Chaos, History, And The Now

The incoherence of 'plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose'

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

― Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (The French Revolution)

---

Preamble

IN THE IDEOLOGICALLY ensnared and prismatically splintered World of today, captured as it is by vapid demonstrations of faux virtue while simultaneously and viciously acting out paradoxical displays of de-legitimization, tyranny sprouts, almost unchecked. It is an incipient harvest from the fertile ground of cultivated discombobulation.

Dante Alighieri 1265 - 1321

There nonetheless remains a figurative and potentially literal choice by the millions over the one, that there should be no harvest to reap. Instead, the actions of cautery and fire, and of the earth salted, in order that it may never again provide a fertile substrate for unbridled tyranny. Are we not surely done with this terrible scourge, with a litany of orchestrated cycles of shackled prosperity punctuated by wanton torment, inflicted destitution and intentional destruction?

At the moment darkness gives way to dawn, a subliminal sense of the impending exists while conviction is as certain as the daylight that follows. In the prelude we now face, where we tentatively embrace conviction as necessity imminently dawns, before us then lies a choice, one of a far-reaching step that exalts our humanity with its small pilot-light of spirit within. For it is this humanity that has been deliberately neglected, subverted and seduced. It led to a regressive enslavement applied by Progressive tyrannical intent on an absolute control of life, death and all between, one that also boasts a complex prison of technical prowess. To echo a cliché, “One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not,” and we can do without, yet again, the crushing trial of tribulation. In all humility we might beg we are spared the test.

I believe that we can and we will raise ourselves defiantly against a self-appointed, unelected, unelectable collective of ‘administrative’ supra-national entities. This is neither a time for paralysis nor of fear. It is simply evolving into a time of action, a time when millions incrementally and inevitably revoke the social license of one. The imposition of social, biological, moral, economic and ethical dead-ends (pun intended) need not be endured if we ponder, even if just briefly a glaringly obvious historical lesson. For history is very clear:

tyranny went from an unsustainable crescendissimo …

Nuremberg Rallies 1933 onward; Nazi rallies were held annually at purpose-built grounds in Nuremberg

…to terminal bathos in very short order:

Nuremberg trial 1945 - 1946 https://projectwitness.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/nuremburg-records.jpg

The Echoes Of The Now

MANY PEOPLE OF ETHICS today are provoked to consider the diabolical acts of the past in the context of what we witnessed and experienced in the now, ‘Why did so many German doctors join the Nazi Party early?’ (Haque OS et al. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 35 (2012) 473–479).

During the Weimar Republic in the mid-twentieth century, more than half of all German physicians became early joiners of the Nazi Party, surpassing the party enrollments of all other professions. 

This paper highlights several crucial points, a central one being:

… the use of “ethical” claims or considerations to rationalize unethical acts.

Dissecting the underlying motivations and values of complicit doctors’, nurses’, pharmacists, and health professionals’ highlights the suggestion of the presence of an, ‘authoritarian personality, characterized by a strong adherence to rules and a weak ability to control more primitive, “id-driven,” impulses’, of practitioner narcissism, of inflated self-importance, and obsessions with career advancement, public praise, financial gain’.

The paper reveals how the German Medical Society and its members ‘were instrumental in both the planning and implementation of the multifarious atrocities that would finally be tallied in the Nuremberg trials’.

Paraphrasing:

The causes of the brutalities committed by the Nazi doctors with such self-righteous, methodological efficiency—acts that have reverberated for years since—continue to elude many historians and psychologists. …

To the extent that we can understand and teach about the context and motives that surrounded physician's abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath … such in-sight is necessary to identify one's own vulnerability to the seductions of abandoning the Hippocratic Oath, as well as principles of beneficence and respect for the autonomy of the “other”. Seductions arise in the ever-changing biopsychosocial (not to mention economic) landscape of clinical practice.

Thorough analysis of these vulnerabilities and factors provides lessons in what has been termed ethicogenesis, i.e., harm caused under the banner of self-righteousness, in the name of such ethical values as public health or even medical ethics itself.

The Doctors’ And Administrators Trial

Though less well known (or perhaps selectively ignored) was the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial of December 9, 1946, in which criminal proceedings against 23 leading German physicians and administrators were undertaken for their willing participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. This was Case #1 of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings. 

The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. … For the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals.

Under the Nazi regime, compliant German physicians planned and enacted the Euthanasia Program, the systematic killing of those they deemed "unworthy of life." The victims included the institutionalized mentally ill and physically impaired. Further, during World War II, German physicians conducted pseudoscientific medical experiments utilizing thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent. …

After almost 140 days of proceedings, including the testimony of 85 witnesses and the submission of almost 1,500 documents, the American judges pronounced their verdict on August 20, 1947. Sixteen of the doctors were found guilty. Seven were sentenced to death. They were executed on June 2, 1948.

---

And So Arose The Nuremberg Code

On the back of a multitude of de-legitimized people who were tortured and rendered grievously sick by medical and surgical experimentation, arose the Nuremberg Code (BMJ No 7070, Volume 313: Page 1448, 7 December 1996.)

Amongst other requirements, this document enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own body.

This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against the expected benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided. This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients.

And then … the Siracusa Principles

United Nations, Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC), Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985).

Whilst these “allowed” for a brief and measured derogation of freedoms it nonetheless remained explicit and sacrosanct that such derogations NEVER permitted medical or scientific experimentation without FREE CONSENT. “These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.”

B.     Proclamation, Notification, and Termination of a Public Emergency

42.  A state party derogating from its obligations under the Covenant shall make an official proclamation of the existence of the public emergency threatening the life of the nation. No such threat ever existed or remotely existed in the COVID era.

D. Non-Derogable Rights

58.  No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; … These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.

62.  A proclamation of a public emergency shall be made in good faith based upon an objective assessment of the situation in order to determine to what extent, if any, it poses a threat to the life of the nation. A proclamation of a public emergency, and consequent derogations from Covenant obligations, that are not made in good faith are violations of international law.

69. No state, including those that are not parties to the Covenant, may suspend or violate, even in times of public emergency:

(b)   freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and from medical or scientific experimentation;

In short, the politicians, judiciary, the medical authorities and bureaucrats, and the legion of complicit doctors, nurses, and pharmacists of New Zealand were indisputably unable to provide both free and informed consent regarding the Pfizer investigational products they injected into a fear groomed populace, confounded as they also were by compelling pecuniary interest.

New Zealand, 2020 And Beyond

NZ Pandemic Plan ~ A framework for action

Ministry of Health. July 2024. New Zealand Pandemic Plan: A framework for action. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH).

This “plan” remains similar if not nearly identical to the actions and intentions previously laid out in the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. Past versions and Amendments to the Act may be also reviewed at this link. For me, it remains impossible to forget in particular, (presently repealed) Section 11, ‘Orders that can be made under this Act’, (1)(a), (viii) report for medical examination or testing in any specified way or in any specified circumstances. eg. one may be roused at 3.30am and escorted to a warehouse somewhere in your local district (or wherever) to undergo an unknown medical procedure or investigation.

So who was the New Zealand individual that actually wrote those words? What of the silent line-up of nodding politicians that sanctioned them? I recall how I endeavoured to help some people toward awareness at the time, and how they remained resolutely dismissive. They still remain so.

The NZ MOH July 2024 Pandemic Plan virtue signals the required platitudinous comments about the importance of the NZ Bill Of Rights Act, and yet it may be seen that coercion remains a corner-stone. Exactly the same COVID-19 legislation that many of us are familiar with has been reiterated with a small but important caveat that has crept into the draft, namely the alluding to ‘public acceptability’.

pp. 127 Acts to which a modification cannot be made. A modification cannot be made to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Bill of Rights 1990 [BORA], the Constitution Act 1986, the Electoral Act 1993, the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 or the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006.

pp. 147 the government may consider imposing restrictions under legislation on people who choose not to accept vaccination, in relation to work, access to premises and other activities. If legislative measures of this nature are adopted, consideration needs to be given to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, legitimate exemptions, international travel requirements and public acceptability [aka. political social license] in light of the wider framework of response measures.

The novel ‘ethical considerations’ also espoused by July 2024 Pandemic Plan (pp. 113) retain the inversion of established ethics prevalent since the 2020 COVID Act, and embrace instead a collectivist approach to health that limits an individual’s rights when measured against those of the dystopian collective. One obvious ethical travesty witnessed in New Zealand (of many) is the politically convenient granting of thousands of exemptions against the imposition of additional shots to those that sustained injury and reaction to their first injection. And in a reiteration of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 note how the ethical ‘get out of jail’ card is being manipulated to favour the MOH narrative.

“It is important to note that ethical considerations are broader than the legislation suggests, and that the law is silent on many issues raised in pandemic planning. In addition, the law is often slow to follow moral change in the community, so older legislation may not necessarily reflect a community’s current ethical values.

Some pandemic programmes must be implemented swiftly if they are to be effective, and some will have ethical components that need to be considered in real time. It will not always be effective to rely on the usual processes.”

pp. 122; Legislation: Mandatory measures are authorised by statute Any action specified in this plan in relation to individuals, businesses or other entities that includes the possibility of compulsory measures being taken must be authorised by statute. The action is otherwise likely to be unlawful and, in particular, might be contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

“Statute” has not in fact proved to be much of an impediment in the de rigueur globo-centric compliance exhibited in the New Zealand political and bureaucratic arenas.

Meantime, keep in mind a backdrop of intense and relentless psychological grooming courtesy of an unquestioning well paid State media. Observe also the single page in the New Zealand Pandemic Plan: A framework for action tellingly and economically, devoted to ‘ethics’ (Appendix B, pp. 113) and yet, the many pages pp. 114 - 130 devoted to Public Information Management Strategy that includes communications, intelligence, surveillance, and legislation.

Within the July 2024 Pandemic Plan lies reference to the NZ Health Act (1956) and the exercise of euphemistcally termed, ‘special powers’ where aong others, a member of the police may do anything reasonably necessary (including the use of force) to help a medical officer of health or any person authorised by the medical officer of health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under sections 70 or 71.

Again, we witness preparative bureaucratic efforts poised to install what was formerly installed in 2020.

Voluntary Informed Consent

The Elephant Not In The Room (a borrowed phrase)

It is crystalline that voluntary informed consent could never have been given by a single person in the crafted cliché, ‘team of 5 million’. Enthusiastic surrender to an unknown, novel, unpredictable, synthetic gene, lipid nanoparticled vector, Pfizer ‘investigational’ product flies against all sanity and reason. Almost no one would or could buy into that. Of course the propagators and instigators knew that. The only descriptive word that may be applied here for the colluding and compliant recipients and the injection adminstrators is ‘duped’. Those in receipt of the ‘investigational’ product who were coerced into acceptance through the threat of the loss of livelihood were exposed to a more vicious double assault about which the former PM Hipkins of New Zealand later advised, “There was no compulsory vaccination, people made their own choices.”’

The expedition of these blatant ethical transgressions sanctioned by politicians and by the NZ Ministry of Health, and the medical officialdom of the Medical Council in New Zealand together with the aligned Councils and Boards under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, HPCA Act (2003), (a piece of legislation dripping in irony and travesty, “The principal purpose of this Act is to protect the health and safety of members of the public…,” ) continues into the present day. None of these bodies appear to have an iota of moral or legal justification. Their seizure of both the manufacture and the control of the appearance of informed consent as an explicit and induced product of a coercive and threatening coal-face manipulation of health professionals coupled to rich rewards, appears transparently obvious. Further, against an extant and explicit decision bias conferred by relentlessly indoctrinating the populace through a barrage of media propaganda (safe and effective), together with an imposed orgie of State PCR / RAT testing, science and ethics in medicine were run out of the town square and into the quagmire.

A legion of nursing personnel, pharmacists and doctors who knew almost nothing, or actually nothing about the investigational novel lipid synthetic gene product they were being excessively well paid to inject, implemented then and now still conduct what remains an unquestionable, undeniable and unethical assault that may be well captured by the term, ethicogenesis, i.e., harm caused under the banner of self-righteousness, in the name of such ethical values as public health or even medical ethics itself.

THE NATIONAL ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE …

… (NEAC), 2022 publication, ‘Ethical Guidance for a Pandemic’, Wellington: Ministry of Health, forms the underlying spine of the 2024 New Zealand MOH pandemic plan. This document was published in 2022 and it categorically embraced and elevated draconian measures that played out in the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 exemplified by the Ladder of ‘Vaccine’ Coercion (pp. 32), ‘The Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ intervention ladder (which NEAC has adapted below for relevance to a pandemic) highlights the general strategies, across increasing levels of coerciveness, available to decision-makers when intervening for public health. The ability of governments to use all elements of the ladder rests on social licence or the population’s acceptance of the government’s governance’. However, as one can see, they were rightly leery of public buy-in.

The current July 2024 NZ Pandemic Plan incorporates DIE ideology (division, exclusion and inequality), seeking to maintain entrenched discrimination based on the political construct of a self-selected chosen identity.

It is however, neither a reflection of social license nor a submission to governance as we shall see.

The Social Licence Is Evaporating

Keep in mind that The Ethics Committee tellingly noted that, ‘The ability of governments to use all elements of the ladder rests on social licence or the population’s acceptance of the government’s governance’.

WHAT BECOMES VERY REVEALING… (2023)

…is the following document, National Ethics Advisory Committee. 2023. Summary of Submissions – Consultation on the Ethical Guidance for a Pandemic. Wellington: Ministry of Health that articulates the results of public consultation began on 26 July 2022 and closed on the 1st November 2022. It received 428 submissions including 21 written submissions and held three online focus groups with stakeholders. The submissions were analysed by the NEAC Secretariat (the ‘Secretariat’) at the Ministry of Health. The publication is well worth reading.

I will merely show some salient points indicating the absence of social licence and the absence of acceptance by the populace of a narrative peddled by the New Zealand Ministry of Health with its medical acolytes and supra-national masters. This seems a critically important nexus of high political and bureaucratic sensitivity and an effective lever for public pressure.

Many of the respondents noted a desire for an independent review of the COVID-19 pandemic response and for lessons to be taken from this. Hopefully the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons will meet this desire.

Mandatory Interventions: Concerns were expressed about the use of mandatory interventions, particularly mandates and lockdowns and that greater transparency was required about what evidence is used to make these decisions

‘Upholding human rights’ (92%) eclipsed all by a country mile. Build back better’ (19%) and taking an ‘intersectional approach’ (18%) or embedding mātauranga Māori (17%)’ garned little support.

Building Back Better: “A few individuals” were concerned about ‘Building back better’ as a foundational element and suggested it be removed. Although few respondents outlined why they wanted ‘Building Back Better’ removed, their responses indicated that their concerns were around the role of international organisations, like the World Economic Forum and the United Nations, and whether the ‘Building Back Better’ framework was appropriate for Aotearoa New Zealand.

‘Liberty’ was strongly supported as an ethical principle (81%). ‘Health and wellbeing’ (70%) was “moderately supported,” however, it was also noted that health and wellbeing is not an ethical principle’.

‘There was strong support that restrictions should be agreed rather than imposed’.

‘There was moderate support that imposed restrictive measures should aim to minimise any restrictions on liberty and carefully describe the justification for that limitation. There were mixed responses to the following:

• reciprocal support may be appropriate for people who, to protect others, have restrictions imposed upon them

• restrictive measures can be justified only when all the narrowly defined circumstances set out in human rights law, known as the Siracusa Principles’. (The Siracusa Principles were not the focus of the comments received.)

‘There was significant concern expressed about communications during the COVID-19 pandemic, with some noting the quantity of messaging to the public, the ‘one source of truth’ approach and suggesting more opportunities for open debate would have been useful’.

‘The following statements were strongly supported:

• Ideally, vaccination should be voluntary rather than non-voluntary (82%).’

• People who cannot safely receive the vaccine for medical reasons should be given an exemption to vaccine certificate requirements’.

‘This statement was “moderately” supported: The use of vaccine certificates must be based on scientific evidence that they are effective at achieving their stated outcome (46%)’.

‘If a vaccine certificate is required to access essential goods and services, vaccines are no longer truly voluntary. (Vaccine Certificates – Supplementary effects) (89%)’.

People who cannot safely receive the vaccine for medical reasons should be given an exemption to vaccine certificate requirements (Vaccine Certificates – Equity) (90%)’.

‘The comments on reopening mainly address lockdowns rather than reopening, with a few comments stating that lockdowns should rarely or never be used’.

Summary

What may be clearly seen here is the loss of social license required to implement the NZ Pandemic Plan advocated by the New Zealand Ministry of Health. Keep in mind that most respondents commenting in the National Ethics Advisory Committee (NEAC), 2023, Summary of Submissions – Consultation on the Ethical Guidance for a Pandemic in regard to the earlier NEAC 2022 publication ‘Ethical Guidance for a Pandemic’, rejected dystopian measures envisaged by the Ladder of ‘Vaccine’ Coercion that in essence, still form the spine of the 2024 New Zealand MOH pandemic plan, while also continuing its disregard of wider sentiment regarding ethnic division, and a preference for open and unconstrained debate.

People appear increasingly aware of informational grooming, surveillance and control being installed under a guise of managing mis/dis information. This was clearly rejected by respondents who favoured transparency of information and open debate, rejecting the preposterous ‘continue to be your single source of truth’ nonsense spruiked by the NZ MOH, and formerly ennacted by Bloomfield, Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson et al., all collectively determined to protect their brittle, media dependent narratives.

Post Script

The ability of government to use all elements of the ladder [of coercion] rests on social licence or the population’s acceptance of the government’s governance.

National Ethics Advisory Committee (NEAC), 2022, ‘Ethical Guidance for a Pandemic’, Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Health