Yes they want us dead, blunt but true as graphically highlighted by Dr Vernon Coleman, and historically documented if you care to trace the history of eugenics parading as ‘family planning’. They are doubling down on depop… EWNZ
A new book for kids as young as five frames abortion as a magical “superpower” that lets people shape their destinies. Bright illustrations hide heavy messages about ending pregnancies. Parents are furious, calling it indoctrination. But why target such young children, and what does this mean for the next generation? The debate is heating up…
Imagine picking up a brightly colored book for your kindergartener, expecting stories about friendship or adventure, only to find pages explaining abortion as some kind of heroic ability. It’s hard to wrap your head around, isn’t it? Yet that’s exactly what’s happening with a new release aimed at children as young as five.
In a world where kids are still learning basic values like sharing and kindness, introducing complex and divisive adult topics feels jarring to many parents. This latest effort has sparked intense debate, with critics arguing it’s less about education and more about shaping young minds in a particular direction. Let’s dive into what’s really going on here.
A Bold Move to Reach Young Readers
The book in question is designed specifically for children aged five to eight, complete with engaging illustrations that draw in little eyes. It uses simple language to describe abortion not as a medical procedure, but as something empowering and essential to human potential.
According to its creators, the goal is straightforward: provide a resource for adults to discuss the topic early on. They argue that with so much political discussion around reproductive rights, kids are bound to hear about it anyway. Why not frame it positively from the start?
But for many, this approach crosses a line. Why rush such heavy subjects when children are still grasping concepts like life and family? In my view, childhood should be a time of innocence, not ideological training.
Framing Abortion as a Unique Human Ability
One of the standout claims in the book is that abortion represents a “superpower.” It ties this idea to our ability to envision the future and make decisions accordingly. The text emphasizes how humans differ from animals because we can plan ahead and choose paths that align with our dreams.
This framing is clever in its simplicity. Bright, playful drawings accompany messages about imagining life seasons ahead. It’s presented as a tool for shaping destiny, something that has influenced the world we live in.
Human beings have the capacity to imagine the future and make choices that lead us towards the life we envision.
While the language is accessible, critics point out what it leaves unsaid. There’s no mention of when life begins or the emotional weight many associate with the decision. Instead, it’s packaged as neutral—or even celebratory.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how this positions choice as ultimate power. But power over what, exactly? That’s where opinions diverge sharply.
The Push to Normalize and Destigmatize
The organization behind the book has been vocal about their mission for years. They want to make abortion a regular part of conversation, stripping away any lingering shame or hesitation. Targeting kids is seen as the ultimate way to achieve this culturally.
They claim parents and teachers have been asking for tools like this. With debates raging in politics and media, children pick up snippets. Better to control the narrative early, they argue.
Introduce concepts in age-appropriate ways
Rewrite societal views from the ground up
Empower adults to discuss without fear
Counter negative portrayals elsewhere
It’s a strategic move, no doubt. Start young, and future generations might see the issue entirely differently. But is that education or something closer to indoctrination? Many parents lean toward the latter.
I’ve found that when topics like this enter classrooms or bedtime stories, it often leaves families feeling sidelined. Parents want to guide their children’s moral compass, not have it outsourced.
Critics Call It Premature and Harmful
The backlash has been swift and strong. Commentators from various backgrounds have labeled the book inappropriate, even dangerous for young minds. Why introduce violence-tinged adult decisions to kids who barely understand where babies come from?
Some highlight the hypocrisy in equating abortion with natural pregnancy outcomes like miscarriage. One is chosen, the other isn’t—yet the book reportedly groups them casually.
This isn’t education; it’s manipulation of innocence for political ends.– Concerned commentator
Others worry about long-term effects. If children grow up viewing life-ending choices as empowering superpowers, what does that say about society’s values? It’s a valid question in an era where mental health concerns among youth are already high.
There’s also the religious angle for many families. Teachings about life’s sanctity from conception clash directly with this messaging. Parents feel compelled to counter it at home, turning storytime into battleground.
Broader Context in Society Today
This isn’t happening in isolation. Reproductive rights remain hotly contested globally, with laws shifting in various directions. Some countries tighten restrictions, others expand access—and free speech around the issue sometimes takes hits.
Pro-life advocates face arrests for peaceful protests in certain places. Silent prayer near clinics has led to legal trouble. These stories fuel concerns that one side seeks total cultural dominance, starting with the youngest.
Meanwhile, supporters see efforts like this book as necessary pushback against stigma. They’ve funded procedures, shared information, and built networks for years. Extending to education feels like natural progression.
The divide feels deeper than ever. Families navigate school curricula, media influences, and now children’s literature with growing caution.
What Parents Can Do in Response
Many moms and dads are stepping up their involvement. They’re previewing books, discussing values openly, and seeking alternatives that align with their beliefs.
Stay aware of what’s entering your home library
Have age-appropriate talks on life and family
Choose materials that reinforce positive messages
Connect with like-minded parent communities
Teach critical thinking early on
It’s exhausting sometimes, but necessary. In my experience, proactive parenting makes all the difference when outside influences grow bolder.
Some are even creating their own resources—books celebrating life, family, and responsibility. It’s a grassroots response to what feels like top-down pressure.
Looking Ahead: Cultural Shifts and Generations
Efforts like this book signal ambition for lasting change. If successful, tomorrow’s adults might view abortion as unremarkable, even positive. Stigma could vanish entirely in one or two generations.
But resistance is fierce too. Parents galvanized by these moves often double down on traditional teachings. The push might backfire, strengthening opposing views.
Either way, childhood is changing. Topics once reserved for adults trickle down faster than ever, thanks to media and activism.
What’s the right age for such discussions? There’s no universal answer, but most agree five feels far too young. Kids need space to be kids before bearing ideological weight.
At the end of the day, this controversy reveals deeper tensions about who shapes our children’s worldview. Parents? Activists? Educators? It’s a question worth pondering as similar efforts likely continue.
True empowerment, some argue, comes from protecting innocence and fostering wonder—not introducing division early. Whatever your stance, the conversation matters. Our kids deserve thoughtful guidance in a complicated world.
This article was originally published here in 2023 … EWNZ
“The Ministry of Primary Industries stipulates a withholding period of 4 months for 1080 poison. For brodifacoum it is 3 years i.e. 36 months after poisoning.“
Government use of 1080 poison in New Zealand is controversial and seems to command the headlines ahead of other poisons.
But there is a much worse poison – it is called brodifacoum.
Brodifacoum is widely used by regional councils and government agencies such as the Department of Conservation. Typical of its widespread use is Ulva Island near Stewart Island where the Department of Conservation is currently undertaking rodent eradication.
I have come across brodifacoum poisoning notices in the central North Island when trout fishing, accompanied by my Labrador dog. In one case I asked a farmer why the regional council was using brodifacoum for possums. He didn’t know and added that possum numbers were very light anyhow.
Because of the extreme danger to my dog, I didn’t go fishing. Besides, trout fishing a river into whichever toxic baits will have fallen or on the banks, doesn’t make for an enjoyable day’s fishing!
Such cavalier attitude of regional councils – and the Department of Conservation – belies the lethal nature of brodifacoum.
Comparison
How does it compare to 1080?
Both poisons have a ”withholding period” which means a time must elapse after the toxin’s use before stock can be safely grazed or game animals such as deer, taken for home consumption.
The Ministry of Primary Industries stipulates 4 months for 1080 poison. For brodifacoum it is 3 years i.e. 36 months after poisoning.
The extensive withholding time for brodifacoum is due to its known long-term persistence in the environment and animal bodies.
Brodifacoum warning notices by a King Country trout stream – photo Tony Orman
What is brodifacoum?
Brodifacoum is an anticoagulant, which causes the animal to die slowly and painfully from internal bleeding. As cruel as death over two or three days is by 1080, by brodifacoum it is far more prolonged, in the case of rats within 4 to 8 days and larger animals such as possums, up to 21 days.
1080 requires a user to have a licence to use the toxin but no licence is needed for brodifacoum, for example rat poison sold over shop counters, to anyone, young or adult with no controls whatsoever.
Secondary Poisoning
Brodifacoum and 1080 have another similarity, called “secondary poisoning”. In other words a dead poisoned animal remains toxic and any bird or other creature scavenging the dead body, takes in poison and dies.
Scientists C.T. Eason and E.B. Spurr in 1995 in a study “The Toxicity and Sub-lethal Effects of Brodifacoum said insectivorous birds (e.g. bush robins, fantails) are likely to be exposed to brodifacoum by eating invertebrates that have fed on toxic baits; i.e., they are likely to be at risk from secondary poisoning. Predatory birds (especially the Australasian harrier, New Zealand falcon, and morepork) might also be at risk from secondary poisoning by eating birds, small mammals, or invertebrates that have fed on toxic baits.
Predators are greatly at risk. Both poisons are very slow to kill, and especially so with brodifacoum. An animal be mouse, bird or insect, on taking the poison, slowly dies and in its distressed, weakening state, naturally and quickly attracts the attention of predators among them native birds such as bush falcons, hawks, moreporks, pukekos and wekas.
Bush robins are at risk from brodifacoum – photo Tony Orman
Ecological history is littered with instances following poisoning. For example scientists Eason and Spurr said the “entire weka population on Tawhitinui Island, Pelorus Sound, Marlborough Sounds was exterminated mainly by direct consumption of rat bait (Talon) intended for ship rat control.”
The two scientists said “indigenous New Zealand vertebrates most at risk from feeding directly on cereal-based baits containing brodifacoum are those species that are naturally inquisitive and have an omnivorous diet (birds such as weka, kaka, kea, and robins). The greatest risk of secondary poisoning is to predatory and scavenging birds (especially the Australasian harrier, New Zealand falcon, southern black-backed gull, morepork, and weka)”
The duo added “the risk from brodifacoum will be at its greatest when saturation baiting techniques, such as aerial sowing, are used in eradication programmes.” Such as Ulva Island where DoC is “aerially sowing” brodifacoum.
Seven years later in 2002, Spurr and Eason along with two other scientists produced a study “Assessment of risks of brodifacoum to non-target birds and mammals in New Zealand”.
The quartet of scientists described brodifacoum as “highly toxic to birds and mammals” and listed victims such as the Australasian harrier (Circus approximans) and morepork (Ninox novaeseelandiae), other native birds such as the pukeko (Porphyrio melanomas), weka (Gallirallus australis), southern black-backed gull (Larus dominicanus), and kiwi (Apteryx spp.) and introduced mammals, including game animals e.g. deer.
Dead Dotterels
Other studies have identified the lethal nature of brodifacoum.
Landcare Research scientist Penny Fisher said “because brodifacoum persists in the environment, other birds may suffer secondary poisoning from eating animals that have ingested poison” and cited “a high mortality of New Zealand dotterels following an aerial brodifacoum operation at Tawharanui Regional Park in North Auckland, in 2004. At least 50% of the dotterels in the area at time of operation disappeared or were found dead. Sand-hoppers-common food item of NZ dotterels —ate baits and accumulated brodifacoum and provided a potential route for transmission of the toxin to dotterels.”
Two dead eels found in a Southland waterway had brodifacoum in the gut contents of one and that “suggests the eel had recently ingested food containing brodifacoum, probably through scavenging the carcass of a poisoned possum.”
Freshwater Residues
Brodifacoum similar to 1080, leaves residues.
In 2005 a paper in the New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Volume 39, told of freshwater crayfish (koura) with significant 1080 concentrations and 1080 residues in eel tissue that were on average 12 times higher than the PMAV (provisional maximum acceptable level).
The INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY Health and Safety Guide No. 93 said of brodifacoum “as a technical material — is highly toxic for fish”.
Processing poisons for wild animal control/eradication is Orillion a State Owned Enterprise governed through a Board of Directors appointed by the New Zealand Government. Orillion’s safety data sheet for brodifacoum says “may cause long lasting harmful effects to aquatic life.”
Therein lies a threat to not only valued sports fishes such as trout and juvenile salmon migrating downstream to sea, but also native fish such as eels and galaxids.
Sodium fluoroacetate, also known as compound 1080, is the poison around which controversy swirls. Brodifacoum is little known but is surreptitiously used by the Department of Conservation and councils.
1080 is ecologically destructive and damaging to the ecosystem – but brodifacoum is far worse.
Footnote: Environmentalist Tony Orman has spent a lifetime in the outdoors and has had some two dozen books published among them “New Zealand the Beautiful Wilderness”
“As Catherine says, there are worse things than death, and this is chief among them right now, in my view. No matter how inconvenient, how uncomfortable, even how painful it may be to firmly decline it, these are as nothing to the inconvenience, discomfort and suffering that will, by design, flow from its successful installation.“
On 13 December in London, “a technical failure” stopped a video from playing.
That failure did not stop the message.
Catherine Austin Fitts explains why Digital ID is the keystone required to build a total surveillance and control system, one that cannot be undone once installed.
This is the warning you were meant to hear.
Why Digital ID Matters
As Catherine Austin Fitts makes clear, Digital ID is not a convenience upgrade or a neutral administrative tool. It is the core infrastructure required to connect identity, surveillance, and programmable money into a single, integrated system.
Once in place, such a system allows centralized control over movement, transactions, access, and participation in everyday life. Compliance can be automated. Dissent can be penalized. Access to money itself can become conditional.
This is not speculative. It is structural.
The Point of No Return
The danger is not short-term inconvenience. The danger is permanence.
Once Digital ID becomes embedded across financial systems, public services, and digital platforms, meaningful refusal becomes impossible. The system does not need constant enforcement, it enforces itself.
As Fitts warns, there are worse things than discomfort. There are worse things than inconvenience. Some systems, once accepted, cannot be escaped.
Below is a quote from Dr. Mike Yeadon, followed by the video that was meant to play in London.
Watch it in full. Share it widely.
Please take under five minutes to listen to a moving, powerful, informed speech by Catherine Austin Fitts about what digital ID means.
It’s the absolutely required keystone to permanent, digital tyranny over every aspect of your life. It cannot be undone, once installed.
As Catherine says, there are worse things than death, and this is chief among them right now, in my view. No matter how inconvenient, how uncomfortable, even how painful it may be to firmly decline it, these are as nothing to the inconvenience, discomfort and suffering that will, by design, flow from its successful installation.
Best wishes and thank you for sharing this warning far & wide
This message from Dr Mike Yeadon was meant to be heard in London on 13th December at the Mass Non-Compliance protest against Digital ID.
A tech failure meant the video did not play on the screen. That failure will not silence the message.
Dr Mike Yeadon, former Vice President of Pfizer Global, delivered words that were meant to be heard—and they still will be.
“Do you really think, for a moment, that these ultra-wealthy people working through our government—who are traitors—are telling you the truth? That you need a digital ID to make sure illegal people don’t work, or that undocumented migrants might be stopped? It’s utter nonsense on stilts.”
I wish the Met Police had heard Mike’s message as he addressed them:
“No to low-level enablers. No to obedient rule-followers. You have been taking illegal orders for years under Operation Talla. Politicians—probably through globalists—instructed your senior police officers, who in turn told you to ignore any potential crimes reported about vaccination or anything to do with COVID.
We have the receipts. We have the memos. We know the name of the operation.
Any police officers who think the globalists are going to allow you to keep the money you’re being paid to oppress people like me—you’ve got another thing coming. Your time will come too. They’re coming for you as well.”
Share this far and wide. This moment matters. The UK is the first to stand up against a looming digital dystopia—and the world must follow.
Thank you to everyone who braved the cold in London. This was only still the beginning—and you were among the first to stand and resist. We will not allow tyranny to take hold. We will continue to campaign against Digital ID as a tool of total control.
The minister in charge of a new government app promises it will be “more secure than almost anything else you could think about”.
Minister for Digitising Government Judith Collins has launched the Govt.nz app this week after several years of development.
“It’s to enable people, say if there’s a life event, a baby’s born, go into the app and click on ‘we’ve got a new baby’ or something and it will come up with all the things you need to do around registration, services that you might want to be linked to,” Collins explained to Morning Report.
“It basically brings a lot of the government services into one place for people to link through to.”
The Govt.nz app as seen in the Apple app store. Photo: Supplied
In its current form, the app only included some public services.
“[Wednesday’s] launch was the very first iteration of the app, and it’s going to be changing and added to as we move on. Every six-to-eight weeks you’ll see changes,” Collins said.
“The idea is that it will become a one-stop shop for people who want to use it, and that’s the other important message: this is not compulsory, this is entirely voluntary. It’s for people, like, me who love to have apps and want to do all my work on them.”
An anticipated feature to be added to the app next year was digital driver’s licences and other identity credentials.
“[To do that] we need to change the law and we have that law change going through … That’s due to go through parliament in completion of the legislation early next year,” she said.
“We expect to have that digital driver’s licence uploaded third quarter of next year.”
Collins said the app would be backed by the government’s digital security system and be secure against hackers.
“Well they [can] get access now to people’s filing cabinets and everything else. [It’s] more secure than almost anything else you could think about because it’s backed up by the government’s digital security,” she said.
“If you were to go and rent a house … The first thing the real estate agent’s going to say is ‘where are all your identity documents,’ so you end up handing over a copy of your passport, driver’s licence, birth certificate, photo-copied and put into someone’s filing cabinet.”
“You’ve got no control over that and it’s a massive honeypot for someone who is trying to steal identity. This is so much more secure.”
Collins also confirmed that the app had no means of tracking users.
Palantir has operated & had office in Wellington Aotearoa since 2012. Jonkey brought this here and Judith Collins is expanding the deals.
Scary stuff. Palantir has operated & had office in Wellington Aotearoa since 2012. Jonkey brought this here and Judith Collins is expanding the deals. https://t.co/trF9Z18jaBpic.twitter.com/BFR4TDCU7D
— JO – #ToitūTeTiriti Aotearoa!❤️🤍🖤 🇳🇿 🇵🇸🇺🇦 (@JOMcFadyen) December 7, 2025
A separate Digital ID for high school kids 13 years+ has been launched in schools throughout the country, ahead of NZ Verify!! Called MyMahi, the D/ID’s digital credential as proof of identity is a Digital Student-School ID. The ID has a CBDC digital wallet attached enabling the kids to use the Social Credit System linked to a digital bank called Emerge, created by a NZ Tech Co (a part of the worldwide Central Bank). MyMahi founder and Emerge CEO said they have so far identified at least 50,000 kids without a bank account, and this can be easily solved, “without the need for parental approval”!! I found a photo of an example of the ID – there’s a “wallet” tab on the top, and I also noticed an “expiry date”. What’s the bet when that happens, and to keep the ID current, the student will have to upload a digital Vaccine ID/Health Pass or similar, or else they will be locked out of their smartphone. Watch all the kids comply!!
School principals are praising this initiative, because MyMahi, they say, is also a highly valuable “educational platform” for students who already has a bank account, as the app is also their School App, linking the kids to all sorts of school info, updates, grades, and activities/events etc!! The goal for MyMahi/Emerge is they want all high school kids to sign up, and be totally ENSLAVED to the system!!
In the photo is MyMahi founder Jeff King and Nats MP Andrew Bayly giving the thumbs up 😒
Teenagers as young as 13 can now open a transaction account remotely using a digital ID, and they don’t even need their parents’ permission.
School tech entrepreneur Jeff King was so frustrated at how many teens did not have bank accounts, and how hard banks made it for them to sign up for one, he embarked on a mission of change.
That took him into the head offices of the banks, and even to Parliament but, having drawn a blank with the big banks, he has signed up digital-only banking provider Emerge to accept the verified MyMahi Digital ID so teens can open accounts remotely.
However you do (or don’t) celebrate this season, here’s a beautiful reminder from TJ Taotuaof the origin of Christmas… sung and played from the heart.
Thank you to all who’ve kept up with my site this year, in spite of the silent gaps! … who have contributed financially, commented and shared links, who’ve contacted me, encouraged me and also shared their stories. All so appreciated.
Stay safe these holidays and care for one another. There is little enough caring in the world. As I frequently remind myself, appreciate your loved ones, they may not be here tomorrow. And appreciate what you have, there are many tonight who won’t eat, who have nowhere to sleep and nobody to care for them. We can each make the world a better place. As is becoming increasingly evident, there are darker times ahead. Educate yourself via independent media, the only place you’ll discover what is really happening, and prepare. ‘They’ intend for you all to own nothing. They intend to own everything.
“We are a coalition founded by active and veteran members from the New Zealand Defence Force, police, and emergency services. We are united by a shared commitment to service, to our communities, and to defending the core values that define our nation.”
These documents were used in a training exercise conducted in November 2025 for a Junior Non Commissioned Officer Course in Burnham Army Base in Christchurch. I was sent what was deemed the most concerning pages, and all are shown below.
PLEASE NOTE: I am not ex-military. I am a civilian woman with no personal ties to the NZDF.
“General Idea, Company Opord and Platoon OPORD. The General Idea and Company Opord will both be general and apply to the whole training course most likely. They provide the big picture and a fictional framework for the exercise to occur. This is where they’ve chosen to define the enemy as Christian Extremists. The Platoon OPORD is the specific detail for what they’re going to be having to do right now or over the next couple of days. They will have received a few of these during their course for different exercises etc. This is just a sample of one of them.” – From source
A Nokia CEO said at Davos in 2022, cell phones will be built directly into our bodies within a decade. (Davos where the not-elite jet every year ignoring their ‘carbon footprint’ in aircraft piloted by unjabbed pilots). The linked article tells how Schwab’s offsider Yuval Harari describes humans as ‘hackable animals’. Nice. We’ve been hearing it frequently haven’t we as they ramp up the big slide into digital ID? For our convenience of course. Not. We know it is all about control. They are obsessed with tracking and tracing each one of us to the nth degree (those of us left that is). So here we have the Co-operative bank giving you options with your iPhone. Some of you will think, yay this makes banking even easier. Some of you will think, just another step down the slippery slope. Depends whether you are reading lamestream or independent.
Awake Christians will be alerted by the scenario of phones being built into their bodies (witness the scriptures and Revelation 13:17). And even moreso at the recent revelations about who is being targeted by the NZDF in their practice drills.
Go here to read about passports: “Apple Watch and iPhone owners in the United States will now be able to carry a copy of their U.S. passport on their device, which they can then use at TSA checkpoints across more than 250 U.S. airports when traveling domestically.”
Is ‘owning nothing & being happy’ ringing any bells for you? 15 minute cities? Mandatory this that and the other thing including medical procedures ? … EWNZ
These three things the Government is saying about digital ID…❌Don’t add up (Big Brother Watch)
These three things the Government is saying about digital ID…❌Don’t add up (Big Brother Watch).
Digital I.D. is the gateway to zero privacy, zero freedoms, just total mass surveillance and control. Apart from paying for prison infrastructure, you will have still have to fork out for the smartphone to connect you to the prison.
Popular Information is powered by readers who believe that truth still matters. When just a few more people step up to support this work, it means more lies exposed, more corruption uncovered, and more accountability where it’s long overdue.
If you believe journalism should serve the public, not the powerful, and you’re in a position to help, becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER truly makes a difference. Alternatively you can support by way of a cup of coffee:
FreeNZ (Liz Gunn) speaks with Michael Yon (must watch … especially the NZDF issue is at 30 min in then at the end at 1:54:54) It’s highly recommended you listen to the entire interview as Michael has an expert overview of the big picture globally. He is ex US military.
The idea that life was better `then’ than it is now is widely derided as merely an example of nostalgia winning over reality.
But you don’t have to look through the retrospectoscope while wearing rose tinted spectacles, to realise that things really were better 50, 60 or even 70 years ago. The older I get the more bewildered I become by the contrast between then and now. A year or two ago I decided that health care was at its best in the 1970s when GPs, often pastoral in style, visited patients in their homes and were available on call day and night for every day of the year, including Christmas Day.
But it isn’t just health care that was better back in the 1970s.
Everything was better then.
Today, we live in persistent and unremitting (and often terrifying) chaos. To the naïve and innocent the chaos is a result of incompetence, greed and indifference.
But the chaos isn’t accidental. It is, rather, a result of the malignant aspirations and lethal actions of conspirators who want to control our lives.
The 70s were better than today. But so were the 60s. And the ‘50s.
I am now convinced that life in the 1950s was safer, kinder and in every way better than life today. As we head into the second quarter of the 21st century. I can’t remember when I last heard a politician tell the truth. And I can’t think of anyone in public life whom I admire.
We live in a world of chaos and misery and fear but none of the chaos and misery is happening in isolation or by accident. The old are persuaded to hate the young. The young are persuaded to hate the old. Men and women are put at loggerheads. Racial tension is deliberately created. And so on and so on.
It’s all part of a plan. The plan. As I’ve been saying for decades, nothing is happening by accident. There are no coincidences.
Whenever a government does anything which seems strange or inexplicable all you have to do is ask yourself: `How does this fit in with the Agenda?’ or `How does this benefit the conspirators?’ You will quickly find yourself understanding exactly what is happening and why. We are in a race to Net Zero and from there into the inhumane, unimaginable horrors of the Great Reset. And we’re already half way there.
The clue is that everything bad is happening everywhere – in every country. Digitalisation, social credit schemes, euthanasia, re-wilding, food shortages – all are happening all around the world. Economies are crashing everywhere. Politicians all around the world seem incompetent or crooked or both (I find it impossible to name one leading politician in the world who doesn’t match that description). Undemocratic organisations, led by unelected individuals, are taking more and more power. Fear is being used as a tool to create obedience and compliance. New laws are being introduced to limit our freedom though we are, of course, told that they are being introduced to protect us, in some curious way from some imagined or created threat. The EU (created by World War II’s left over Nazis don’t forget) and the UK are desperate for the third world war to start. They are doing everything they can to stop the peace process in Ukraine. They want more war. They know that a nice big war is the quickest way to kill a few hundred million. They claim that Russia wants to invade Europe and Britain. Why? Why on earth would Russia want to invade countries which have massive debts, too many immigrants and no natural resources worth stealing? What do Britain, France and Germany have that Russia could possibly covet?
The new laws are introduced so fast that the police cannot keep up with them, and victims of wrongful arrests have been paid big chunks of money. Tax legislation is now so absurdly complicated that even tax inspectors don’t understand what the rules are.
And Britain is in the vanguard of countries being pushed remorselessly into the Great Reset. It is clear to me that Britain is being run by a cabinet of sociopaths who care nothing for the people who elected them (and pay them) but put all their effort into pleasing the conspirators who now control everything.
And yet at least 95% of the population have no idea what is happening to them – or how the future is going to look.
If you live outside the UK you should get down on your knees and give thanks that you don’t live in the UK. Even Canadians and Australians are better off than the British. Even the French are better off than the British.
In the UK, where I am unfortunate enough to live and work, I feel as though I’m living in France in the 1940s – a member of the Resistance, fighting bad people who have taken over my country. The evidence that we are living in a constructed nightmare is unavoidable. The people pretending to run the country (but themselves being run by manipulative conspirators) make Joe Biden and Boris Johnson look like saints – and that takes some doing.
The recent Labour Government budget, announced last week, proves to me without a shadow of doubt that the Labour Party’s plan is to destroy Britain. The budget was, it seems to many, based on a fraud. Reeves and Starmer knew that it wasn’t necessary to take another £26 billion in tax. But they took it anyway. Was it, I wonder, the biggest financial fraud in history?
Labour’s policy is to tax everyone who works, and give billions away in benefits to skivers and immigrants. It seems to me that the Labour Government exists solely to waste taxpayers’ hard earned money, to create bankruptcies and unemployment. To destroy the economy. To destroy people’s lives.
Rachel Reeves’s budget gave so much money to out of work skivers that a working family would need to earn £71,000 a year to beat the income of a family on benefits. Immigrants with ten children are £20,000 a year better off after the Labour Budget. The people organising small boats to bring in immigrants will have to buy bigger boats. When does the invasion end? When Britain is standing room only?
So families who don’t earn £71,000 (roughly twice the average wage) would be better off if they gave up work and sat at home watching TV and playing video games. There is now a real incentive to give up work and become a professional layabout. Jobless mothers, rejoicing in a budget which will give them thousands and thousands of pounds of free money every year, have sworn to have more children so that they are given more tax free money. And how much of that money will be spent on the children and how much will be spent on Netflix, etc?
The long term plan is obviously to bring in Universal Benefit whereby everyone receives a small weekly payment from the State and stays at home and watches TV – totally dependent upon the State for everything. The only people with jobs will be the politicians and the civil servants. Everything else will be done by computers and robots as the population is cut by 90%.
Everyone with an interest in finance (except for politicians and, in particular, those politicians involved in managing a nation’s money) knows that if you increase taxes too much the resulting amount of money raised will fall rather than rise. This is shown in something called the Laffer Curve. `Every time we have raised taxes on the rich,’ said economist Arthur Laffer, `three things have happened: the economy underperformed, the share of tax revenues from the rich fell and the poor got hammered. When we cut taxes the reverse happened.’
When chancellors get too greedy and push up taxes to unacceptable levels taxpayers respond in a number of ways. Sometimes they simply work less, refuse overtime or take on fewer contracts. And sometimes they emigrate. The end result is the same: the tax raised will fall when taxes rise too much.
Britain’s net migration figures show that trained, educated tax payers are leaving Britain in bigger numbers than ever. As illiterate immigrants pour in, demanding free money and accommodation, so the taxpayers disappear. The only people campaigning for more immigration are the far left cultists who have no jobs, pay no tax and are intent on the destruction of the country which feeds them. They shout `racist’ and `fascist’ at those who oppose them but in truth they are racists and fascists.
Britain’s faux Government, a Vichy Government for the conspirators, must know this. Surely, no one can be as stupid, as incompetent or as dishonest and amoral as Starmer and Reeves appear to be.
On 26th November 2025, Reeves delivered a budget which many believe was based on a lie. Reeves stole £26 billion from taxpayers on the basis that the £26 billion was needed to balance a black hole in the accounts. The £40 billion she took a few months ago was not, we were told, enough. But things were more complicated than they appeared. It seems that the budget was designed to appease back bench Labour Party MPs who were worried that their jobs were at risk. They wanted a far left wing budget to save them.
And Reeves, worried about her own job, presented a budget which appeared designed to save those MPs from the contempt in which the country holds Prime Minister Starmer and, more importantly, to save her own job.
And so Reeves took another £26 billion in a bizarre smorgasbord of taxes even though it seemed clear that the tax grab would push hundreds of thousands of companies into bankruptcy and millions into long term unemployment. The suicide rate (already high) will rocket as depressions spread. If the evil euthanasia bill is pushed through and becomes law the anxious and the depressed will be queuing up outside the government `kill by doctor’ clinics.
It was a budget designed to destroy. And to delight the conspirators.
And having grabbed the £26 billion, ostensibly to fill a hole in the budget, she proceeded to give away a huge chunk of it in more benefits payments for the shirkers, the immigrants and the layabouts whose greed and laziness is already ruining the country. She gave billions of pounds of taxpayers money to families (many of them uninvited visitors) who had loads of children. Doesn’t giving away the money that was raised prove that there was no big black hole in the accounts?
Reeves claimed, of course, that she was merely playing at Lady Bountiful with other people’s money. But how much of the money she collected and then distributed to the shirkers will be used to improve the lot of children and how much will be spent on Netflix subscriptions and bigger TV sets?
Immediately after the budget, single mothers cheerily announced that they would immediately get pregnant and have more children.
Astonishingly, when Kemi Badenoch MP, the leader of the opposition in the British Parliament dared to go off piste and dared to criticise Reeves (in one of the most excoriating, honest and captivating speeches seen in the House of Commons for decades) she was widely attacked in the mainstream media. This was a perfect example of the power the conspirators exert over the media. No one dare criticise anything the conspirators want.
The bottom line is that if it was as unnecessary and fraudulent as I suspect then the latest Reeves budget should be cancelled and Reeves should be sacked and arrested. The best word to describe her is shameless. It is scarcely believable that she has the gall not to resign. She raised 26 billion in taxes and produced a budget which will cause millions of job losses and much distress and despair – seemingly to please back bench Labour MPs and ensure she keeps her own job.
But I think there was more to this budget. I think it was part of the conspirators’ plan to destroy the British economy – and to destroy Britain.
It seems possible that the budget was based on a fraud that would have put an entrepreneur in court. Britain doesn’t have a big black financial hole after all.
Naturally, when confronted, both Starmer and Reeves denied everything. Deny, deny, deny. They weren’t there at the time. The dog ate the accounts. It wasn’t Rachel Reeves who delivered the budget, it was some AI fake.
No one in politics takes responsibility anymore. They deny, deny and deny again even though they must know that no one believes the denials.
There have been loud calls for Reeves to resign (and for Starmer to go with her).
But if Reeves had any sense of decency she would have resigned when the truth about her dodgy CV was published. She should have resigned after the fiasco with the rented house and the paperwork she somehow didn’t complete. (Check out those stories online.)
But now there is a bigger reason for Reeves and Starmer to go.
If last week’s budget in the UK was based on a lie the consequences are disastrous.
This is worse than the self serving nonsenses that came before. A budget built on a lie doesn’t just affect the reputation of a Chancellor without much of a reputation for integrity – it affects everyone and will cause great misery and distress.
If it is really true that Reeves and Starmer both knew that there was no big black hole in the UK’s accounts then the huge tax rises weren’t necessary. They were introduced so that Reeves could give billions to scroungers and the work shy. Were the tax rises political rather than financial? Did Reeves want to please economically illiterate back bench MPs so that she could keep her own job? If so, £26 billion is a big price to pay for one woman to keep her job.
But the fake budget was also designed, I believe, to please the conspirators.
The end result of the Labour Government’s budget is to transfer billions from hard working strivers to skivers and immigrant families. Government and private debt is doomed to rise. Inflation will go up. Growth will go down. Companies will go bust. The unemployment figures will soar. The bond markets aren’t going to like any of this (though it seems the banks were bribed to applaud quietly as reward for no new bank tax). The truth is, as always with modern governments, is pushed into a cupboard under the stairs but this budget will lead not to a recession but to a bigger depression than was seen in the 1930s.
How long can Starmer allow Reeves to keep her job? Maybe he’ll make Lammy Chancellor. Or his chum Angie Rayner will get the job. After all she had to resign after a misunderstanding over her own tax affairs so she has some experience of the tax system. Or maybe the International Monetary Fund will take over.
You’d have to have had your brain taken out and put back in the wrong way round not to realise that Starmer, Reeves, Lammy and co are operating on behalf of the conspirators who want to destroy everything and drag us into the Great Reset. The lies never stop coming. Just a little while ago Kinnock, a health minister, claimed that vaccines are 100% safe and ignored my challenge for a debate.
Hidden behind the Budget horror was the news that Lammy, who is the Minister of Justice (and who posed for pictures wearing a judge’s wig and a silly grin) has decided that jury trials are a nuisance and should be abolished.
He wants government appointed judges to decide who is guilty and who isn’t. The automatic right to appeal will be lost if Lammy gets his way. If that doesn’t reek of WEF influence then what does? Abolishing juries and replacing them with selected judges fits in exactly with the conspirators’ plans.
Here are some things you might not know about the appalling Lammy – Britain’s Minister of Justice, and the man who wants to change the traditional right of defendants to be tried by a jury of their peers.
Lammy (who has no medical qualifications) was an enthusiastic supporter of the covid-19 vaccine. Just what the conspirators wanted.
He was a vociferous opponent of the British people’s referendum to leave the EU. Just what the conspirators wanted. Like many other Labour MPs he was not afraid to stand shoulder to shoulder with Goldman Sachs in opposing the will of the British people. Immediately after the referendum, Lammy called on Parliament to vote against the people’s clear decision to leave the European Union. He claimed that the referendum was advisory and not binding, implying that he and other MPs knew better than 17.4 million Britons. In the weeks and months that followed, Lammy, a keen tweeter, became an increasingly hysterical opponent of the decision by the British people and an enthusiastic proponent of a second referendum. (Since he had claimed that the first one was not binding he was presumably demanding a second chance for the British to vote and to be ignored.)
Lammy claimed that he was raised in a family dependent upon tax credits. However, tax credits were not introduced until he was 31-years-old.
On a radio programme, Lammy said that it is possible for someone born male to develop a cervix.
Lammy (always quick to use the `race’ card) attacked the BBC for wondering about the colour of the smoke likely to appear from the Vatican when the cardinals met to choose a Pope. The BBC had reported that the smoke would be white or grey and Lammy appeared to regard this as potentially racist. The Vatican has, of course, recorded the choosing of a new Pope with this smoke signal for some time.
Lammy claimed (in 2012) that absent fathers were a key cause of knife crime. He said that most young people who have stabbed someone to death come from single parent families. In 2019, he was outraged when a newspaper columnist suggested that the absence of fathers might be associated with the stabbing epidemic in London.
Lammy suggested that the British government should send letters to all black British people apologising for slavery. There was no suggestion that the British government should send letters to all white British people thanking them for abolishing slavery.
Lammy appeared on a programme called Mastermind on British television. When asked for the name of the Nobel Prize winner for Physics in 1903, the former Minister for Higher Education and Skills suggested Marie Antoinette. He did not, however, mention her work for the cake industry. On the same programme he claimed that the large prison in the middle of Paris was called Versailles and said, in response to another question, that Henry VII came after Henry VIII.
In March 2016, Lammy was fined £5,000 for making 35,629 nuisance calls (via a computer).
And in 2025, Lammy went fishing and forgot to buy a licence. He wasn’t taken to court or fined – though you or I would probably be prosecuted if we `forgot’ to get a licence. Instead, a spokesperson said that there had been administrative oversight. And that was that.
Do you think Lammy came up with the idea of getting rid of juries all by himself? No, nor do I. It all sounds the sort of thing that fits in with the `you will own nothing and be happy’ philosophy. If Lammy’s plans are implemented then ordinary people will be removed from the justice system and will become mere prison fodder for carefully appointed and selected judges.
Juries provide some protection against tyranny and miscarriages of justice. Juries are rarely criticised but judges often are. The really odd thing is that not long ago Lammy argued that juries are a `fundamental part of our democratic settlement’. Suddenly his view has changed completely. It stinks.
I don’t think Lammy is a suitable person to be an MP, let alone Minister of Justice. But then there is no one in Government who has any sense of decency. These are not good people. From the moment when Starmer accepted £100,000 of freebies (and other Ministers did the same) it was clear that these people are amoral. I can’t help wondering how many members of the Labour Government would be classified as sociopaths. None of them seems truly human, do they?
Starmer, Reeves, Lammy et al are the people ruining Britain. They have already taken us a good way into the Great Reset. Britain is heading for bankruptcy. There is no real health care. The transport system has collapsed. The justice system has been destroyed. Farming is finished. Our seas and rivers are full of sewage. Britain’s absurd and cruel energy crisis has been deliberately created by the sanctions on Russia, the closure of North Sea exploration and the utterly wicked net zero policy. Most old people on the British State pension receive £176.45 per week and NOT the much higher figure quoted by politicians and journalists. That’s the full State Pension for people who have worked all their lives: £176.45 per week. It is actually impossible to live on that and yet millions are forced to try. Our streets and parks are full of rats. Our hotels are full of asylum seekers. Our skies are Gatesian grey with the stuff they are spraying into the stratosphere to dim the sun. Nothing works any more.
The Labour Government is shameless, greedy and self-serving and ministers seem to consider they are entitled to do whatever they like to the country which has given them power. These are the people we are expected to trust. I wouldn’t trust any one of them to clean a car without stealing the wing mirrors.
If Starmer and Reeves stay in control much longer then Britain will find itself under the management of the International Monetary Fund. Believe me, that won’t be fun. The pavements of our towns and cities will be packed with sorry looking individuals clutching small pieces of cardboard upon which are scrawled begging messages. They will starve to death because there won’t be anyone left with any money to put into their begging bowls.
Please don’t think I’m kidding. I’m not. (And please remember all the other predictions and forecasts I’ve made. Over the last few decades, no one has issued more accurate warnings.)
And, of course, we must remember that Starmer, the worst political leader any country has ever had, seems desperate to unravel Brexit and take us back into the EU – an organisation which I have proved was created by Nazis and is, with the exception of the United Nations, the most dangerous, oppressive and undemocratic organisation in the world.
NOTE To find out what sort of future we all face please read `They want your money and your life’ by Vernon Coleman. You can buy a copy via the bookshop on www.vernoncoleman.com Time is rapidly running out for those of us who do not want to disappear into the Great Reset.
Former MEP Rob Roos and ex-UK MP Andrew Bridgen engage in a candid discussion on the deep-rooted corruption infiltrating Europe, covering rigged elections, questionable vaccine contracts, net zero policies, uncontrolled mass migration, escalating excess deaths, and the deliberate provocation of war with Russia. They explore grassroots resistance and what ordinary people can do to halt the erosion of freedoms and prevent full-scale tyranny.
“Well, you might enjoy it for a while. But when you finally wake up, it will be too late. And you will wake up from this fake paradise. Why? Because it is going to be exactly that: FAKE…it will feel bad. “
The replicator, our artificial future
Imagine a household in the near future. Everything you can possible desire is available to you. From furniture, to clothing, to your every day meals. All provided to you by a replicator.
A replicator is a device that rearranges energy particles into a specific sequence, thereby creating everything you desire. As long as the replicator knows the sequence and has the right amount of molecules to work with, it can create endlessly and abundantly.
Let’s see what it looks like, shall we?
Sounds like utopia, doesn’t it? Combined with all the benefits of AI, your life will be like… Well, like that of a spoiled child. It occurs to me that every time new technological devices are ‘sold to’ us, we are treated like little children. And most of humanity falls for it.
I’ve said it before: humans have a lazy side. Humans prefer not to work or use their energy on anything. Their paradise looks like something like this:
On topic with Christmas shopping in full swing. One to boycott is Nestlé whose ‘good neighbour’ policy deems that human beings don’t have a right to water. You can read more articles on Nestlé here. It features in the article below also.
These examples of successful boycott calls show the big impact this campaign tactic can have.
Campaigners have long used boycotting as a tactic to help them achieve their goals. It’s helped create progress around issues like racial justice, human rights and fair treatment of other animals.
This list contains examples of companies changing their practices following a boycott campaign. However, it’s worth noting that companies rarely confirm whether their decisions to change their activities were a direct result of campaigners’ efforts.
Historical boycotts
Boycotting as a campaigning technique has a long history.
One of the earliest examples of a successful campaign was the boycott in England of sugar produced by slaves. In 1791, after Parliament refused to abolish slavery, thousands of pamphlets were printed encouraging the boycott. Sales of sugar dropped by between a third and a half. By contrast sales of Indian sugar, untainted by slavery, rose tenfold in two years. In an early example of fair trade, shops began selling sugar guaranteed to have been produced by ‘free men’.
Perhaps the most famous boycott was against South Africa in opposition to the apartheid. South African exiles and their supporters called for a boycott of products from South Africa in 1959 – in protest against the racial segregation enforced by white colonial politicians and discrimination and violence against Black people in the country. The boycott initially focused on fruit and vegetables, but later targeted chains like Marks & Spencer and Next – causing some companies to pull South African products from their shelves. For the next 35 years, the boycott was a central part of the anti-apartheid campaign. After decades of grassroots organising – as well as pressure from international leaders – apartheid was ended in 1994.
The Alabama bus boycott is another famous historical example. In 1955 Rosa Parks refused a bus driver’s order to leave a row of four seats in the “colored” section and move to the back of the bus after the white section had filled up. Her defiance sparked a successful boycott of buses in the area, with residents instead carpooling, riding in Black-owned cabs, or walking, some as far as 20 miles. It caused the bus company’s profits to crash, as dozens of public buses stood idle for months. The company lost between 30,000 and 40,000 bus fares each day during the boycott.
Recent examples of successful boycott campaigns
The boycotts listed below are presented in reverse chronological order, with the most recent first.
In the US, the brand Sabra hummus was owned 50/50 by PepsiCo and The Strauss Group. The Strauss Group is Israel’s second biggest food company and according to the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement it “provides financial support to the Israeli Defense Forces. Palestinian rights campaigners called for a boycott of Sabra since at least 2011. In November 2024 following an intensified period of campaigning against the brand, it was announced that The Strauss Group was selling its stake in Sabra, leaving PepsiCo as the sole owner of the Sabra hummus brand.
This appears to be a significant milestone/ partial boycott campaign success. However, PepsiCo also owns Sodastream which is subject to a BDS boycott too. It’s worth noting that in the UK Sabra was not owned by Sabra/PepsiCo, but instead by Osem Ltd, an Israeli company which is ultimately owned by Nestle. As Nestle faces several boycott calls, Sabra hummus still features on our list of active boycotts.
AXA boycott success – August 2024
The Stop AXA Assistance to Israeli Apartheid coalition called for a boycott of AXA over its investments in Israeli banks and Elbit Systems (Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer) since at least 2019. According to the BDS movement, over 10,000 people and 230 organisations have signed the pledge to boycott AXA. Among the campaign’s activities include holding an AXA Global Day of Action on 25 April 2022, seeing supporters globally contacting AXA Customer Services to demand the company end its complicity in Israeli apartheid.
On 21 August 2024 the Stop AXA Assistance to Israeli Apartheid coalition shared the news that AXA had sold its investments in all major Israeli banks and Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest military company. While a major milestone for the campaign, it continues to call for a boycott of the company until it fully divests from other complicit companies, and as such AXA still features on our list of active boycotts.
Barclays boycott success – June 2024
Barclays invests over £1bn in arms companies supplying Israel with weapons and military technology. The company’s sponsorship of major music festivals including Download, Latitude, and Isle of Wight was cancelled in June after protests by artists and fans. A spokesperson for Barclays told the Guardian, “Barclays was asked and has agreed to suspend participation in the remaining Live Nation festivals in 2024.
Pret boycott success – May 2024
According to the UK activist organisation Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), in 2022, coffee chain Pret signed a franchise agreement with Israel-based companies and committed to opening 40 stores in Israel over the next decade. In 2024 PSC threatened a boycott of Pret, arguing that “to invest in Israel as it conducts a genocide in Gaza and operates a system of apartheid over all Palestinians was unjustifiable and reprehensible.”
In June 2024 the Grocer reported that Pret has gone back on this agreement, worth millions of pounds, and would not open stores in Israel. Pret cited as the cause for its cancellation of the contract “ongoing travel restrictions” preventing it from conducting the checks and training needed to set Pret up in a new market.
Baillie Gifford boycott success – May 2024
Scotland-based investment firm Baillie Gifford was dropped as a sponsor by multiple arts and literary events in May over concerns that its activities are linked to Palestinian human rights abuses. In 2023 the firm was listed as one of the top 50 European investors in illegal Israeli settlements. Baillie Gifford has investments in companies linked to the Israeli state and illegal settlements, including a travel company, construction company, and US tech company that has Israeli subsidiaries.
Over 700 authors, from Naomi Klein to Sally Rooney, signed a statement by Fossil Free Books (FFB) demanding that Baillie Gifford cease its investments in fossil fuels and companies that profit from “Israeli apartheid, occupation and genocide” and calling for a boycott of the company until that happened. The company’s sponsorship of several literary festivals including the Hay Festival, Edinburgh International Book Festival, and book festivals in Borders, Wimbledon, Cheltenham, Cambridge, Stratford, Wigtown, and Henley festivals were cancelled.
Russia boycott success – April 2024
The Russia boycott gained faster brand buy-in than perhaps any boycott campaign in history. To date, over 1,000 brands have curtailed operations in Russia, from Airbnb to Blackrock and Sainsbury’s.
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, on March 7th 2022 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for an international “boycott of Russian exports, in particular the rejection of oil and oil products from Russia.” Subsequently, Ukraine’s Culture Minister called for a boycott of Russia in December 2022. The Yale School of Management continues to track companies that are still operating in Russia.
Twitter/X boycott success – January 2024
Twitter/X has lost half its advertising revenue since Musk’s takeover in 2022, with over 500 advertisers stopping spending on the platform. In 2022, the coalition ‘Stop Toxic Twitter’, composed of around 60 organisations, wrote an open letter asking Twitter’s top 20 advertisers to “cease all advertising on Twitter globally” while the platform failed to take the increase in harmful and inaccurate content seriously, for example by moderating more thoroughly to reduce the amount of these posts on the site.
The Boycott Puma campaign was launched by Palestinian athletes in 2018 after 200 Palestinian sports clubs sent a letter to the company urging it to end its sponsorship of the Israel Football Association (IFA). The IFA includes teams based in illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories. In December 2023, Puma announced it would not renew its sponsorship of the Israeli Football Association. According to the BDS movement, “Over the course of the 5-year campaign, groups around the world participated in numerous global days of action and occupied PUMA offices and shops. Sports teams, athletes, artists, ended contracts with PUMA and retailers removed its products from their stores… We thank the many groups around the world that worked tirelessly and relentlessly to force PUMA to end its complicity with Israel’s apartheid regime and in its Gaza genocide.”
The BDS campaign against G4S was launched by Palestinian prisoners’ rights and human rights organisations in 2012. G4S provided services to prisons that held Palestinian political prisoners without trial, who were subject to torture. It also provided various types of services or support to illegal Israeli settlements, the apartheid wall, the Israeli military and police academy.
The campaign pressure led to high profile divestment from G4S by the Church of Sweden, the United Methodist Church, the world’s largest philanthropic organisation Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a Kuwaiti investment fund, UN agencies, trade unions, universities, restaurants and more.
According to animal rights group Peta, House of Fraser decided to ban the sale of fur across all its brands including Flannels and Sports Direct in October 2022. The campaign group had called for a boycott of the brand, which used fur including from racoons and rabbits, since 2020. Four Paws UK and Humane Society International also supported the campaign, and examples of campaign activities include activists singing “12 Days of Cruelty” outside a store front at Christmas and over 150,000 people calling on the company to drop fur.
Animal rights campaign group Peta announced that Air France would ban the transport of monkeys as soon as its existing contract ended, following a campaign that spanned 10 years. Peta began the boycott call in 2012, and it continued up until 2022 when Air France was the only known major European airline still shipping monkeys to laboratories for experimentation, on journeys that could last over 30 hours.
The campaign involved demonstrations around the globe, on-flight protests, discussions with the company’s leadership, shareholder activism, disruption of executives’ speeches, and bold advertisements like billboards at airports. Celebrities from Dr Jane Goodall to Peter Gabriel got behind the campaign.
This info is from the Dr. Richard Day Tapes recorded in 1969 from a private meeting and summarised below.“Dr. Day not only worked as a professor at a Pittsburgh medical University, he also practiced medicine at several prominent hospitals in the United States. In 1969 he gathered 80 of his fellow medical doctors together for a compassionate meeting in Pittsburgh, regarding the social engineering changes that were coming over their lifetimes and the lifetimes of their children. All 80 doctors were told not to bring any recording equipment or paper etc, simply because if anyone officially transcribed what Dr. Richard Day was saying, his life would most likely be in jeopardy.”
In no particular order…. and remember this confession by Dr. Richard Day was spoken in 1969.
1. That doctors were going to become paid assassins and that doctors who didn’t conform to “remove their patients“, on the say so of the government, would no longer be doctors. This of course happened during COVID en masse, as doctors and nurses killed their patients on cue.
2. That 9/11 would happen in the US. The actual date and location weren’t mentioned. This act of terrorism was mentioned against the US in 1969 and so was the reason that the US would be attacked in this way. The US was attacked on 9/11 by “the order”, which Dr. Day referred to during his 1969 confession.
3. There was a vow to destroy the family unit and to open endless restaurants, making family mealtime (one pillar of family strength) irreverent. At our modern time today, child-less families/individuals plus rising divorce are now the norm. We’re being depopulated, which was also spoken to as one of the cult’s primary agendas, in the Dr, Richard Day Tapes.
4. That the music would become progressively worse, in order to destabilize the people who listened to it. I think this became obvious when “wet ass pussy” was declared song of the year by NPR (National Public Radio) in 2020. NPR is a government funded organization. Both government and big corp are hunting the public together as one mega predator. Overly sexualizing the female, the destructions of the family unit and the destruction of morality was also high on “the order’s” list of priorities……according to Day.
5. That change would be purposely accelerated to the point where seniors would want to die via state euthanasia, because they could no longer keep up with how fast the world was changing. This is why state sponsored medical suicide is coming above ground all around the world, at the same time that world change is purposely accelerating at breakneck speed.
6. There would be numerous changes of road names, in order to dilute historical continuity and cultural strength. This is now coming above ground around the world, as Toronto (for example) erased some of its famous Younge Street, renaming it “Little Iran“. Diluting the race and race mixing are big on the cult’s priority list, to dilute cultural strength and historical morals, values and customs.
7. Dr. Richard Day also said that there are always two reasons for each agenda they put in play. One reason is the “made for public reason“, AKA the lie they tell the public, as to why the ruling group is destroying the people. Then there’s the real reason. Dr. Day went on to say that if people are stupid enough to believe the lies they’re told by their governments and media (like COVID, 9/11, taxation, poison as medicine etc) then they deserve to die. I find this form of gas lighting extremely devilish.
8. That Christianity was a major impedance to the installation of the NWO order concept (a worldwide communist state) and that destroying Christianity was (and is) one of their primary objectives. Today we see this openly in Canada with over 100 church burnings and/or mass church vandalism.
9. That science was now going to be faked, in order that the population follow their false science religion into the sacrificial volcano. COVID was a prime example of this; all the science was faked, as is clearly stated here. There wasn’t even a COVID virus. It was all faked science. These cons were set up hundreds of years old, as is stated here in this other document, which is very similar to what Dr. Richard Day recounted.
10. That homosexuality would be socially engineered, and encouraged, in order to collapse morality and to also to bring about the depopulation numbers desired by the ruling group. Homosexuality is up 300% in the last decade, so this isn’t genetic. Homosexuality is no longer described as depopulation-based sodomy or a depopulation-based pleasure pursuit. It’s now described as love, equality and inclusion. It’s all about how you market the agenda and what buzz words are used. This is all courtesy of the ruling group of course, who can arrange any goal they wish…..as Dr, Day clearly stated. Yes, we’re being tricked to destroy ourselves, our communities and our species while believing that we’re in full control of our decisions and that our behaviors in life are organic to us. Naturally gay is very different than socially engineering a mass adoption of gay.
If you want to learn about the Dr. Richard Day Tapes and listen to them yourself, just click here.
As someone studying this material constantly, I know what’s coming, so I know how to pivot appropriately. I teach everything a person needs to know, in order to sidestep these socially engineered and secret society-based assaults on us, our children and our communities. Come work with me LIVE, started Jan 11th, 2025. You’ll be glad you did. Click here to learn more or click the image below. I will see you on opening day. Make sure your 2026 is safe, secure and successful. My priority is to you and your family.
As the authorities can likely tell you, members of New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (NZDSOS), along with other freedom banner groups and involved citizens, were at the District Court in Wellington on the 11th and 12th of December 2025 to witness conscientious database analyst Barry Young’s application to have charges against him dropped as he claims whistleblower status. Using what little we know of what went on – the Judge suppressed public access and all the evidence presented – we have tried (and mostly succeeded) to be sober and reflective as we consider one aspect of our rapidly deteriorating country which is floundering on the reef. But, against a backdrop of suddenly dead young and old, and a very obvious surge in cancer and immune system failure, staying pleasant is very, very hard.
How dissenting science was ‘othered’ in New Zealand’s corner of the unprecedented global assault
In June 2024, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference — a doctrine that long told courts to defer to government agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous law. This striking-down reaffirmed a core democratic idea: courts are the ultimate interpreters of law, not mere rubber-stamps of executive authority. In NZ the situation is somewhat opposite – parliament has supreme authority and it is not the courts’ job to invalidate legislation.
But there is another kind of deference that has shaped public-health governance during the COVID-19 era — one not rooted in thoughtful statute but in the imperative to mass-vaccinate come Hell or high water, ploughing on even after clear evidence of harm appeared. The ‘successful’ rollout required a pervasive strategy to treat corporate evidence and political directives as the default, unchallengeable bedrock of covid policy and judicial reasoning. NZDSOS calls this pattern the Pfizer deference, where its anointed procurement contract rules every roost of relevance in New Zealand, but especially the Crown, the judiciary and regulatory bodies.
This is not a formal legal doctrine like Chevron, but in practice it has had similar consequences: it elevates certain sources of evidence so completely that alternative expert views, even when detailed and sworn as evidence on pain of perjury, are routinely sidelined. This dynamic has been visible not just in policy but in multiple New Zealand court challenges to injection mandates, where appellants — doctors, teachers, Defence Force personnel, police, midwives, port and border workers, flight crew, parents — presented extensive expert affidavits disputing aspects of the science, data integrity and safety profiles.
A notable island of sanity – and we say confirmation of the above – has been the employment courts, where it is company bosses, being found to have behaved badly in breaching their workers’ rights, who judges are only to pleased to find against. Here, they can avoid “safe and effective” like the plague, and leave the Pfizer deference glaring from the wings, but still larger than life.
In most of the civil court cases however, the Crown itself faced challenge and its response was simply official policy assertions, rather than robust counter-evidence. The result was not scientific discovery for interested judges, but one-eyed judicial gymnastics to bolster an official narrative that treated Pfizer-aligned evidence as the uncontested baseline.
That default fails to capture anywhere near the full extent of the serious reports of serious injury and death following vaccination — not merely slam-dunk-for-causation anecdotal accounts, but many entries in safety reporting systems. New Zealand’s regulator Medsafe periodically published data on adverse events following the jabs but ceased suddenly in December 2022, we presume since the reporting got simply too heavy. Tens of thousands of serious adverse reaction reports were logged to CARM, the national pharmacovigilance assessor, and for many people — particularly scientists and doctors who have scrutinised this data, and helped victims and grieving families— the absence of transparent engagement by authorities looks like engineered indifference, and smells way worse.
These are not fringe concerns; they are recorded data points, representing real human beings – we say in obscene, astonishing numbers – whose momento morte records deserve rigorous scrutiny and open inquiry.
The Barry Young Case: A Test of Whistleblower Law and Institutional Authority
Into this environment enters Barry Young, with perhaps the most significant legal contestation of whistleblower protections and institutional deference in New Zealand history.
Barry, a former Health NZ employee, is up for accessing and disseminating internal COVID-19 vaccine rollout data. He has pleaded not guilty in the Wellington District Court, as his motives were rooted in concerns about deaths, especially obvious to him as clusters, following modified RNA injections. His public disclosure saw almost immediate violent police response, impossibly quick for them to have done the required examination of any mitigation and his possible defences (as required by the Crimes Act to prevent vexatious prosecution); a basic human rights analysis; nor assessment of his whistleblower protections. It is claimed, too, that no-one in officialdom has examined his data, but why would they if they are to have a go at Barry Young? This is laughably unlikely anyway. Given all the data points we know they have seen, but ignored to the subsequent death and injury of more people, it is a long stretch that a few buttons haven’t been pressed inside Health NZ, if only out of curiosity.
The Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 (PDA) is legislation intended to shield public-sector workers who disclose serious wrongdoing in the public interest. Represented by lawyer Sue Grey, Barry’s hearing – originally scheduled for a single day in the week just gone – was extended into a second day, and is now carried over into 2026, reflecting apparent complexity and the clear significance to the judge of the issues at stake. And let’s be honest here, many countries (and global bodies) similarly persecuting their own dissenting voices will be intensely interested to avoid the precedent that our law should allow for. In the view of many, the PDA should have seen Barry Young discharged last Thursday to walk off to a hard-earned summer reprieve. But as many of us, similarly burdened by our consciences, have found: the process is the punishment, as well as a stick shaken at any others feeling wobbly.
At its heart, this case asks: When internal voices see danger which contradicts official narratives, are they whistleblowers deserving of protection, or offenders to be prosecuted? The answer, whilst obvious to many on the side of truth and accountability, will define concretely how New Zealand reconciles its supposed commitment to transparency and human rights with the reality of institutional fear of the evidence – whether merely inconvenient or starkly prosecutable.
Pretending, if we may, that courts and legislature are somehow separate and still directed to defending the public, we ask: Who gets to define what counts as authoritative interpretation? In the U.S., Chevron directed that courts should defer to agencies; in New Zealand, Pfizer deference requires that courts and public institutions default to official dogma and ignore credible alternative analyses or safety signals. Where does this leave Barry Young? And how has this worked out for the bereaved and disabled? Curiously, official agencies are ignoring them, or trying to, but many dedicated groups and individuals – Barry and NZDSOS members amongst them – have ensured those responsible never can say they didn’t know, when the time comes.
Safety Reporting and the Public’s Perception of Harm
Medsafe’s regular safety reports categorised adverse events and outlined reported deaths following vaccination, with cautious language emphasising that such reports do not necessarily establish causation. This is consistent with international regulatory practice: reporting systems are curated carefully to flag possible signals, not to determine causality in isolation. But in virtually every case we have examined, the criteria for causation are satisfied. And the sheer volume of reported events — including serious conditions and deaths — and the derelictions in follow-up or transparent explanation leave many people righteously angry.
Worse still, suspiciously provocative phrases were used in lockstep around the world, such as “We’re not seeing anything we didn’t expect to see” and “We are continuing to monitor closely” even as charts leapt off the scale. The ubiquity of this plausible deniability is both undeniable and implausible as a certain shelter from future prosecution.
For those of us who know our first principles and have engaged with safety data at a detailed level, the absence of thorough, publicly accessible explanation and dialogue has cemented our distrust – and disgust – and shown danger signs are being swept under the rug of bureaucratic deference. Further though, it has encouraged us to dig more deeply into the highly precise words and phrases which were used by some officials, and disturbing but unsurprising clues to ‘deception by legalese’ may be starting to emerge.
Courts, Evidence and Default Deference in Litigation
The Barry Young case also highlights another critical dimension: how courts respond to evidence when institutional narratives are widely accepted by default. In many vaccine mandate challenges, appellants brought expert affidavits supporting detailed critiques of risk, safety or methodological assumptions. Yet in many cases, the Crown’s case consisted of policy assertions grounded in official position papers and regulatory statements rather than substantive scientific rebuttals using evidence of its own.
In some instances — such as the High Court’s decision quashing unlawful vaccine mandates for police and Defence Force personnel — judges did engage with the material and concluded that the Crown had failed to demonstrate that mandates were necessary or proportionate. But these decisions were exceptions rather than the rule. In other judicial reviews, the Crown’s position rooted in policy and default official interpretation went largely unexamined in court, not because alternative evidence was frivolous, but because judicial review is not structured to substitute courts’ judgment for that of regulators in technical scientific matters. The effect, however, can be similar to Chevron deference — not in law, but in practice: courts often uphold official evidence frameworks because there is no rival evidentiary structure presented by the Crown to counter the official narrative. In truth, this is generally disallowed anyway, as judicial review proceedings rarely permit cross-examination.
This dynamic reveals a kind of evidentiary asymmetry in litigation: appellants can marshal extensive expert analysis but still find courts defaulting to the official narrative because the state commands institutional acceptance rather than protecting the search for the truth.
Whistleblower Protection or Institutional Silence?
If courts are not tasked with second-guessing scientific expertise, which generally they dislike, there must be other safeguards for transparency and accountability — especially when institutional narratives are challenged by those inside the system seeing harm. That is where whistleblower protections are supposed to come into play.
The Protected Disclosures Act 2022 was amended to protect better those who disclose serious wrongdoing or risk to public interest. It received wide cross-party support and institutional accolades. Yet, in practice, the first major test of that statute involves a man facing criminal charges for actions he believes were in the public interest. NZDSOS members can appreciate his situation. Some within our ranks know all too well the chill of criminal conviction for acting in the public interest.
That mismatch — between what the law promises and how it is operated — strikes at the heart of many things, not least democratic accountability. It sends a chilling and intended message: raising concerns can lead to prosecution rather than protection.
This is not purely hypothetical. In Barry Young’s case, the question is not only whether he committed an offence, but whether the law designed to protect individuals raising concerns means anything. If individuals who shout “Fire in the health response!” find themselves on the wrong side of criminal charges, it confirms that institutional deference trumps statutory protections for dissent.
A Call for Scrutiny and Repair, Not Corporate Deference
The overturning of Chevron deference in the United States should remind us of a broader principle: no authority — whether legal, bureaucratic, or corporate — should go unexamined. Nearly six years into covid and it is beyond clear that driving a position simply because it is official or corporate-aligned closed off vital avenues of inquiry and marginalised legitimate scientific debate. Data is denied; people died – and will continue to do so.
This is not only a legal concern but a democratic one. Public trust in health policy used to depend not on uncritical acceptance, but on transparent evaluation of evidence, open engagement with dissenting expert views, and robust mechanisms for accountability. But our take on the torrent of anti-human legislation and the propagation of delusional ideas on gender, race and climate et cetera tells us that democracy and public trust are far in the rear-view mirror for some of our politicians and chief executives.
The treatment of Barry Young is the most vivid example of how this pattern plays out. A person who moved to save lives now finds himself defending against criminal charges, rather than being protected under the whistleblower statute that was supposed to shield exactly this kind of disclosure. If the Crown imagines it can keep the implications of Barry’s insights suppressed, that ship has sailed. Various much larger data sets show conclusively (and without refutation) that the covid jab, encompassing a whole-of-government enablement, is the most dangerous medical product ever.
To this extent, all of the foregoing discussion is couched far more politely than this emergent War on the World requires. Whilst some still resist that modern New Zealand has been invaded, this is extremely clear to more and more people, many of whom have contributed evidence showing profound wrong-doing to the Royal Commissioners. This very hot potato is now in their court – getting in a mixed metaphor before someone bans them for changing the weather – and, whilst it is addictive to worry how their report will land in February, we must all get on board the patriot train now and resist the over-reach like our lives depend on it.
To ensure that, this time, never again, we have much difficult and likely dangerous work to prioritise, but at some point succeeding will mean that courts can scrutinise evidence frameworks rather than defer to them, strengthen whistleblower protections in practice as well as law, and foster a culture in the heart of our public life in which evidence is interrogated openly rather than sanctioned.
The Pfizer deference tells us the how; to uncover the why and the who is the life path of many people of integrity. Men and women like Barry Young and Sue Grey give heart that the off-course supertanker that is New Zealand can be righted with enough sustained pressure in the critical places.
A peer-reviewed reanalysis of the Henry Ford Birth Cohort Study, published on 9 December 2025, shows that vaccinated children had significantly higher rates of chronic diseases compared to unvaccinated children.
The reanalysis, authored by John W. Oller, Jr., PhD; Daniel Broudy, PhD and Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, asserts that the original study’s statistical methods obscured large proportional differences in the data.
According to the reanalysis, vaccinated children were sicker across all 22 chronic disease categories listed, with autism-associated neurodevelopmental conditions occurring at 549% higher rates and childhood cancer at 54% higher rates in the vaccinated cohort.
The study followed 18,468 children between 2000 and 2016 from birth until 31 December 2017 to evaluate the health outcomes of vaccinated compared to unvaccinated children.
The study, referred to as the Lamerato et al study, has never been published in a journal. However, at the Senate hearing, Attorney Aaron Siri, who had received a copy of the study in early 2020, revealed data from the study: (view the X item at expose-news.com)
Siri testified at the Senate hearing, “The study began by explaining it set out to reduce vaccine hesitancy by assuring parents the CDC vaccine schedule is safe. Instead, these researchers found that the vaccinated children have 4.29x the rate of asthma, 3.03x the rate of atopic disease, 5.96x the rate of autoimmune disease and 5.53x the rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, which included 3.28x developmental delay and 4.47x speech disorder. All of these findings were statistically significant.”
“There were also other conditions for which there were numerous cases in the vaccinated group but zero in the unvaccinated group, hence a rate cannot be calculated, including brain dysfunction, ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities and tics,” Siri added. “for example, there were 262 cases of ADHD in the vaccinated group and none in the unvaccinated group.”
Related: Aaron Siri’s written submission to ‘How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines’, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 5 September 2025
On 9 December, John Oller, Daniel Broudy and Nicolas Hulscher published their reanalysis of the data collected by the Lamerato et al study. The difference between the two studies is the way the data is analysed. The Lamerato et al study used odds-ratio modelling, a statistical approach that masked large disparities. Oller et al used a comparison of proportions per cohort approach. The same data analysed in different ways produced dramatically different results.
The abstract of the Oller et al study said:
Of the 22 chronic disease conditions studied, proportional contrasts always favour the unvaccinated. The most dramatic contrasts occurred in asthma, autism, autoimmunity, ADHD, brain dysfunction, mental health disorders, behavioural disability, developmental delay, learning disability, intellectual disability, speech disorder, motor disability, tics, other disability disorder, neurological disorder, and seizure disorder. At ten years of follow-up, 57% of the vaccinated cohort had at least one chronic disorder, compared with 17% in the unvaccinated.A Peer-Review of the Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study Discussed at the Senate Hearing on September 9, 2025. (2025). International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research , 4(1), 1609-1646. https://doi.org/10.56098/vse7qq65
The following is Joel Smalley’s summary of Oller et al’s reanalysis. Smalley also posted a short video on Substack to explain the difference between the original study and the reanalysis. We are unable to embed videos uploaded onto Substack. You can watch the video by following THIS link.
Key Results
A peer-reviewed reanalysis of the Henry Ford Birth Cohort Study (18,468 children, 2000-2016) comparing vaccinated (16,511, median 18 vaccines) vs unvaccinated (1,957) children found:
Headline findings:
All 22 chronic disease categories showed higher rates in vaccinated children
Autism-associated neurodevelopmental conditions: 549% higher in vaccinated group
Childhood cancer: 54% higher in vaccinated group
By age 10: 57% of vaccinated children had developed at least one chronic disease vs only 17% of unvaccinated
Most elevated conditions included:
Autoimmune disease: 12× higher
Neurodevelopmental disorders: 13.5× higher
Speech disorders: 9× higher
Asthma: 6.5× higher
Several conditions appeared only in vaccinated children: ADHD, diabetes, brain dysfunction, behavioural disability, learning disability, intellectual disability, and tics.
Hulscher argues that the original study’s statistical methods (odds-ratio modelling) masked these disparities, particularly where the unvaccinated group had zero cases.
Thanks to Tim Shey for this link. Blistering truths from Paul Weston exposing the monetary rewards (aka blood money) that kept the ‘treatment’ going … and still is going …
Paul Weston is a British political commentator, concentrating on the various factors involved in the relentless war against Western civilisation.
He has written a book titled: Covid-19: All Lies. All Crime which can be found here.
I do know of one NZ primary school being visited earlier this year by a ‘Health’ team administering the ‘treatment’. And of parents who had not consented being visited at home asking why. How many other schools are still being visited and coerced? We would be keen to know.
Whistleblower Barry Young when he first disclosed the deaths he was seeing post treatment, displayed charts with child deaths on them. Likewise, the NZDSOS doctors published a long list of deaths reported post treatment, that also included children.
This interview was recorded approximately a year ago, but nearly every word remains valuable. Since then, the predictions made have proven disturbingly accurate. Ozempic has been approved for expanded use and is now widely reimbursed by insurance companies.
The pharmaceutical industry has created a system where every major institution—medical schools, research organizations, professional societies, media, and even civil rights groups—profits when Americans get sick and stay sick. These companies pay doctors directly to prescribe their products, fund the research that claims their drugs work, control the medical education that teaches doctors what to prescribe, and buy off the news media that should be investigating these practices.
The result is that 80 percent of American adults are overweight or obese, rates of diabetes and prediabetes continue to climb, and the proposed solution is a drug that costs $20,000 per year, must be taken for life, causes severe gastrointestinal problems in many patients, and doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. The fact that this drug was fast-tracked for government funding while metabolic disease continues to worsen reveals the moral bankruptcy of the system.
With grateful thanks to Tucker Carlson and Mr. Means, here is their interview. It was edited for readability.
Obesity is not an Ozempic deficiency. This simple fact exposes the fundamental corruption at the heart of the pharmaceutical industry’s latest blockbuster drug. When 80 percent of American adults are overweight or obese due to environmental factors—subsidized junk food, corrupted dietary guidelines, and a food system designed to addict—the answer is not a $20,000-per-year injectable drug that must be taken for life.
Yet that is precisely the solution the pharmaceutical industry has sold to America. Through systematic manipulation of medical research, regulatory capture, and direct payments to doctors and institutions, drug manufacturers have positioned Ozempic and similar GLP-1 drugs to become the most expensive medical intervention in U.S. history. The predictions made when this strategy began have proven disturbingly accurate. The drug received expanded approval, widespread insurance reimbursement, and government funding. Lawsuits over severe side effects have materialized. The corruption has continued. And obesity rates keep climbing—because the system profits from managing disease, not curing it.
If you clean a dirty fish tank, you clean the tank—you don’t drug the fish. In America, the tank is filthy. Fifty percent of teens and 80 percent of adults are overweight. This happened in one generation. Americans didn’t systematically become lazier over the past 40 years. Something in the environment changed.
The Medical Problems
Novo Nordisk, the Danish company that makes Ozempic, surpassed LVMH to become the most valuable company in Europe. European regulators do not allow Ozempic as a first-line treatment for obesity, so almost all of its revenue comes from exploiting the broken U.S. healthcare system, as American insurance companies now widely reimburse for it.
The drug works by paralyzing the stomach, preventing proper digestion. This mechanism causes severe gastrointestinal problems in many patients. Nearly 3,000 lawsuits have been consolidated in the Pennsylvania federal court alleging gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, and ileus. The FDA has updated Ozempic’s warning label multiple times since 2023—adding warnings for ileus in September 2023, severe gastrointestinal reactions in January 2025, and pulmonary aspiration during anesthesia in November 2024.
Even patients who receive the drug for free through insurance coverage cannot tolerate it. 30% discontinue use within 3 months despite full reimbursement. The gastrointestinal side effects are that severe. Those who stop the drug regain the weight—a fact Novo Nordisk acknowledges. The company markets Ozempic as a lifetime drug precisely because patients regain weight after stopping. This creates the perfect business model: a drug that never cures the condition it treats, ensuring permanent revenue.
Vision loss is one of the most serious complications. Multiple studies published in 2024 and 2025 link semaglutide use to non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a condition causing irreversible blindness. Patients with obesity taking semaglutide for weight loss face more than seven times the risk of developing high rates of NAION compared to those not using the drug. Diabetic patients on semaglutide face four times the risk. The World Health Organization issued a warning about this in June 2025. Hundreds of patients have filed lawsuits claiming permanent vision loss from these drugs.
The European Union launched an investigation into suicidal ideation caused by Ozempic. This connection is not surprising. Ninety-five percent of serotonin, which regulates mood and contentment, is made in the gut. A drug that paralyzes gut function disrupts serotonin production. When you interfere with the gut and serotonin simultaneously, mental health problems follow. Reports of increased depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts from Ozempic users continue to accumulate.
Research published in January 2025 revealed additional side effects beyond gastrointestinal and vision problems: kidney stones, arthritis, fainting, and drug-induced pancreatitis. Nearly 40 percent of hypoglycemia cases and 15 percent of gastrointestinal cases required hospitalization. Studies have also linked GLP-1 drugs to reduced bone density when used without exercise, raising concerns about long-term musculoskeletal damage. An aging population taking a medication that weakens bones while simultaneously causing balance problems from blood sugar fluctuations represents a fracture epidemic waiting to happen.
Patients suffer severe side effects. Many cannot continue taking the drug. Those who stop regain the weight. The drug does not address why Americans got fat in the first place. It manages a symptom at astronomical cost while the underlying dysfunction continues.
How the Corruption Works
The pharmaceutical industry has refined a systematic approach to corrupting medicine over the course of decades. This playbook operates at multiple levels, involving doctors, researchers, medical societies, civil rights groups, and media organizations. Understanding this system is essential to understanding how Ozempic became the preferred solution to obesity despite its problems.
Pharmaceutical companies pay doctors directly to prescribe their drugs. Studies show that 94 percent of physicians have some relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. These relationships include payments for continuing medical education, speaking fees, consulting arrangements, and research grants. The payments influence prescribing behavior without making doctors feel bought. The industry frames these payments as compensation for expertise, not bribes. Research demonstrates that physicians who receive industry payments are two to three times more likely to prescribe name-brand drugs than their peers who don’t receive payments.
Beyond individual doctors, companies engage in “ghost management” of medical research. In this process, company representatives design studies, collect data, analyze results, and write research papers. They then pay prominent academic physicians to add their names as authors. Industry-sponsored research masquerades as independent academic work, borrowing the (supposed) legitimacy of medical science while serving corporate interests. When studies are funded by the company that sells the drug, the outcomes are substantially more favorable for that drug than in trials run by independent researchers. This systematic bias doesn’t come from poor methodology that traditional quality measures would catch—it comes from the funding itself.
Pharmaceutical companies fund the majority of continuing medical education for doctors, which is required to maintain medical licenses. By controlling this education, companies introduce bias toward their products while maintaining the facade of objective medical instruction. Studies of company-funded educational sessions consistently show bias toward the sponsor’s products.
Professional medical societies, which have statutory authority to set standards of care, receive substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies. The organizations that determine which drugs doctors should prescribe are funded by the companies that profit from those drugs. This obvious conflict of interest goes unaddressed because the arrangement is so pervasive that it’s considered normal.
Novo Nordisk is the largest spender on foundational obesity research, the largest funder to medical groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, and one of the largest funders of civil rights groups. The company paid the NAACP to frame opposition to Ozempic funding as a civil rights issue, and the NAACP is now a registered lobbyist for Ozempic. It argues that not supporting government funding is racist because obesity disproportionately affects specific communities. When a pharmaceutical company can pay civil rights organizations to accuse critics of racism, the corruption has reached a new state of depravity.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended Ozempic as a first-line treatment for obese teens based on a 68-week study. This study led the AAP to recommend that every obese or overweight teen—50 percent of American teenagers—receive weekly injections for life. The study duration was just over one year. No long-term safety data existed, yet the medical establishment recommended universal adoption.
Pharmaceutical companies are the largest spenders on television news advertising—approximately $4.8 billion per year on direct-to-consumer advertising alone. This spending does not primarily aim to convince consumers to request drugs from their doctors; it is bribery for the networks. Media outlets that depend on pharma advertising dollars do not investigate pharmaceutical industry practices or report critically on new drugs. When 50 percent of television news funding comes from pharmaceutical companies, journalists do not ask hard questions about those companies’ products.
Dr. Fatima Stanford, head of obesity research at Harvard, has received tens of thousands of dollars in direct funding from Novo Nordisk, as well as millions in research grants. She appears regularly on major media outlets—including CBS’s 60 Minutes—advocating for Ozempic without disclosing these payments to viewers. On 60 Minutes, she stated that people should “throw willpower out the window” because obesity is a brain disease, not a food problem. She told viewers to take Ozempic and not worry about what they eat.
The NIH awarded 8,000 research grants to university professors who had direct conflicts of interest with the topics and drugs they were studying. This practice isn’t discussed because it’s so universal that it’s considered normal. These grants compromise NIH’s entire research program.
The opioid crisis is the template for this corruption. In 2012, a panel of outside experts convened to recommend guidance on opioids. The head of that panel was Dr. Philip Pizzo, dean of Stanford Medical School. At the time of his appointment, Stanford received a $3 million grant from Pfizer, a major opioid maker, for pain research. Dr. Pizzo appointed 90 percent of the panel members, who also received direct research and personal consulting fees from opioid makers. They released relaxed “non addictive” opioid standards that had a major impact on the opioid epidemic. This exact pattern—conflicted panel members making recommendations that benefit the companies paying them—is now repeating with obesity drugs.
Major pharmaceutical companies have paid billions in criminal and civil settlements for fraud, bribery, and misleading research. GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, two of the largest vaccine makers, settled some of the biggest criminal penalties in American corporate history for bribing doctors and producing false research. Yet these companies continue to operate with minimal oversight and maintain market dominance. The fines they pay represent a cost of doing business, not a deterrent.
The Food Stamp Connection
The food industry operates the same corruption model as the pharmaceutical industry. It spends 11 times as much on foundational nutrition research as the NIH. By controlling the research, food companies generate studies that support their products while appearing to be independent science. This corrupted research then influences government dietary guidelines, medical education, and public perception of nutrition.
The USDA has thoroughly corrupted the guidelines that set nutrition standards. Food companies fund 95 percent of the members of the guideline committee. These corrupted guidelines state that a two-year-old can consume 10 percent of their diet from added sugar. Agriculture subsidies in America send more money to tobacco than to vegetables. Ninety percent of subsidies go to highly processed foods that cause obesity.
Nearly 15 percent of Americans—roughly 50 million people—depend on food stamps for nutrition. Ten percent of all food stamp funding goes to soda. That’s over $10 billion per year flowing from the federal treasury to soda companies. The United States is the only country in the world that allows food assistance dollars to purchase this, and sodas are the number one item purchased with food stamps in America.
Calley Means worked as a consultant for Coca-Cola early in his career. The company paid the NAACP and other civil rights groups to frame proposals to limit soda purchases with food stamps as racist. They rigged the debate through systematic payments to these trusted institutions. The government subsidizes the products that cause obesity, then proposes a lifetime pharmaceutical solution that costs $20,000 per year. This is the business model.
The Financial Projections
Wall Street openly celebrates this corruption. As Ozempic gained momentum, food stocks dropped, and pharma stocks surged. Analysts openly project that obesity rates will continue to increase. Novo Nordisk became the most valuable company in Europe based on growth projections that assume higher obesity rates over the next decade. The financial models underpinning pharma stocks assume Americans will get fatter and sicker.
Medical centers seeking financing for new obesity treatment facilities base their loan applications on projections of increasing obesity. The largest and most expensive buildings in American cities are new pediatric obesity and cardiology centers. If these medical centers projected declining obesity rates, they couldn’t secure financing. The entire healthcare industry profits from worsening disease rather than improving health.
Medicare now covers Ozempic for diabetes and kidney disease. In November 2024, the Trump administration announced an agreement with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly to expand Medicare and Medicaid coverage of GLP-1 drugs. The manufacturers reduced prices to $245 per month in exchange for access to millions of new patients. This government funding boost was predicted years ago and has now materialized exactly as expected.
The numbers are staggering. Medicare spent $5.7 billion on GLP-1 diabetes drugs in 2022 alone. Total U.S. spending on GLP-1 drugs in 2023 reached $71.7 billion across all payers, including private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. With 80 percent of American adults overweight or obese and expanded coverage being implemented, treating tens of millions of Americans at even the reduced price of $245 per month would cost over $1 trillion per year.
That $1 trillion annual cost would manage a symptom, not address the root cause. The environmental factors causing the metabolic health crisis—subsidized processed food, food stamp programs paying for soda, corrupted dietary guidelines, and a healthcare system that profits from chronic disease management—remain entirely unaddressed. Ozempic does nothing to fix the poisoned food supply. It doesn’t reform agricultural subsidies. It doesn’t stop the government from paying people to drink soda. It manages the consequences of these policies through lifetime pharmaceutical dependency.
The COVID Comparison
The scale of this financial disaster dwarfs previous pharmaceutical interventions. Total U.S. government spending on COVID vaccines from 2020 to 2023 was approximately $30 billion for development, manufacturing, and distribution. The per-dose cost to the government was $19.50 to $39 for negotiated bulk purchases. Treatment duration was 2 to 4 doses per person. The total cost per person was $40 to $160.
Ozempic is on an entirely different scale. Total U.S. spending in 2023 alone was $71.7 billion—more than twice the entire three-year COVID vaccine program. Medicare spending on GLP-1 drugs grew from $57 million in 2018 to $5.7 billion in 2022. Projections suggest spending could exceed $13 to $26 billion annually on Medicare alone if only 10 percent of eligible beneficiaries use these drugs. If usage increases beyond that modest 10 percent, costs will multiply accordingly.
Per patient annual cost runs $11,000 to $20,000 at list price, though the negotiated government rate is $245 per month, or roughly $3,000 per year. Treatment duration is lifelong, for patients regain the weight when they stop the drug. The total cost per person over 20 years ranges from $60,000 at the negotiated rate to $400,000 at the list price. The target population is 80 percent of American adults, roughly 200 million people.
If Ozempic receives full government funding for the 80 percent of Americans who are overweight or obese, even at the reduced price of $245 per month, annual costs would exceed $600 billion. At list prices, yearly costs could reach $1 to $2 trillion. This equals 20 to 60 times the entire COVID vaccine budget every single year, forever. The COVID vaccine program cost taxpayers roughly $100 per person, including the whole series. Ozempic would cost $3,000 to $20,000 per person per year for life. A person on Ozempic for 20 years would cost taxpayers 600 to 4,000 times more than their entire COVID vaccination series, depending on the price point.
These numbers do not include the downstream medical costs from Ozempic’s side effects: treating gastroparesis, managing vision loss, addressing mental health crises, dealing with kidney stones, treating fractures from reduced bone density, and managing the metabolic chaos when millions eventually go off the drug. The true cost will be substantially higher than the drug price alone.
The Long-Term Unknowns
The visible costs and side effects represent just the beginning. The gastroparesis, vision loss, mental health issues, and astronomical financial burden are what we can document in the first few years of widespread use, but terrifying unknowns remain.
What happens to gut microbiomes after decades of paralysis? The gut microbiome manages immune function, produces vital nutrients, and impacts mental health. Decades of pharmaceutical-induced stomach paralysis will disturb these systems in ways we can’t predict. The gut-brain axis links digestive health to cognitive well-being. Disrupting this connection over a lifetime may lead to mental and neurological effects that won’t become apparent for years.
What are the long-term neurological effects of disrupted serotonin production? Serotonin not only regulates mood; it also affects memory, learning, sleep, and appetite. Decades of disrupted serotonin signaling in the gut could influence brain development in adolescents and accelerate cognitive decline in older adults. No studies of this exist.
What are the combined effects on bone density and muscle mass in aging populations? Osteoporosis and sarcopenia already affect older Americans. Introducing a drug that worsens both conditions could lead to an epidemic of fractures and disability. The healthcare costs for treating these issues could surpass the drug costs themselves.
How will Ozempic interact with the many other medications people take? The average 65-year-old American takes seven prescription drugs. These medications interact in complex ways that are poorly understood, even without adding Ozempic into the equation. As more people develop multiple chronic conditions and take multiple drugs, these interactions become exponentially more complicated and unpredictable.
Yoho comment: Drugs are never studied together.
What happens when millions stop using the drug—whether because of cost, side effects, or supply issues—and quickly gain weight along with metabolic chaos? The rebound effect after stopping Ozempic is well-documented. Weight returns swiftly. However, we don’t know what occurs physiologically when someone cycles on and off these medications over decades. The metabolic stress from repeated weight cycling is likely worse than never taking the drug at all.
Making a population of 200 million Americans depend on a single drug class gives manufacturers extraordinary power. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly would be destroying the metabolic health of half the American population. The pharmaceutical companies would hold more sway over American health than anything else.
The ongoing pharmaceutical dependency makes it impossible to address root causes because everyone is already on medication. Once 100 million Americans depend on weekly Ozempic injections, the political will to reform the food system disappears. Why change agricultural subsidies or restrict food stamp purchases of soda when everyone is medicated? The drug becomes the accepted fix, and the real problems are never addressed.
Every major pharmaceutical disaster follows the same pattern: initial enthusiasm, widespread use, then long-term disasters. Opioids took 15 years to show their full damage. Thalidomide caused birth defects before anyone made the connection. DES led to cancer in the daughters of women who used it. Vioxx caused heart attacks after years of use. The pattern is always the same: by the time we realize the full harm, millions are already affected.
We are conducting a mass experiment on metabolic intervention with a lifetime drug that paralyzes digestive function. The five-year data is already alarming. The 20-year data does not exist. We are asking Americans to trust pharmaceutical companies that have paid billions in criminal settlements for fraud and deception. We are asking them to ignore the corrupted research, the paid doctors, the captured regulators, and the obvious conflicts of interest. We are asking them to take a drug for life based on 68-week studies.
A Different Path
The metabolic health crisis did not exist one generation ago. Environmental factors created it rapidly, which means that environmental changes can reverse it rapidly. The president could issue executive orders tomorrow that would fundamentally change the landscape without spending a dollar.
The FDA could ban pharmaceutical advertising on television news, which no other developed country allows. This advertising does not influence consumers—it is used to bribe the news media. Eliminating this spending would remove part of the financial leverage that prevents critical reporting. Journalists could investigate pharmaceutical companies without risking their employers’ revenue. The policy would cost nothing and would immediately improve the information environment.
The NIH could stop giving research grants to investigators with conflicts of interest. This seems like common sense, but it would trigger screams of being anti-science from the corrupt establishment. 8,000 NIH grants go to conflicted researchers.
Agricultural subsidies would ideally shift from processed foods to vegetables. The government spends more on tobacco subsidies now than on vegetable subsidies, and ninety percent of agricultural subsidies go to highly processed foods. Redirecting even a small share of these subsidies to fruits and vegetables could change the economics of farming and make healthy food more affordable than junk food.
The revolving door between academia and industry has turned medical schools into research-and-development labs for pharmaceutical companies. Requiring disclosure and restricting financial ties would help restore some independence to academic medicine.
Medical groups with statutory authority to set standards of care—the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association—must be prohibited from taking pharmaceutical funding. These organizations determine which drugs doctors prescribe. They should not be funded by companies that profit from those prescriptions.
Americans respond to incentives. The healthcare system could reimburse doctors for prescribing exercise and nutrition interventions instead of drugs. These interventions are proven to reverse metabolic dysfunction. Changing the reimbursement policy would immediately change behavior.
A child with prediabetes often has obesity, hypertension, and heart problems. That child becomes a lifelong customer for multiple drugs, none of which cure anything. One medication leads to another as side effects cause new conditions, requiring more prescriptions. This corruption wastes human potential and strains the federal budget. Healthcare is the largest and fastest-growing industry in America. If trends continue, it will be 40 percent of the federal budget in 15 years. As costs rise, health outcomes get worse. This is unsustainable.
The Verdict
Everything predicted about Ozempic has come true. The drug received expanded approval and government funding. Lawsuits over severe gastrointestinal injuries appeared. Cases of vision loss surfaced. Mental health problems emerged. The corruption continued exactly as expected. Stocks rose on Wall Street. Obesity rates keep climbing, and the healthcare system profits from managing disease rather than creating health.
We are watching a pharmaceutical disaster unfold in real time with full knowledge of how it will end. The pattern has been repeated many times before.
Selected References
1. Calley Means’ website: calleymeans.com
2. Novo Nordisk financial reports and investor presentations documenting U.S. revenue concentration and obesity growth projections, available at novonordisk.com/investors.
3. Multiple studies linking semaglutide to non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), including research published in JAMA Ophthalmology and other peer-reviewed journals in 2024-2025 showing 4-7 times increased risk.
4. FDA label updates for Ozempic documenting warnings for ileus (September 2023), severe gastrointestinal reactions (January 2025), and pulmonary aspiration during anesthesia (November 2024), available at accessdata.fda.gov.
5. Consolidated multidistrict litigation in Pennsylvania federal court (MDL No. 3:24-md-03094) documenting nearly 3,000 lawsuits alleging severe gastrointestinal injuries including gastroparesis from GLP-1 drugs.
6. Sismondo, Sergio. “Epistemic Corruption, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Body of Medical Science.” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2021, documenting ghost management of research and systematic bias in industry-funded studies.
7. Medicare spending data showing GLP-1 drug expenditures growing from $57 million (2018) to $5.7 billion (2022), with total U.S. spending reaching $71.7 billion in 2023, available through CMS and industry analyst reports.
8. USDA agricultural subsidy data and food stamp spending patterns, including documentation that 10 percent of SNAP funding ($10+ billion annually) goes to soda purchases, the highest single category.
9. European Medicines Agency regulatory decisions on GLP-1 drugs for obesity treatment and European Union investigation into suicidal ideation associated with Ozempic use, launched in 2023.
10. American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation for GLP-1 drugs as first-line treatment for obese teens based on 68-week studies, along with documentation of Novo Nordisk funding to the AAP and other medical societies.
11. Historical case studies of pharmaceutical fraud settlements, including GlaxoSmithKline’s $3 billion settlement (2012) and Merck’s $950 million settlement (2011) for bribing doctors and producing misleading research, representing some of the largest criminal penalties in U.S. corporate history.
Yoho wrapup:
As of December 2025, nearly 3,000 lawsuits have been filed and consolidated into multidistrict litigation in the Pennsylvania federal court. These lawsuits allege serious gastrointestinal injuries, including gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, and ileus. The FDA has updated Ozempic’s warning label multiple times since this interview—adding warnings for ileus in September 2023, severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions in January 2025, and pulmonary aspiration during anesthesia in November 2024.
Multiple studies published in 2024 and 2025 have linked semaglutide use to irreversible blindness caused by non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). The World Health Organization issued a warning about this risk in June 2025. Hundreds of patients with it have filed lawsuits.
Research published in January 2025 revealed additional concerning side effects beyond what was discussed in this interview. The study found increased risks of kidney stones, arthritis, fainting, and drug-induced pancreatitis in patients using GLP-1 drugs. Nearly 40 percent of hypoglycemia cases and 15 percent of gastrointestinal cases required hospitalization. Studies have also linked GLP-1 drugs to reduced bone density when used without exercise, raising concerns about long-term musculoskeletal health.
The prediction that this would become “the highest-funded drug from the US taxpayer in history” is also coming true. We’re conducting a mass experiment on metabolic intervention with a lifetime drug that paralyzes digestive function. The 5-year data is already alarming; the 20-year data doesn’t exist.
I know; I copied the other guy’s homework. And although I shortened it, it was too long. I got so much out of this that I felt compelled to share it. I do not know how anyone still trusts the Pharma motherf*****s with another poison shot, but I guess there is a sucker born every minute.
After two long days at Wellington District Court, with minimal info coming through to the public, Whistleblower Barry Young’s case is adjourned until next year!
Thanks to Steve for this video. It really makes sense now. Why the store bought bread disagrees with the gut. This goes right back to medieval days and the origins of bread ingredients. EWNZ
There’s a significant issue with the bread we consume today. While bread was once a fundamental part of civilizations, sustaining families and armies, modern bread often causes gut issues, blood sugar spikes, and leaves us feeling unsatisfied. This food history explores how the bread industry has changed, contrasting today’s offerings with the traditional bread that nourished our ancestors. We conduct a food industry case study, examining how the history of bread, including ancient grains and sourdough, shows a stark difference from what we find on shelves now.
So you’ve decided to switch to Linux. But what’s wrong with Windows, anyway? And isn’t it hard to make the switch? Joining us today to walk you through the switch to Linux is Rob Braxman, aka The Internet Privacy Guy.
These images were captured in the Taupo Region in 2016, images of contorted deer that have died a slow agonizing death from 1080 poisoning. For over 50 years the New Zealand Government has been systematically dropping massive amounts of food, laced with this cruel and universally toxic poison into its forest ecosystems. Enough poison every year to kill the entire population of NZ four times over. No other country is doing, or ever has done, anything remotely similar on such a scale.
If you’re new to the independent information about NZ’s favourite poison for ‘saving’ birds (one aerial 1080 drop in 2002 killed an estimated 10,000 birds … Landcare’s own data) a must see is the GrafBoys’award winning doco, Poisoning Paradise.
Explore our 1080 pages (main menu) or use the drop down box, left hand side of the page. Animals die a very cruel death with 1080. A Veterinarian has explained death by 1080 as slow electrocution. The NZ authorities tweaked the Animal Welfare act to exempt the spreaders of aerially dropped 1080 poison from prosecution for cruelty!
Finally, they want rid of all non-natives. They are not telling us that directly of course. Jenese James describes NZ’s Pest Free agenda in her article, Who is driving PFNZ?:
Quote from Barry: We’re witnessing ‘the destruction of an Act of Parliament in real time’
End of the day summary
Sue Gray could not give anything away
Click on the image for the video
RCR Radio –
This morning, whistleblower Barry Young shared a few words outside court. Here’s what he had to say…
click on the image for the video
Live at Wellington Court reporting by John Ansell @BarryYoungNZ turning up at the closed court while NZ Police protect the corrupt judicial system that allows blocking the public access to the facts of the case
The pariahs that rule over us … they cannot claim ignorance! Hear them all laugh at the banker’s statement! They know. TVNZ broadcasted about this ponzi schem 12 years agoon Youtube “CONFIRMED: Loans & Mortgages are created out of thin air by the Banks” (In the article below you can hear the statement and the laughter at the X link).See our Money pages @ main menu. EWNZ
A banker at the New Zealand Reserve Bank (NZRB) joked about what modern central banking is really all about. On February 12th, 2024, during a parliamentary committee meeting, NZRB Governor Adrian Orr cracked a joke about the modern central banking system, which was met with laughter.
“We actually fund ourselves and then decide what dividends to pay.
“It’s a great business to be in, central banking, where you print money and people believe it.”
Tap the image to watch the video
According to CoinTelegraph, ‘The hearing was part of the central bank’s annual review. During the meeting, Orr said he was “critically concerned” with the rise of decentralized digital currencies such as Bitcoin, which he argued lacks the three main properties of money.’
Orr said, “It’s neither a means of exchange, it’s not a store of value and it’s not a unit of account.” Orr is also not that big of a fan of stablecoins, believing that they do not compliment central bank issued currency. “They’re only as good as the balance sheet of the person offering that stablecoin,” he added.
The WinePress News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Proverbs 22:7 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
This isn’t anything shocking if you have a modicum of knowledge and understanding concerning the current economic framework. It’s all about cheap, easy, helicopter money; and those inflated notes ultimately make them and their rich criminal friends who gamble in the markets, wealthier at our expense because they have to transact in them.
Proverbs 10:15 The rich man’s wealth is his strong city: the destruction of the poor is their poverty.
But there is an actual term for this when central banks print all this money: it’s called the “Cantillon Effect;” those closest to the money printer reap the most benefit, whereas when the money starts to funnel and “trickle down” into the broader economy it’s worth a lot less, and we pay for it as a tax that way. It is the single greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted.
For more on this, see my study on this deliberate money failure:
New Zealand today stands in the jaws of a recession deeper and more structural than anything we have seen in decades. Businesses are folding. Workers are fleeing. Families are giving up hope. And yet, somehow, among all the noise, one catastrophic act of economic vandalism continues to escape the national reckoning it deserves:
The deliberate destruction of New Zealand’s only oil refinery at Marsden Point.
Not downgraded. Not mothballed. Destroyed — with no replacement, no transition plan, and no economic modelling worthy of the name.
This was not incompetence. This was government-induced economic terrorism against the long-term interests of the New Zealand people.
And it began under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
The Refinery That Anchored a Nation
Marsden Point wasn’t just an industrial site — it was the beating heart of New Zealand’s energy security. Built in 1964, expanded repeatedly, and modernised as recently as 2018 with a $365 million Te Mahi Hou project, the refinery produced:
NZ’s petrol
NZ’s diesel
NZ’s jet fuel
NZ’s bitumen
NZ’s chemical feedstocks
NZ’s industrial gases
NZ’s fertiliser inputs
It reduced emissions. It added resilience. It protected our sovereignty.
And then, with ideological zeal dressed up as climate virtue, Ardern’s government backed its closure. Not because it was failing — but because Wellington wanted “alignment with global decarbonisation trends,” a phrase now exposed as vacuous marketing gibberish.
The government knew — yes, knew — that New Zealand would become 100% dependent on imported refined fuels. They knew that we would lose:
60 days of crude storage, replaced by just 8 days of refined fuel reserves
All domestic bitumen production
All domestic jet fuel resilience
All domestic ability to refine crude in an emergency
They knew a natural disaster could sever our lifeline. They knew a geopolitical conflict could choke our supply. They knew global refiners could charge whatever they wanted.
And they did it anyway.
“We now only have 8 days of fuel reserves compared to 60 days when Marsden Point was operational… New Zealand is totally reliant on imported fuels… We are without fuel security for the first time in 60 years.”
Ardern’s Legacy: Dependency and Decline
New Zealand is now one shipping delay away from grounded aircraft, immobilised logistics, and a nationwide economic choke-hold. This is not hypothetical — basic supply-chain maths confirms it.
And four years later, the current government under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has done nothing to reverse or even question this national insanity.
Political cowardice has replaced political leadership. Corporate appeasement has replaced national resilience. And ordinary New Zealanders — the workers, the truckers, the small businesses — are paying the price.
The Economic Reality: Cheap Energy Builds Nations
Every wealthy nation has one thing in common:
Abundant, cheap, reliable domestic energy.
Not imported fragility. Not ideological wish-casting. Not the childish delusion that a country can “transition” by destroying what sustains it.
The closure of Marsden Point was not a transition. It was a surrender — a forced de-industrialisation. A deliberate kneecapping of national capability.
New Zealand now imports bitumen, jet fuel, and diesel from overseas refineries operating under far poorer environmental and labour standards — including, in some cases, the use of child labour in raw material supply chains.
This is what the so-called “clean energy transition” looks like: pollution exported, sovereignty surrendered, illusion maintained.
A nation without energy security is not a nation. It is a client state.
Karl Barkley: One Citizen Doing More Than the Entire Government
While Parliament sleeps, one man — Karl Barkley, engineer and farmer — is fighting to restore what politicians destroyed.
His letter speaks for millions:
“We now only have 8 days of fuel reserves compared to 60 days when Marsden Point was operational… New Zealand is totally reliant on imported fuels… We are without fuel security for the first time in 60 years.”
He has launched KIWI REFINING COMPANY LTD with a vision to bring the refinery back to life, under public ownership, for the public good.
A single citizen, doing the work Cabinet refuses to touch.
Because he understands what the political class either cannot — or will not — accept:
A nation without energy security is not a nation. It is a client state.
The Truth: We Are on the Brink of National Failure
New Zealand is:
Losing skilled workers at record rates
Watching businesses collapse weekly
Facing rising energy bills and grid instability
Running a government addicted to debt and slogans
Led by politicians who refuse to confront the damage already done
Cheap domestic energy is the foundation of economic recovery. We had it. We destroyed it. And we were told this was progress.
It was not progress. It was sabotage.
The Question for Every New Zealander
Who authorised this? Who benefits from a dependent, weakened New Zealand? Who gains when we cannot refine our own fuel, build our own roads, or power our own industries?
And why — four years later — has no government lifted a finger to fix it?
Final Word
This is not politics. This is survival.
Marsden Point must be rebuilt. Energy security must be restored. And the politicians who orchestrated or tolerated this national vandalism must be held accountable.
New Zealand cannot chart a prosperous future while running on imported fumes.
And we cannot stay silent while our leaders dismantle the economic foundations our children and grandchildren will rely on.
You must be logged in to post a comment.