I use public transport. I won’t bore you with the details as I am not a Green Party supporter or a pink-haired urban liberal harbouring a contagious social agenda – which is, in fact, the same thing.
There are not that many pink-haired urban liberals on public transport. They tend to drive.
Because I care for the environment, as do most conservatives, I don’t own an electric car. And because I value our collective freedom, I don’t go around lecturing other people on how they should live.
It’s within each of our remits to make that decision for ourselves.
Last week I predicted on The BFD that face nappies would become compulsory in New Zealand. And I also wrote about the planned economic ruin which most western nations have willingly signed up for in their ‘fight’, otherwise known as ‘struggle’, against coronavirus.
In this, the European and Anglosphere nations have assumed more than mere revolutionary language, taking on crippling levels of debt and printing vast sums of money in order to degrade the real value of their sovereign currencies.
Across the western world we are witnessing no less than a rolling socialist coup d’état at the behest of the United Nations and its satellite, the World Health Organisation, as one government after the other falls into goose-step.
These supra-national organisations, acting above the heads of our elected national assemblies, have stage-managed a response to the COVID-19 situation which will leave us much poorer, much more indebted, and much less able to function independently than at the outset.
As with the ‘climate emergency’, the ‘housing crisis’ and the ‘refugee crisis’, the public has been conned into ‘emergency’ measures against an ‘enemy’ which was disingenuously presented as being universally life-threatening.
With each successive ‘calamity’ rolled out across the world comes a fresh round of ‘international accords’, requiring every member state to enact the same ‘solution’ and resulting in homogeneous and globalised domestic policy.
The difference between this new domestic policy suite and the old is that no constituent has ever voted for it. And as such, its arrival heralds the end of democracy.
Britain’s World War II debt changed it irreparably. It took the country until 31 December 2006 to make the final payment on its 1945 borrowings. In its efforts to ‘fight’ a strain of influenza that country’s national debt now exceeds its previous war debt in relative terms and is more than 100 percent of its GDP.
New Zealand looks set to borrow over $100,000 per family and to continue diluting its puddle of fiat money indefinitely in response to 22 deaths and a thousand-or-so people who have been inconvenienced through illness.
Because the adults are not in control, no one is asking: Why? Jacinda and Clarke will be gophering over at the United Nations by the time any serious answers are required.
The WHO position on face nappies was initially ambivalent, but that recently changed and the great political roll-out began. Sticking to the Little Red International Rulebook, Ardern didn’t pull this particular ‘lever’ in her first Lockdown.
But since policy over at Global HQ has been revised, she’s introducing ‘mandatory’ face coverings in Level 2 from Monday.
What does ‘mandatory’ mean? In a western democracy, such as ours once was, ‘mandatory’ means ‘required by law’. And, of course, we used to have a suite of laws, voted on by parliament, and enacted by the legislature, which law-abiding people followed.
Driver’s licences are mandated by law, for example, and so is the drinking age. Even tax is governed by law and not, as some would have, by ‘love’.
In the absence of parliamentary law, it’s safe to assume that masks are only required in so far as Aucklanders are currently ‘required’ to refrain from swimming in the ocean or to keep clear of the city centre.
The mask mandate is little more than a diktat by a dictator, a proclamation by a princess before a prostrate proletariat. If I get ‘bounced’ from the bus on Monday, it will only be because I didn’t meet the Management’s dress code. It won’t be because I have broken the law.
Judith Collins says she doesn’t have access to the same information Ardern does, but she supports the wearing of masks. Here’s a hint: if Jacinda won’t share her toys, go to the man with the toy box. Give António Guterres a call.
Collins is a lawyer. Doesn’t she believe that where new regulation is required it should first be enacted by parliament? And shouldn’t we all be living according to the rule of law, politicians included?
In this post-COVID world, which is fast becoming a cross between George Orwell’s 1984 and Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, we find ourselves terrorised into accepting fantasy as if it were the incontestable truth.
And below the ‘one source of truth’, lurks disquiet.
New Zealand’s legacy media appears to have abdicated its role in critical thinking and now takes orders directly from Kim Jong Un.
Masks are ‘mandatory’ says The Herald, says TV One, says Newshub, says RNZ. They don’t say how, and the reason why? falls apart as soon as they explain it.
A mask may be disposable or reusable. It may be mass-produced, or people may make their own – and in fact are being encouraged to do so as part of a bizarre exercise, both national and socialist, in collective handwerkliche Arbeit.
There are no standards for masks. As with NCEA, there is no ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ and everyone must be seen to ‘achieve’ something in this great people’s endeavour. It is for this reason that kids who forget their homework are officially advised that a ‘scarf, t-shirt or bandana’ can be used to ‘equal effect’.
Why not a burqa?
Children are to be spared this ordeal. The cut-off may, or may not, be age ten. Will children, I wonder, be required to carry age ID?
Those who have difficulty breathing will also be spared the ignominy of a mask, the Ministry of Health says, but only if they are carrying a letter from their doctor. Another hint: those having difficulty breathing are probably more at risk than others, and are best advised to avoid public transport, or indeed public places, altogether.
What is most evident is that the ‘mask mandate’ has almost nothing to do with public health, and is instead an orchestrated hoax, under the terms of which the nation will (virtue-) signal its acceptance not only of the Police State, but of permanent extra-governmental control.
Dissenters will occupy a grey area, without civil rights, in which they can be bullied under a system of mob rule. The Stasi relied on fear, the mob, and a network of informants to keep the population in line under the communist reign of terror in East Germany.
During the Nazi occupation of France, la Résistance, though greatly mythologised, was, in fact, tiny, and the overwhelming majority publicly complied with the requirements of their oppressors. Displays of overt acceptance are almost always mandatory in undemocratic political regimes.
Why would we expect this one to be any different?
Next step – and there will be one – is compulsory masks in workplaces and in public spaces. Though we, the minority, can resist this, and we should.
Anyone with a modicum of respect for the rule of law ‘will never surrender’, nor be seen to doff his cap, nor salute this nonsense, or otherwise say: Jawohl, Frau Kommandant Ardern!
If you enjoyed this BFD article please share it.