The Illusion Of Consultation
How to manufacture a narrative
New Zealand National Security Long-term Insights Briefing (October 2022)
In long-hand political double speak, the ‘insights briefing’ document is titled, “Let’s talk about our national security: National Security Long-term Insights Briefing. Engaging an increasingly diverse Aotearoa New Zealand on national security risks, challenges and opportunities.”
Both titles attempt to portray extensive consultation and explicitly craft ‘insight’ and ‘long term’ together, which seems oxymoronic, while employing the language of implication, ‘opportunities’, is a red flag.
‘Opportunities’ of what for whom?
One assumes national security policies require flexibility and adaptability to altering circumstance and condition, while they also embody a sense of values, culture, customs and traditions. Taking a ‘long term’ view and associating this with ‘insight’ is crystal ball nonsense. Instead, what appears reveals an intentional, structured policy agenda crafted by political ideologues well separated from corpus of the public service and government. Writing of a ‘diverse Aotearoa’ owns the growing reality of political coercion, whether jabs or an intentionally divided, exclusive and unequal nation, no longer called New Zealand but bound without national mandate into an altogether other place, a place where social cohesion becomes mere aspiration, and social trust is replaced by the snitch culture. Naturally, the document comes with a revealing disclaimer and caveat:
Please note that, while this briefing has been produced independently of ministers and is not Government policy, it has been written at a time when a broader set of Government policy initiatives are being developed that aim to create change in the national security sector
The work on the briefing was led by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on behalf of the Security and Intelligence Board
The Security and Intelligence Board is a group of nine government agencies that are responsible for protecting New Zealand from national security threats.
The nine involved agencies are: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, Ministry of Defence, Government Communications Security Bureau, New Zealand Customs Service, New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Police, and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Developed independent of ministers and the Government of the day, the briefing reviews the national security landscape and future strategies.
Some Background
(a little dense, perhaps useful to be aware of)
Given the Foreword is written by Tony Lynch, Chair, Security and Intelligence Board, it seems clear where the leadership resides. The Prime Minister and the Intelligence Board .
The National Security Group (it is stated The National Security Group was previously referred to as the Security and Intelligence Group). It is led by Deputy Chief Executive, National Security, Tony Lynch.
The National Security Group was previously referred to as the Security and Intelligence Group. The name change occurred in August 2018 to better reflect roles, responsibilities and functions of the group.
ODESC: Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination, an extra-governmental secret committee that convenes in time of crisis.
According to the New Zealand Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, The National Security Group leads advice on matters for national security for:
the Prime Minister (who is the Minister for National Security and Intelligence)
the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media (on matters associated with cyber security)
the Minister Responsible for the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service
the Minister Responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau
other relevant Ministers.
The National Security Group is led by Deputy Chief Executive, National Security, Tony Lynch. The Deputy Chief Executive National Security supports the Chief Executive by overseeing the functioning of the National Security System and advising on national security direction.
The Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is presently Brook Barrington, a career bureaucrat with a PhD in contemporary history from the University of Auckland. He reports to PM Ardern. Barrington is supported by senior managers.
Wikipedia states that the National Security Group of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is responsible for the coordination and development of strategy, policy and operations for New Zealand's national security and the New Zealand Intelligence Community. (nb. Wikipedia is not a trusted or reliable resource)
In summary, given the background and involvement of the described players and agencies, the Insights Briefing document is clearly designed to establish a foundation for future government policy.
It therefore seems important that as many individuals of the New Zealand public become aware of its existence and more importantly, its skewed, ideologically motivated ambitions.
Spot The Difference: Rigour And Virtue Signalling
I have highlighted and commented in my last post about the New Zealand 2022 National Security Public Survey (referred to here as Survey) and how it is put together and used to provide a faux-basis for the report.
The title words “Public Survey,” must be taken with a large pinch of salt. Compare the Survey for example with the exhaustive Yale study of more than 9000 participants to ascertain the way in which coercive psy-ops should be conducted with the greatest effect in order to expedite and coerce public uptake of the novel, experimental synthetic gene injections. The methodological design of the Yale study provides a stark contrast to the self-betraying, light-weight Ipsos product, namely the Survey, little more than a tightly controlled and limited market survey, actually rather an odd thing on its face, upon which to base the claim of consultation about future national security strategy.
Just to illustrate the notable difference between rigour and virtue-signalling, The Yale University study design described in Clinical Trials.gov was installed and undertaken well before the novel injections ever appeared (which is cited as a major limitation of the study! And to think, were people to know beforehand that the injections neither prevented transmission nor infection of ‘flu-lite, and that the multiply jabbed and boosted would eventually comprise the vast majority of hospitalisations and death, the uptake would have been predictably negligible).
The Yale University study employed a Randomized Intervention Model and Parallel Assignment Intervention Model Description using a control message (a benign bird feeding passage), assigning proportions of participants to a baseline vaccine message and to each of the 10 other study arms, listed as: Control message, Baseline message, Personal freedom message, Economic freedom message, Self-interest message, Community interest message, Economic benefit message, Guilt message, Embarrassment message, Anger message, Trust in science message, Not bravery message.
I have discussed the Yale University study in an earlier post. I think it provides a terrifying and riveting insight into the pre-installed psy-ops used to condition and coerce the populous into accepting the synthetic mRNA injections. The study is well worth looking over, if only to glimpse post hoc the intensity and depth of the psy-ops forces at play before novel clot-shots became a thing and a policy. There seems no psychological angle left uncovered or unexplored.
Never Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Story
or
The Political Illusion Of Consultation
The New Zealand Survey has the feel and hallmarks of an a priori construct serving the purpose of creating the illusion of a survey after policy construction. By installing an apparent association with a limited number of highly selected respondents it appears to fulfill the appearance of a survey leading to policy development, when in fact it occurred after. However, a requirement for plausible deniability is installed. This is not globalist strategy and tactics from PM Ardern intent upon corporate globalist (WEF) policy alignment ~ control the information.
After all, one cannot conceive for one moment that the Department of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office together with perhaps the National Security Group, with its 9 associating agencies, would allow the policy agenda to be derailed by a rigorous statistically valid random sample of the general public with control questions.
One also wonders at this juncture to what extent coherence and harmony exist between the PM, her Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Office and the public service. The dynamics are known to be tenuous and have been described as a fraught interface or even inconvenience. It is after all where politics meets at least theoretically neutral advice and evidence. A hint of that friction is possibly shows up here.
A Hint Of Friction?
The early invitation pubic consultation document of October 2021 distinguishes between hazard and threat. The distinction is also present in the structural organisational format of the National Security Architecture (above). The former, hazard, is indicated as a natural event (earthquake for example), the latter, threat, is defined as a person intentionally causing damage or harm. These could involve weapons (potentially chemical, biological, or nuclear), harmful use of technology, or people acting secretly. Threats may be driven by people with political, economic, or ideological motives.
PM Ardern unequivocally articulated her belief at the UN that the real War today is the one around information and its consequence, control. This has been her obsessed, pathological mindset for a long time. It was manifest in her claims, "We will continue to be your single source of truth," and that, "Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth." She proclaims her support for war against Russia and promotes internet censorship heralding her totalitarian inclinations.
Even the World Socialist Web Site was not impressed. The excellent article by Tom Peters (29/09/2022) is on the nail (with the exception of his proffered solution in the last paragraph).
In a profoundly hypocritical speech at the UN, Ardern repeated NATO’s propaganda that Russia bears sole responsibility for the war, which she called “illegal” and a “direct attack on the UN Charter and the international rules-based system.”
Leopards And Totalitarians Do Not Their Spots Change
New Zealand National Security Long-term Insights Briefing (October 2022) Annex A ~ glossary provides the following definitions:
Disinformation – Information that is false or modified information knowingly shared to cause harm or achieve a broader aim
Misinformation – information that is false or misleading, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm
The early invitation pubic consultation document of October 2021 (10 pages) does not mention misinformation. Disinformation is mentioned twice, mis-information is mentioned twice, dis-information once and information 9 times. This document has the feel of a public service production.
By March 2022, the Summary of Public Consultation on the National Security Long-term Insights Briefing Topic (9 pages), misinformation is not mentioned, disinformation occurs twice, mis- and dis- information occur on 4 occasions, while and information, 9 times. This resultant document remains in the public service domain and is required to be consistent with the initiating appeal for consultation.
However, suddenly things change dramatically.
The public service discourse appears sidelined by the manufactured construct of April 2022 Survey (58 pages) where the word misinformation is mentioned 55 times, whereas disinformation is not mentioned. Dis-information and mis-information are not found while Information is mentioned 123 times.
Then in October 2022 in the final document (28 pages), misinformation occurs 13 times, disinformation occurs 28 times, mis- occurs 7 times, dis- occurs 5 times, and information, 99 times.
Graphing the raw word frequencies shows the following:
One wonders whether this an exemplar of politics riding rough-shod over the public service? As I suggested earlier, the interface between politics and the public service appear tenuous and have been described as a fraught interface or even inconvenience. A hint of that friction is possibly indicated here.
Public consultation and Summary documents: Public Service
Survey and Insights Briefing documents: Manufactured political narrative
Post Script
The New Zealand Prime Minister and her cabinet office accompanied an ill-defined coterie of bureaucrats, politicians and ministers appear as a surrogate WEF regime embarked upon the control of information and ultimately dissent, debate and discourse. Free speech becomes redundant if disagreement is labeled as mis- or dis- information. Such is the Alinsky-esque means of delegitmisation.
The WEF totalitarians closely embrace BigPharma and they obviously embrace BigTech. As written in the New Zealand National Security Long-term Insights Briefing (October 2022) they spruiked with blatant temerity their dismissal of any and all reasons for rejecting Pfizer injections, blaming “hesitancy” on Russian psy-ops. And I thought comedy had become unfashionable.
For example, recent analysis by Microsoft reports that New Zealanders were subject to a spike in exposure to Russian disinformation or propaganda online after December 2021, much of this related to COVID-19.(Microsoft: June 2022; Defending Ukraine: Early Lessons from the Cyber War) This spike preceded an increase in protests against COVID-19 measures and other issues in New Zealand.
Microsoft CEO writes in his Foreword to ‘Early Lessons’, where I think he reveals his corporate globalist/WEF alignment when he writes of, ‘false COVID-19 narratives’.
These ongoing Russian operations build on recent sophisticated efforts to spread false COVID-19 narratives in multiple Western countries. These included state- sponsored cyber influence operations in 2021 that sought to discourage vaccine adoption through English-language internet reports while simultaneously encouraging vaccine usage through Russian-language sites. During the last six months, similar Russian cyber influence operations sought to help inflame public opposition to COVID-19 policies in New Zealand and Canada.
One can equally conclude, that the corporate globalist narrative and perversion is as vicious and active in Russia as it is in the West. The above quotations merely serve to highlight common elements of the reported narrative at different times across the West, including Russia.
This is not a time to NZzzz.
