public from corporate greed and deceit are ‘colonised’ by individuals from those corporations. And it’s a two-way flow – a member of a regulatory body leaves and then joins those they once regulated, bringing with them a wealth of experience how the ‘other side’ operates.

To give just one example, on 28 June 2019 Pfizer announced that Scott Gottlieb, the former US Food and Drug Administration commissioner would be joining its board of directors.
Gottlieb’s move was part of general pattern: nine out of the previous ten FDA commissioners, representing nearly forty years of agency leadership, have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies. Truly, the foxes are guarding the hen house.

The World Health Organisation

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is an agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health, with headquarters in Geneva, and established in 1948. Its mission statement is

to promote health and safety by providing technical assistance to countries, setting international health standards, collecting data on global health issues, and acting as a forum for scientific or policy discussions related to health.

Fine words, but in her opening words of a lecture titled “Corruption in global health: the open secret” and published in the medical journal The Lancet in November 2019, Patricia J. Garcia MD said:

“Corruption is embedded in health systems. Throughout my life—as a researcher, public health worker, and a Minister of Health—I have been able to see entrenched dishonesty and fraud. But despite being one of the most important barriers to implementing universal health coverage around the world, corruption is rarely openly discussed.”

Garcia does not go into specifics, let alone name names, but a report by the Alliance for Human Research Protection had no such inhibitions. Titled “Anatomy of Corruption: WHO Public Health Guidelines” (30 January 2020”, it had this to say in its introduction:

“When it was founded in 1948, the WHO relied on funding from its member states; their contributions were assessed based on their national income and population. The funds were not earmarked for any particular policy. In those days, the WHO was an independent organization. But over time, the WHO leadership traded its independence and with it, its integrity, for big money.

“In 1988, Halfdan Mahler, Director General of the WHO from 1973 to 1988, warned the world against the power wielded by the pharmaceutical industry over the WHO. He stated, in the Danish daily newspaper (Politiken), “this industry is taking over WHO”. Unfortunately, no one at that time believed him. The take-over intensified; with Big Pharma dictating global public health policies that the WHO initiates and promotes. Those policies have vastly enriched Big Pharma, and the WHO has been generously rewarded for its service.

“Currently, 80% of the WHO budget relies on earmarked donations; primarily from the U.S. government, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Big Pharma. The WHO revenue in 2016-2017 was $5.139 Billion, of which only $927 million came from assessed contributions by member states; these “core” funds cover the WHO’s general expenses. By contrast, $4.422 Billion were provided by major donors; and these funds are earmarked for activities that serve the donor’s financial interests. These major donors dictate and control the WHO policies, ensuring that WHO policies further their interests.

“The WHO, it should be noted, is not accountable to public scrutiny. The internal documents of the WHO are not available under Freedom of Information, and most of the WHO’s financial contracts are secret. In essence, the WHO became a vassal of Big Pharma and its aggressive drug and vaccine market expansion agenda. Time and again, the WHO has demonstrated its allegiance to its financial backers; adopting that have vastly enriched Pharma – even as the widespread use – and misuse – of multi-drug cocktails and multi-virus vaccines – have caused epidemic numbers of serious adverse side-effects, hospitalizations, chronic illnesses, and deaths.”

During Margaret Chan’s tenure as Director General of the WHO (2007 – 2017) “Bill Gates has had a disproportionate influence over the WHO; his foundation has contributed more than $2.4 billion, while member countries have grown reluctant to put their money into the agency, especially after the 2008 global financial crisis. Bill Gates has been labeled by some as ‘the world’s most powerful doctor’.”

Control of media

2020, Big Pharma spent 4.48 billion US dollars on TV advertising, representing 75% of its total advertising budget.

Why should it spend such a colossal amount of money on television ads? In some way it must be boosting their bottom line, but not, as one might suppose, by increasing sales of the advertised products.

No, it’s more subtle and devious than that, as Jon Rappoport suggests. He points out that many of pharma’s TV ads are for products that the general public – the ostensible target audience – have never heard of.

The reason for what might appear to be wasted money is that there is an allotted maximum time for TV ads, and by filling this time it can dominate the TV time for commercials. It thus becomes a major source of revenue for TV networks, which therefore can’t afford to broadcast anything unfavourable to pharma.

The financial importance of TV to Big Pharma’s bottom line was shown in an interview of Robert Kennedy Jr. with Jesse Ventura in 2015. Kennedy said that in a recent conversation with a top executive of a network news division he was told that during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues came from pharmaceutical ads. So important was this revenue that he would fire a host who brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account.

In this unholy alliance, Big Pharma controls TV news.

Control of Governments

Such is the power of Big Pharma that even governments have to do their bidding. This became clear as a result of an investigation into Pfizer/government contracts by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ), written by Zain Rizvi, law and policy researcher in Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines Program.

The great majority of government contracts with Pfizer are secret, but details of a small number have leaked out. Among the most egregious are:

• Pfizer reserves the Right to Silence Governments. The Brazilian contract contains a term stating that the Brazilian government is prohibited from making “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of [the] Agreement” or commenting on its relationship with Pfizer without the prior written consent of the company”.
• Disputes are settled in secret by private arbitrators rather than public courts. The BIJ investigation found that:
  What happens if the United Kingdom cannot resolve a contractual dispute with Pfizer? A secret panel of three private arbitrators—not a U.K court—is empowered under the contract to make the final decision. The arbitration is conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Both parties are required to keep everything secret:
  The Parties agree to keep confidential the existence of the arbitration, the arbitral proceedings, the submissions made by the Parties and the decisions made by the arbitral tribunal, including its awards, except as required by Law and to the extent not already in the public domain.
• Pfizer can go after state assets. The BIJ investigation found that Pfizer required Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Peru to waive sovereign immunity. In the case of Brazil, Chile and Colombia, for example, the government “expressly and irrevocably waives any right of immunity which either it or its assets may have or acquire in the future” to enforce any arbitration award (emphasis added).

The power of Big Pharma over governments is close to absolute, and its corruption correspondingly so. Many would say that the New Zealand government and MCNZ are part of global organised crime.

Others have gone further and said that it is part of a programme of world depopulation.

New Zealand as a microcosm of the global situation

In New Zealand, most people are unfamiliar with the campaign for ethical medicine by NZDSOS. Why should they be expected to, given that the glove puppet media condemn anything contrary to the pharma narrative as ‘misinformation’?

But for those with open minds and a memory extending to four years, there’s plenty of evidence in the media.

To begin with, it’s worth recalling what the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said at a press conference in 2020 (emphasis added):

‘You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director General of Health and the Ministry of Health. For that information, do feel free to visit – at any time – to clarify any rumour you may hear.

‘Otherwise, dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth. ‘We will provide information frequently. We will share everything we can. Everything else you see – a grain of salt.’

‘Pravda’ (“truth”) was the name of the official Communist Party newspaper in the Soviet Union. Though the media reported Ardern’s statement, little else was said about the implied totalitarian mindset.

The true nature of the Labour government was further revealed after an interview with Duncan Garner on 22 September 2020, in which Ardern gave an unequivocal undertaking that there would be no forced vaccinations and that those who choose to opt-out wouldn’t face any penalties at all, when a vaccine became available.

After the interview, Dan Satherley of Newshub reported that “conspiracy theorists have claimed a COVID-19 vaccine, when available, will be ‘forced’ on everyone – including Kiwis.

The Government rubbished those claims, made most notably by Jami-Lee Ross and Billy TeKahika’s Advance NZ.

He quoted the Prime Minister’s words:

“No, and we haven’t for any vaccination in New Zealand applied penalties in that way.”

This particular ‘conspiracy theorist’ statement was therefore a fact. That Ardern’s comments were an accurate reflection of government policy had already been made clear on 3 September when Newshub reported that Health Minister Hipkins had slammed the “deliberate misinformation” that the Government was reportedly going to make COVID-19 vaccinations compulsory. Hipkins told a press conference that these false reports have been circulating on social media and had caused many concerned members of the public to contact him.

“This is a direct result of deliberate misinformation that’s being spread through social media. The Government is not making COVID-19 or any other vaccinations compulsory.”

He added that while the Government would encourage New Zealanders to get vaccinated once one is available, it won’t make it compulsory.

That was in September 2020 but then, beginning on 14 July 2021, anyone working at managed isolation quarantine (MIQ) facilities, international ports and airports, became legally required to be vaccinated.

Then in October 2021 the government began, step by step, to make the Covid jab mandatory for border workers.

Next came education; anyone working with children and students would have to be fully vaccinated by 1 January 2022.

Then came health and disability workers, who had to have their first injection by 15 November 2021 and their second by 1 January 2022.

However, on 3 September 2023 Hipkins, who had succeeded Ardern as Prime Minister, insisted there had been “no compulsory vaccination” and that “people made their own choices”.

Yeah right. Just like the business owners in the U.S. who chose ‘protection’ from the Mafia during Prohibition.

Things came to a head in early 2022 when convoys of vehicles and thousands of people began a journey from the top of the North Island and bottom of the South Island and converged to Wellington, where they set up camp outside the Beehive (parliament building).

The protesters’ demand was for MPs to listen to them, but not one MP came outside to meet with them. Such a blanket refusal reeked of ‘orders from above’.

The only politician who listened to them was Winston Peters, who wasn’t an MP at the time.
Then on March 2, after three weeks, the police forcibly ended the protest with none of the protesters’ demands being met.

Having won the physical battle with the protesters, the government set about winning the hearts and minds of other kiwis with the documentary “Fire and Fury”.

The journalist writer and narrator Paula Penfold opens with the warning:

The Stuff Circuit documentary Fire and Fury is a confronting watch.

Well, that’s one thing we can all agree on. It’s certainly confronting, but for anyone familiar with the protesters’ grievances, it was for altogether different reasons.

They clearly started with the government-approved narrative, and cherry-picked a tiny number of people they labelled as “extremist”, “white supremacist”, and a “threat to democracy” to support their case. They made no attempt to cover the concerns of the thousands of ordinary kiwi mums and dads who had started the journey at the ends of the country. People who had lost their livelihoods because of the mandate didn’t get a mention. As independent journalist Karl du Fresne puts it, with such a grossly unbalanced and selective treatment the film makers are guilty of the very thing they are constantly accusing others of – misinformation. Or rather, since it’s clearly deliberate – disinformation.
Fire and Fury implied that those protesters who were not extreme right were deluded dupes. That doesn’t sit well with the results of a Horizon poll published on February 18, shortly before the police broke Camp Freedom up, showing that 30 per cent of New Zealanders supported the protest and 61 per cent opposed it. 30 per cent of 5 million is 1.5 million, and these are the people the documentary makers imply were deluded, never mind the thousands of mums and dads who camped outside Parliament for more than three weeks. And as independent journalist Graham Adams points out, it’s not as if the poll results were not readily available. They were, in fact, published in… Stuff.

A recurring theme in the documentary was the hatred of the media expressed by many of the protesters. It didn’t seem to have occurred to Penfold that this loathing of the media is the direct result of their refusal to give a voice to those whose lives had been ruined by mandates and lockdowns. If ever there was a threat to democracy, it was the denial of their voice.

Why didn’t the film makers give right of reply, surely the bedrock of good journalism in such contentious matters? Penfold claims:

“We didn’t approach them. That’s a really unusual editorial decision and I don’t know that we’ve ever taken that decision before, I think it is unprecedented for us. But it was obviously a very considered decision because in this instance we wanted our documentary to be the right of reply to what they’ve already said in the public domain.”

and

“When you’re reporting on far-right dangerous speech you do not give them a right of reply because that elevates them.”

Such an incredible comment brings to mind novelist Upton Sinclair’s comment:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on his not understanding it”.

* * *

In its craven submission to the power of Pfizer’s shareholders, New Zealand falls into Mussolini’s definition of ‘fascist’. But even if you think this is going too far, I have shown that the traditional freedoms of kiwis are being subordinated to the ‘soft totalitarianism’ of Big Pharma. By ‘soft’, I mean that unlike in the Soviet Union, ordinary citizens are not dragged out of their beds by secret police. But the one thing that all forms of totalitarian governments have in common is the suppression of any ideas that threaten their power.
Until the last four years it has been possible for the media to maintain the belief that New Zealand is a democracy with free speech, but the dictates of Big Pharma have made it increasingly difficult to maintain this illusion.

Now, an increasing number of people are waking up to the fact that their belief that the first responsibility of their governments is the safety of the people who elect them is false, and that many of their ‘leaders’ are in fact sociopaths.

It’s interesting to note that in September 2022 Jacinda Ardern uttered a dark hint of what is to come when she addressed the United Nations, saying that “free speech is like a dangerous weapon of war”.

In New Zealand, questioning the Covid narrative is a weapon of war on our sociopathic rulers. Jacinda Ardern gained global fame for her “empathy”, “kindness”, and “sincerity’. But as Jean Giraudoux and others have reportedly said:

“The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made”.

Many would think it would be an apposite epigraph on her tombstone.