Eliminating Financial Hardship - with direct thinking.

A material tool that can eliminate poverty and financial hardship, and meet all core human needs - including the social need. And even the environmentalists can't argue against it.

Covid-19 or Incredible social engineering?

Are we about to decouple employment from geographical location on a mass scale?

In New Zealand, where the data is clean, we have discovered that the Covid-19 pandemic is and has been a badly exaggerated scare.

With 1400 known cases (and many times more unknown) and only 20 deaths from the old and weak [dated: 6th May, 2020], we can see that the Covid-19 virus is about as dangerous as the common flu, or less so.

The justification for extreme mass quarantining, with the accompanying economic and social fallout, was never there [here]. We know that the level-4 and level-3 lockdowns were a mistake. Or were they? It all depends on how this pandemic is exploited in terms of social engineering.

The current New Zealand government will not admit that they should have simply safeguarded the weak and let the rest of us go back to work, to keep the economy and our lives running. Admitting to a 100 billion dollar mistake is politically ruinous and too much for the conscience. They will lie to us and most likely lie to themselves as well.

So, after being sucked-in by an international community of politicised and sometimes corrupt experts, and lots of dodgy data and trash models, the New Zealand government will not realistically admit to their mistake. They will not, in turn, push for the development of herd-immunity like Sweden and others have done. We will come down from level-3 lockdowns, to Level-2 and Level-1 controls, and we will periodically cycle between low-level lockdowns as the virus inevitably flares up, over and again, as a consequence of our failing to develop herd-immunity.

New Zealand will dig itself deeper into its hole, in a sickly state of economic stagnation that, in principle, never should have been allowed to happen.

Assuming I am correct, we can now ask an interesting question: How will New Zealand--and probably the rest of the Western world--develop economically in response to two years of cyclic low-level lockdowns, as fighting Covid-19 becomes a 'new normal'?

Well, if you own a business in New Zealand, then as soon as you see the developing trend of periodic lockdowns, you will have every reason to invest in making your enterprise intrinsically Level-2 resistant. That means having as many of your staff as possible work from home, and engineering your business to work efficiently in that form. So, when the lockdown happens you can say: "Yeah, whatever. It hardly affects me anyway". In fact you will have no choice. Your business won't compete if it doesn't become Level-2 tolerant.

The result, again, will be the rapid investment in new tools and processes to accommodate working from home. Those tools will come in the form of video intercoms for public interfacing, simple mobile (and remote controlled) robotics [here], and even driverless technology to support these systems, such as Nuro delivery [here].

Companies will not structure themselves for two different modes of operation (lockdown and non-lockdown). Once 80% of their staff are working from home, those staff will always be working from home. It would be inefficient to make it otherwise.

All of this will mean that maybe 50% of the workforce, or more, will be based within the electronic cloud in just a few years time. And this will trigger another possibly titanic change.

As soon as the major portion of the national workforce can work from anywhere in the world, online, they will start to ask themselves if they really want to live in their expensive city, with the bad weather and congestion, and when they can just as easily live in a much more beautiful place and in a highly affordable country.

I therefore predict a massive demographic shift to the sunbelt, and largely towards poorer countries. In poor countries in particular, private villages will be created and sold to immigrants so as to provide a home away from home. It will naturally be in the poorer countries interest to accommodate this, from the economic gains. My video below relates to this.

-Note also, if you can't go on holiday without tolerating a two week mandatory quarantine, going to and from a different country, then you cannot practically escape for a holiday in the sun. This too will amplify the demand for the Western populace to move to the sunbelt, to reside.

The final result will be the progressive erosion of nationalism. People will be even less attached and identified to their home country than they are today. This will in turn lay a stronger foundation of support for global government, of any given form.

Global government is an ultimate necessity going forward [here], because we must have strong international cooperation to the end of achieving sustained population control [of interest], negative eugenics [here], global environmental defense, and resistance to terrorism and horrific wars which our developing technologies are making a progressively deepening threat, that can only otherwise get worse.

Is this the real idea behind the crazy Covid-19 scare? I don't know. None of us knows what ultimately goes on inside the opaque world of 'deep state' politics. But what I have described could be the real effect of the Covid-19 drama, and maybe that effect would be a good thing long term.

Andrew Atkin

The X-factor of a successful Political Leader

There's been talk in New Zealand of the x-factor that a political leader must have to be successful. It's called X because it's hard to specifically identify. Well, I believe I've found it. Hear me out.

It's simple I believe. A successful political leader cannot come off as an amatuer. They cannot come off like a mere brilliant student, because no-one wants to vote for a student. They must come off like a master. And, they must come off like their minds are on the job. They must always look like they're intelligently concerned with the honourable objective of improving their nation.

And what is the hallmark of a master? They don't talk like they're afraid of making a mistake - because they know they won't. They're essentially natural. They're not overly 'controlled' because they have control...if that makes sense?

And this is the disease that David Seymour from the ACT party, Simon Bridges from National, or Bill English from National to name a just few suffer from. None of them come as masters whose minds are on the job in the way that they should be.

Intellectually those examples are good compared to what's on offer, but their image is....well, screwed. They will only ever appeal to a small political cul-de-sac, not a broad voter market. A vote for Simon Bridges for example will not be a vote for Simon Bridges, it will only be a vote against the current government. He's just too much of a kid reading from a script, in the public eye.

If you want to understand image and its effect, then never talk to the tiny minority who actually care less about public policy. People like me are freaks. Far better to talk to people who almost weep when they hear the name 'Jacinda' yet can't explain why. They are the people who see image in its most naked form because they are not distracted by questions. They are also the common voter.

Jacinda Ardern is a died-in-the-wool socialist. She's done what all never-say-die socialists do. She publicly nailed herself to socialism as a teenager, and now she can't change. Yet her image is good and her mind is sincerely on the job, albeit to the end of turning New Zealand into a socialist state.

Although Jacinda's compassion lacks feeling, she nonetheless believes deeply in kindness in principle, which people adore, and most importantly she does not come off like an amature. She comes off like a grown-up.

Jacinda Ardern has the all-important image of competence, and this is why she's dangerous. She has the image of an adult yet the philosophy of a child. If there's one thing worse than a politician with a bad idea, it's a politician with a bad idea who looks like they must have good ideas. Hence I'm a little terrified of her. To contrast, America's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at least looks like what she is, which will thankfully limit her, but Jacinda Ardern does not.

The best example of clear non-amatureness in New Zealand politics today is Winston Peters. This also is tragic because he's a Muldoonist, and lest we forget Muldoon almost bankrupted New Zealand. Thankfully Mr Peters' arrogance is transparent, which limits him. He puts many people off the moment he opens his mouth. Yet he will always have a notable support base because he always comes off like "the man".

So what is my message?

The political Centre and political Right in New Zealand needs to upgrade its image, badly. It needs to understand that although it is of course hard to throw a beloved insider overboard, it sometimes just has to be done to a save a country from the worst potentials of mass public ignorance.

Image is everything. It shouldn't be - but it is.

So who would be the best leader for National, today? It's hard to say. Judith Collins is a contender, because she looks competent (enough) and headstrong, but she also comes off as somewhat cold and unkind. Jacinda Ardern would probably eat her alive due to that.

Christopher Luxon comes off as extremely competent, but 100% reeks of career politician. He's basically a beta version of John Key. He needs to be an alpha.

Maybe the best person to go head-to-head with Jacinda right now, is Paula Bennett (top image). She comes off as essentially competent, strong (enough), and human. She also speaks very well and is attractive. Paula would make superficial mistakes but would be forgiven for them. She would also need to be careful with the childish 'snark' component in her personality, which sometimes leaks through a bit. In my view she is probably the best of the bunch right now, as far as senior staff within National go. Her contrasting persona will also bring out the dork-factor in Jacinda, which is in fact quite real. Politically, it's good to make people cringe a bit at the opposition - Paula can do that.

Remember, for the main parties it's about appealing to the centre. Those on the devout Right or Left are irrelevant, because their votes are in the bag regardless. Paula Bennett's 'humanness' would be all-important for winning centrist political dominance.

But please National, use anyone BUT Simon Bridges. No one takes Simon seriously nor ever will. He's a good man I'm sure, but New Zealand desperately needs a change of government, right now. The current circus could take us halfway to Venezuela if it wins another term. I don't want to have to move to Australia.

And what about ACT's David Seymour? Well, intellectually I can rarely fault him, but he's a Mr smarty pants as far as image goes. He says the right things, thinks the right thoughts, but he still comes off as a kid and, in turn, the general public will never see a leader in him. He must be replaced.

The perfect replacement for ACT? For the political Right, right now, that would be Dr Oliver Hartwich. But unfortunately Oliver is not a politician and may not want to be. New Zealand's leading think tank, The New Zealand Initiative, is his game.

Oliver Hartwich exudes competence, integrity and objectivity, and he is never nasty. He would make many politicians look plain obnoxious by comparison. He's a bit boring, but not if he's saying courageous-enough things. Boring but not too boring.

But again, for the ACT party it's a bit of an "anyone but David" situation. ACT has had a massive tailwind as far political opportunity goes, as other party's have committed electoral suicide on a number of levels, yet ACT is still grovelling around the 1% mark. It's time for David to move on. He's good but not in the right way. He simply does not meet the core prerequisite for leader - and won't.

If ACT could more effectively capitalise on the political Right, then that would allow National to more 'shamelessly' move to the centre (no real votes lost - only gained), and once in power National can blame ACT for doing what they really wanted to do anyway. This should be ACT's role yet they are failing, as they are not yet seen as a credible alternative. This needs to change.

---------------------------------------------------------

Extended (22-05-2020):

Also an excellent contender for National, is Christopher Bishop. He has a patriotic spirit, easily and broadly likeable (potentially - if he gets media attention), competent and natural, and not arrogant. He will also be listened to when he speaks. He is not ignorable. Bishop would be a far better contender to replace Simon Bridges than Todd Muller. Todd Muller comes off as rather shallow and self-serving - not really in it for the 'right reasons'.

Andrew Atkin