Is the New Zealand government Evil?

 

Note: This article was originally published in The BFD, under the editors title "Does evil lurk behind the Mask".

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

[Audio version here]

Under what circumstances can a government justify forcibly medicating people? It’s an extreme act. If a random man on the street force-injected you with something that he thought was for your own good, then obviously you would call the police. By default, it is a violation to force-medicate.

Therefore, if the government is to introduce forced vaccinations or coercive policy that leaves people with no other choice, then this can only be justified in the most desperate of circumstances. That is if we’re dealing with an event on the level of the Black Plague, and alternatives to forced medication cannot be found.

New Zealand today is light years from a black plague type event. The vast majority of people recover from Covid and hardly anyone dies. We know that the only people who have anything worth worrying about are the very old and highly vulnerable. What’s more, we now have alternatives to vaccinations. Early preventative treatments are proven, and cellphones allow us to communicate instantly to manage any outbreak of concern.

Yet what has the New Zealand government done? They have shamelessly bribed the media and openly suppressed all information that threatens to provoke vaccine hesitancy. Critics, no matter how qualified, are written off as misinformation agents instead of being duly debated. Doctors lose their licence if they do not push the pro-vaccination line. Preventative treatments are ignored and never discussed. Hard questions are not asked because ministers will never answer them.

By absolutely no reasonable measure can the government justify force-vaccinating people today – directly or indirectly. That should be clear. Vaccine coercion is evil. Indeed, if any of the coerced end up dying from their medication, then that is a case for manslaughter. When medication is forced on you then those who forced you are morally accountable for the consequences.

Our government should be doing everything it can to develop and respond to any option other than forced medication, especially when the treatment is controversial. Instead, the opposite is being played out. Alternatives are suppressed – vaccinations are coerced. This is not blind stupidity because no one is this stupid unless they want to be.

I have no idea what’s really going on behind closed political doors. No one does. But again, we know enough to see evil.

If we find that these Pfizer vaccines kill people, or seriously damage them (which might well still happen over the long term) then we must hold those responsible to account. There must be a Nuremberg 2.0 because wilful ignorance will not cut it as a defence.

-Andrew Atkin

Do we need a Democratic Elite?

 

A great weakness of the common voter is his refusal to take long term planning seriously. Yet sustainability, in the broadest meaning of the word, demands long-range planning. Population control is a massive (though far from only) part of this, and it shows us the weakness of our existing democracies. Hence, I will focus on this to make my case.

People presume that increases in wealth naturally lead to smaller families, so they think population is a non-issue. That idea is wrong. Observations in the relationship between wealth and fertility do not isolate for the impact of extended schooling, feminist movements (driving women to work), welfare systems and weakened religions, etc, all of which have dovetailed with the end of the western baby-boom. Industrialisation is only a part of what may be lowering fertility.

This is the thing: Over-population cannot sanely be allowed to happen. Over-population means replacing the remaining forests with farms, and finally it means desperation leading to wars. People get ruthless when they can't eat. Obviously, this is not something we should wait for.

Ok. What I've talked about is realistic but it's a political football that no one has time for, and what no democratic politician dares touch. It relates to necessary long-term planning yet we don't want to know about it.

However, our refusal to confront the eventual need for direct population control, is how you legitimise a non-democratic elite; that is, an elite who might well develop an attitude that can be described as..."Well, if these guys aren't going to manage themselves like they should, then we have to do it for them". And dare I say it, they could be right.

In my view, we do need some kind of an elite, and an elite that will not turn its back on uncomfortable problems. But that elite should not be formed incidentally out of wealth, nor by childish politicians driven by a hunger for status. We want a democratic elite.

Forming a democratic elite:

I suggest that everyone have the capacity to vote, but with conditions. To vote, we should have to do an online course on politics and economics, so we can demonstrate that we're prepared to be intelligently engaged.

When we vote, we vote for policy that affects everyone - not just ourselves. Voting is a serious business and should be respected as such. Many people will not be bothered doing the course and they will in turn not vote. That would most likely be a good thing.

We need to filter for people who are prepared to think long term, and people who are studious enough to not be so easily manipulated by the media.

So, if we must have an elite, it should be the people's elite. Not a self-appointed elite.

I worry that if we turn our backs on the need for serious leadership, then we may only create a vacuum for others to fill. Maybe this has already happened? The UN and associated organisations already talk about our future as though it's their place to design it. No thank you. We can do better. We can run our world primarily from the ground-up, but again we need to specify how democracy works so to remove blatantly short-sighted thinking.

-Andrew Atkin

We are at War, we have always been at war

Audio version: here

Islam and much of the communist world is expansionist. This means they'd force their civilisational code onto the rest us, if only they could. In their minds, they know what's best for the world. 

Ok, sure, blood and butchery inside one or two generations if required is hideous and will hurt, but in the expansionists mind it's a small price to pay for an eternity within a communist or Islamic world paradise.

So why haven't the expansionists done it? Why haven't they overrun us for our own good? Obviously because they can't. The modern free(ish) world has a military might that only the suicidal could dream of challenging (well, head on at least). So the expansionists stay low, waiting, and if possible growing stronger.

Their latency which brews in the underground is what we in the West are at war with. We're too classy to just genocide them, so we keep them on a leash instead. 

You're a soldier:

All of us work, in part, to maintain our standing army. Indeed, the only time any nation can say it's at peace is when their army is no longer required. Since the beginning of recorded history we have never been there - at least not for any appreciable period of time. 

So the fight is on. The propaganda departments tell us we must work hard and be all that we can be. They even tell us that commercial success is the measure of the man. But why? Taxes. Dominant war machines cost money. 

So when you go to work (often far beyond what the exertion is really worth) the government harvests your labour to maintain its war machine, directly or indirectly. You're an economic soldier. You are at war, living in a still-threatened reality. 

But, guns aren't being fired and bombs aren't going off? So what. A hiatus is no peace. The latency is there and so is your army.

Golden ages:

Golden ages happen but they are inevitably short. They could be defined as a time of plenty, where no one's child has to starve. Golden ages are wonderful but temporary, and specifically because no one's child is starving... 

Hence, population pressure quickly creeps in as successful fertility leads to scarcity. The tension builds, ruthless competition follows, and the periodic culling sprees (called wars) stabilise population to resources...

And then from there, neurosis from war trauma entrenches into the cultures. Goodbye golden age - hello Sparta. The warrior becomes the hero. Life, again, will be short and brutish. The poverty-line will be the norm. 

Religious wars:

You might think that so many wars are religious, but I would argue otherwise. 

A prosperous society always goes soft over time, which means less abuse and most critically less child abuse (child abuse is the mechanism by which humans turn their children into wilful warriors). The less neurotic and more placid the population, the less it can be controlled with religious dogma of the type that cannot survive a questioning mind. Religious dogmas are driven by fear, and non-neurotic people are less inclined to react to fear-triggers. Nonsensical ideologies do not survive - expansionist (war monger) religions then reform or die.

Hence, crude religion is only an outgrowth of waring and hardship, and later a rationalisation for it. Ultimately, prosperity (or lack of) is the principal driver of war.

Avoiding our waring future:

Current technological advancements will automate about 90% of jobs over the next decade or two. The world economic forum (WEF) have expressed this also. This means that we are about to move into another golden age, which will in turn lead to a massive baby-boom. Unless, that is, our governments--or more realistically the players behind our governments--continue to take some direct control of the human future (see here). 

The truth is, we can no longer afford an uncontrolled population explosion. The entire planet will end up being a farm (only) for a then mostly vegetarian 100-billion strong population, and within only a few generations. 

And then, with unhampered fertility we will eventually have global wars, though they will be wars that we cannot afford to have because nuclear, or worse, will be too easily accessible to just about anyone soon enough. Who wants to be driven part-mad with hell on earth anyway? We've been there too many times already.

We must have active population control, like China, and on a global scale. We must also defend against gross over-consumption. We can't allow a grand mansion for every man, etc, just because he can afford it. The planet can't take that and it's stupid regardless. Glutenous over-consumption doesn't make people happier on a substantive level. If we want to see true wellbeing then the most important focus, by far, is child abuse and avoidable infantile damage. That is the real global poverty that needs to be dealt with.

Controlling for these problems will necessitate a given level of world government (see here) as a defence. 

From here, and only here, we might pull it off: A sustainable warless golden age, albeit artificially regulated to avoid the demons that would otherwise come after it. 

From here, the only thing missing is the toughest social-political problem of all - dysgenics. If natural selective pressure collapses, so might the strength of our gene pool. That too will require executive management (see here). 

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

Additional note: Thoughts on the Elite:

Who are the elite? Well, it used to be the territory of conspiracy theorists to suggest that there are incredibly powerful and concentrated financial entities who own the mass-media, and countless infrastructures, and directly and indirectly control leading politicians. It looks like it's not so much of a conspiracy anymore? (good documentary here)

Ok. Without going too far into this, I will say that we can know that people like Bill Gates and organisations like the Rockefeller foundation take population control very seriously. They have made open speeches on this topic, and for good reason... 

Are these players, and people akin to them, working their hand to manage the world so we don't become our own worst enemy? Maybe. I think I would if I were in their position. 

The hard truth is that global humanity must directly confront the problems of population stability, sustainable resource consumption, and as I've said earlier even eugenics to fight dysgenics. But are we too precious to go there? If so, we've just legitimised a controlling elite. They can morally justify managing a humanity (non-democratically) if it refuses to manage itself.

A democratic elite?

My personal ideal is not to have an elite whose thinking is run by in-house group-think, but instead to have a democratic system that is strictly controlled for merit. In short, this means every man and woman can vote but not without a licence.

The licence is obtained by doing a comprehensive (though interesting and accessible) online course on politics and economics, etc, that must be first mastered and passed within reasonable boundaries. If you're going to vote on policy that affects everyone then you have a responsibility to demonstrate that you are not entirely ignorant, and that you take the act of voting most seriously. 

This, I believe, would be the most ideal system that rightly harnesses democracy yet with a strong focus on merit to vote. The people who can't be bothered doing the course will not vote. That's probably for the best.

                                         -Andrew Atkin