s the doom begins to abate from the dreaded virus, and the world begins to ease back on the emergency measures implemented in order to save us, a new normal looms, adjusted to account for the new terrain of war …information. Where are we at this moment? It seems there is a split between the narrative believers, and the shunned non-believers. A void has opened between the television generation and TikTokers alike, or those who reach a little deeper for their summary of events. I have spent the past several years examining the way mainstream manipulates the message in order to facilitate its' aims, and the pandemic response has all the traditional hallmarks of deception, and more. I want to go on record and lay out my view of where we are at, at this moment. This is what I believe. 1. Origin of the virus is a Wuhan lab leak, contributed to by gain-of-function technology, developed by a lab in North Carolina, and sold to researchers in China.(NAID involved there somewhere)2. Media created a hype well in excess of the scale of the illness. They managed to find those extreme images, which they notoriously published as omnipresent, constructing the narrative of a desperate crisis in motion. The resultant fear derived by media facilitated the draconian response enacted by governments.3. Development of vaccines circumvented conventional approval processes, under duress from the drug companies. Some of the preparedness for the rollout was suspiciously ahead of the pandemic. The mRNA delivery was, and still is, experimental at best.4. Serious harm and death is being caused by the mRNA vaccines, and the statistical information surrounding this is being safeguarded from public discovery, particularly by Pfizer.5. Long-term medical harm is occurring due to the various vaccines, including neurological issues, heart problems, recurrence of cancers, menstrual irregularities, still births, reproductive issues and more. It will become more obvious over time that the ‘emergency’ vaccination program has done more harm than good.6. Conversation and communication between various medical disciplines has been censored and shut down. If it did not conform to the mainstream narratives, the individuals have been shunned and discredited, hence the possibilities for a faster and more effective response to the virus have been stifled.7. As for masks and their value through this pandemic, I have no idea to what degree they are/were effective, although forcing everyone to wear one seems more a compliance test than a confirmation of medical benefit. The exact mode of transmission still seems something of a mystery. Breath exhalation, skin contact, saliva? Midway through the pandemic, the hard surfaces theory was found to be meritless, so how many more speculations will be retired to the medical dustbin?8. What was the distance that made ‘social distancing’ effective? A metre, or two? Or was it the duration of time within those arbitrary boundaries? Clear indications of efficacy are nowhere to be found.9. And what became of the hand-sanitising fad? Should there have been a mandate around hand cleaning, or was this part of the pandemic speculative distraction?10. The availability of already available alternate drug remedies that were vilified by mainstream, will eventually be shown to have mitigated the severity of the virus outcomes. Whether my assumptions are somewhere near correct or a million miles off track, possibly time will tell. What I am leaving here is a permanent record, something I can return to, and update my errors if necessary. Hopefully I am a million miles off, as that would signify personal delusion only, rather than delusion of a broader type, something which could have potentially inharmonious consequences. How did the administration of a health issue migrate into a battle for self-sovereignty? What in the past ever stirred up such feeling at the individual level as this pandemic has? To my memory as a Kiwi, perhaps the Springbok Tour of 1981 would be the closest comparison by way of social intensity and division, but that was a struggle to defeat blatant discrimination, or the diminishment of self-sovereignty as a consequence of skin tone. Attempting to defeat a virus should have been an opportunity to unify a nation via the establishment of better bonds at a community level, everyone looking out for each other, time out to re-evaluate, recalculate, reconnect, be better. Instead, it has become a period of strife, to the point where we are witnessing a new, and potentially effective, form of protest—the Parliament front-lawn camping ground. The fact that these people have had to gather in protest against a government attempting to dictate medical invasion upon the individual, seems to me, absurd. Yet here we are. Government co-opted media to broadcast the fear message. At the beginning, when the potency of the virus was little known, all eyes were upon the hardest-hit international hotspots where media reports were indicating that medical care was being overwhelmed by the spread. The fear message was virulent, and effective. I know I was scared by it, though more by the prospect of a breakdown within civil society than any threat to my personal health. The dead halt to all employment activity and empty streets reinforced a sense of urgency, to whatever was occurring. Locked in, all eyes looked out via media channels, and fed on messages coming in from the panic zones. A captive, and increasingly neurotic, audience was directed toward the government message in a way few have known in our lifetimes. Suddenly we were dependent on our leaders to calm the masses, provide a new structure for our daily lives, and give us faith that our survival was not in jeopardy. This provided a very attentive, captive audience, and a reorientation toward reliance on governmental messaging. This new ‘norm’ has developed over the past two years, as nations moved to control the outbreak in various ways. Here in New Zealand, a new ritual of tuning in to the messages from Jacinda Ardern and her medical sidekick developed the centralised narrative in tandem with its nonsensical implausibility. The power gained through this concentration of attention seems to have heightened governmental belief in its own importance, leading to a downgrade of cohesion with regard to the diktat from which it derives its’ leadership. Decisions on how to react to the unfolding situation seem to have degraded in clarity and attached derivation as time passed by, rendering the value of recent mandates meritless, and the reasons for their enactment facile. I’d been clinging to a sense that Jacinda Ardern was a genuinely good person, struggling along through one of the toughest roles society can nominate, in its toughest times. Her treatment of the mosque massacre seemed to define her tenure, providing the image of a compassionate leader able to steer the ship through troubled waters, and with sufficient heart as to appear connected to the people—the true Helen Clark protégé, with a cleaner, more approachable image. Unfortunately, that facade has fallen as a consequence of the response to mandate protests on the front lawn of Parliament. The rhetoric used has reached high rotate, and the echo is resounding with the same tone as, say, Obama, or Clinton, or Blair: “We know what’s best for you, we know it now, and we know what’s best for your future.” These leaders were practiced charlatans, able to float the facade of familiarity for the cameras, then swing behind the doors of power and plot unrelated courses at odds with the message paraded to the masses. Ardern’s plea to nationalism has flipped my view of her from sympathetic caretaker, to tainted siren. The victimisation of a small group of Kiwis, portraying them as non-Kiwis, starts down a slippery slope of separatism, one which is diametrically opposed to the maternal image curated for the mosque shootings. Then, we were all one. Now, there is a sub-group of Kiwis who are beneath contempt. How can one person hold such opposing views, ultra caring at one occasion, and dehumanising at the next? The opposing belief structures are unreconcilable within well-oriented individuals. Playing the extremes of morality in order to manipulate a narrative reeks of the stinking facade global politics has become, and now it’s upon our shores. As the pandemic comes to a close, and the Omicron variant flits around the country presenting as little more than a sneeze in a teacup, it’s the people who are slowly taking back their sovereignty. Reporting of one’s illness is being kept under wraps, to prevent complete shutdown to workplaces and social lives. The Government is aware of under-reporting, but they are woefully short of understanding the numbers of people who are managing their own affairs, in-house, rather than being buffeted by bureaucratic bollox. Recognition of one’s capacity to make good decisions for oneself has finally begun to resurface. Hopefully, common sense will return to Government. However, the hangover of a government misleading the population will be a diminishment of trust. If what the Government says, or directs, or dictates, has no value due to the erosion of trust, there is potential for a chaotic future. For all those who took the vaccine willingly, suffered no side effects, and don’t happen to know any adversely affected victims of the vaccine program, there may be little credibility damage done. For those who were coerced, essentially forced, to take the vaccine, and those who suffered adverse reactions, there will be considerable negative reaction to Government directives. Why would they, or any persons aware of their plight, ever take the Government at its word again? “We did what we were told, you told us it was safe, my whanau are now sick (or worse), you are liars”, will be their line. There will be those who are angry and hostile, actively turned against any whims of governance in the future. They sold out well-being for profit. When it becomes widely known how global Governments were actively involved in suppressing information and data in order to fulfil the charter of the drug companies, an angst en masse will not be an unexpected consequence. In defence of the leadership, it must be supposed that they firmly believe they are doing the right thing? It would be difficult to make an argument that insists they are steering this course of mask and vaccination mandates purely because there are financial benefits to either the nation, or themselves. As more information comes to light, and the principles upon which these decisions have been based begin to show an increasingly tenuous connection to credibility, leadership will be facing some fairly stern criticism. Hopefully, for their sakes, they are able to show their actions have been made with all the best intentions. Hopefully, there has been nothing more sinister than a crippling of the economy as a consequence of a global health scare. Hopefully.