WOKE HEALTH ORG KEEPING US UNSAFE

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or Twittter.  

Don't know what Rawiri's doing in there with Klaus and Chippie, but he is apocalyptic 

Here we go again. Did we all thrill to the sight of the owlish Prof Michael Baker on our screens again last night, threatening us with 1000 deaths and 10,000 hospitalisations from Covid this year? 

Baker's all for mandatory isolation. He's all for doing what we now know just makes things worse."Number One is to get v*xxed and boosted." But the more you're needled the more you'll get infected. They're treating a disease with the substance which is causing it - keep Baker's bivalent poison going and you keep the plandemic going. 

Seems that's what he wants. After all, it gets him on the telly. And it helps the WHO and WEF which badly need a "pandemic" to justify their woke, amoral agenda for taking control of the world's health (hah!) lives and liberty - which kicked off when the WHO's Tedros Ghebreyesus announced the pandemic the very same day his outfit joined forces with the nightmarish Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum. 

If you wish to make a submission on the proposition that New Zealand should sign up to the WHO's totalitarianism, you can do so via an email submission on the MFAT website here: Have your say: Improving pandemic prevention, preparedness and response with a legal instrument.

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (NZDSOS) have a thing or two to say about Messrs Ghebreyesus and Schwab's Geneva gabfest this last week on the BFD website https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/05/28/whats-happening-at-the-76th-who-assembly/.

Then again, the Aussie Spectator's Ramesh Thakur fleshes out the WHO's horrible history, here:

 

On 8 May, Malcolm Roberts discussed the latest abortive effort by the UN system to promote ‘sexuality education’ from birth. Yes, really.

The origins of this go back to the document Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe funded by Germany’s health ministry and published jointly with the WHO Collaborating Centre in Europe in 2010.

In 2023 the effort to universalise these Euro-origin standards faltered in the UN Commission on Population and Development. The EU and ‘progressive’ Western countries’ (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada) push to foist the woke agenda on the rest of the world failed due to resistance from non-Western countries like Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Holy See.

How is the Holy See non-Western? Non-Catholic perhaps, but non-Western???  

Dr David Bell explains how last year WHO’s abortion-care guidance called for babies to ‘be killed up until the moment they emerge from the birth canal, without delay, whenever a pregnant woman requests it’. It recommends abortions be available on request and advises against ‘gestational age limits’. This is both a bureaucratic and a moral overreach.

Only the governments concerned have the right and responsibility to make decisions on policy parameters between pro-choice and pro-life advocates. How can an organisation that spouts such anti-empirical rubbish as ‘women, girls or other pregnant persons’ be accepted as an authority on science, biology, medicine or public health? The WHO has become just another vehicle for cultural imperialism of the Euro-US woke agenda.

The WHO has also determined that alcohol is dangerous for your health, regardless of how little or rarely you imbibe. If you believe you drink responsibly, you are just the alcohol industry’s useful idiot. The WHO says alcohol accounts for 5.1 per cent of the world’s disease burden and ‘contributes to 3 million deaths each year globally’.

A WHO news release in January insisted that ‘no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health’. Over the last three years we have been conditioned to accept that public health safety trumps all other values and considerations, including such quaint old-fashioned notions as liberty, free choice and individual responsibility for one’s health and lifestyle choices.

On 15 April, in the latest iteration of its role as the world’s nanny, the WHO published Reporting about Alcohol: A Guide for Journalists attacking the notion of ‘responsible drinking’ as ‘a marketing tool and a tactic to influence public beliefs about the alcohol industry’ that neither tells us when to stop nor acknowledges the option of abstinence.

The idea of Reporting about Alcohol: A Guide for Journalists, for anyone acquainted with journos, or even their reputation - is enough to make a cat laugh. But my brother, a real journo of 50+ years' standing, says today's journalists are a very abstemious lot. Well, they're not journalists, are they. The WHO should have issued A Guide for Propagandists. 

It also allegedly ‘ignores the inherent risks in consuming alcohol, mischaracterising its harms as the result of a small minority of individual drinkers who cannot control their intake’. It stigmatises those who cannot hold their drink by putting ‘the entirety of the blame for alcohol problems on individual drinkers rather than more prominent… factors such as advertising, pricing or availability’.

Thus three key elements of the successful weaponisation of Covid for ensuring compliance with Science™ diktats from the WHO – scaremongering, shaming, and controlling the media narrative – are being replicated to socially engineer human behaviour on drinking, behaviour that is as old as human civilisation.

 

The WHO-backed package of measures to fight Covid-damaged health, children’s immunisation programs in developing countries, mental health, food security, economies, poverty reduction, and educational and social wellbeing of peoples. Unicef’s State of the World’s Children 2023 report last month documented that lockdown-induced disruptions to healthcare resulted in 67 million fewer childhood immunisations, reversing in three years, ‘more than a decade of progress’.

Their worst effect was grievous assaults on human rights, civil liberties, individual autonomy and bodily integrity. In promoting these policies the WHO violated the guidance from its own report in 2019 that summarised a century’s worth of worldwide experience and science, and also its own constitution which defines health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’.

The vaccine push similarly ignored accumulating safety signals about the scale of adverse reactions, on the one hand, and rapidly dwindling effectiveness of successive doses, on the other.

Whisper it softly for fear of being cancelled, but does the WHO understand the difference between enjoying life to the full and merely existing on life-support? Going by its woeful record on Covid, the answer is: No, it does not. Yet, this is the body that wants to expand and entrench its powers to dictate our lives, as I discussed last June.

The bureaucratic nature of the WHO shows in the preamble to the draft pandemic treaty: 49 articles over five pages. The current draft of the treaty uses language beloved of technocrats: ‘synergies between multisectoral collaboration – through whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches at the country and community level – and international, regional and cross-regional collaboration, coordination and global solidarity, and their importance to achieving sustainable improvements’.

 

Kiwis are so prone to gaslighting: grist to Prof Baker's mill_

 

The progressive elements of the treaty include ritualistic obeisance to inclusiveness, solidarity, transparency, accountability, ‘the importance of diverse, gender-balanced and equitable representation and expertise’, ‘the determination to achieve health equity through resolute action on social, environmental, cultural, political and economic determinants of health, such as eradicating hunger and poverty, ensuring access to health and proper food, safe drinking water and sanitation, employment and decent work and social protection in a comprehensive intersectoral approach’.

The treaty also makes several references to environmental and cultural factors. A research brief from the Australian Academy of Science in August 2020 concluded: ‘males with Covid-19 are more likely to be hospitalised, more likely to be admitted to an ICU and more likely to die’.

According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (28 April), of the 13,456 people whose underlying cause of death was Covid-19, 7,439 were men and 6,017 women. According to World-ometers, in China the Covid case fatality rates for males was 2.8 per cent compared to 1.7 per cent for females. According to the CDC, 55 per cent of US Covid deaths were males. Yet, the WHO says Covid has a worse impact on women.

 

 “At Rome on the Aurelian road, the birthday of St Felix, Pope and Martyr, who was crowned with Martyrdom under the Emperor Aurelian.”

Pope St Felix, on your feast day please pray for us

SSPX PENTECOST BALM FOR SNICKERED-UP SOULS

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address FB Messenger or Twitter.

Proof it wasn't photoshopped, in triplicate

For NZ Catholics bruised and bleeding internally from international exposure on Twitter of Bishop Steve Lowe, President of the NZ Bishops' Conference, tricked out in a pallium of Snickers bars, and the consequent ridicule (not to say snickers and sniggers), the Mass for Pentecost offered at St Anthony's SSPX today would have been balm and refreshment for the soul.

The priest spoke with authority. The Gregorian chant was - well, Gregorian, which means sublime, and the choir very nearly so. The organ was discreet and precise. The eight altar boys genuflected, crossed themselves and prayed in lockstep. The tabernacle was where it should be and veiled as it should be. Fresh flowers adorned the altar and all the many saints' statues. The church was full for the 9 a m sung High Mass with standing room only for the 11 a m. How it was at the 7.30 a m we must leave to conjecture. 

A reader of this blog was corrected, in no uncertain terms - in a pronounced French accent - in the confessional when she, thinking she was giving useful context, mentioned another party. Father wasn't interested in his sins, he said, only in hers. St Anthony's Massgoers obviously take kindly to being told off, as Father was still hearing confessions at 12.15 p m.

Father based his sermon on the papal tiara which was oh-so-kindly sold and the considerable profit given to charity by Pope Paul VI who set the precedent thereby for Pope Francis' gift to King Charles of the priceless relics of the True Cross. Father cited the tiara as symbolising the three gifts of the Holy Ghost (to use SSPX pre-Vat2 terminology): sacred orders, jurisdiction and magisterium which give the Church the right to teach the Faith. 

Originating as a sort of Phrygian cap, a crown was added in 1130, representing the Church’s sovereignty over the states.

In 1301, Pope Boniface VIII added a second crown to affirm his spiritual authority over civic authority during a conflict with the king of France, Philip the Fair.

A third crown was added by Benedict XII in 1342, as he reaffirmed the possession of Avignon, to depict the moral authority of the pope over secular monarchs.

In modern times, the three tiers came to represent the pope’s sacred orders, jurisdiction and magisterium. https://www.nationalshrine.org/blog/a-moment-in-history-the-papal-tiara-at-the-basilica/p/

Paul VI receives the tiara which he then gave away to 'the poor of the world'

The congregation was told that knowing the Catechism is not enough: Catholics must nourish the Faith by reading good books and websites on the net. Having sung the 9 a m Mass Father repeated his sermon for the 11 a m, leaving the confessional to do it and returning afterwards to the penitents still waiting in the confessional pew, asking for punishment.

Father warned against that spirit of criticism which constantly denigrates the modernists in the Church (ouch!). He spoke strongly in favour of the virtue of obedience to the Church which leads nicely into the explanation below, of the contretemps caused by a good orthodox bishop - one who'd say a Snickers bar was for eating, not wearing at any time, let alone for the Eucharist - Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas.

Bishop Strickland was good and humble enough to apologise and resile from his tweet calling the Society of St Pius X "schismatic". 

It is fitting that just in time for ‘pride’ month – or pride season – if you live in Canada, that a good bishop demonstrated humility in the public forum.

A couple of weeks ago Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas tweeted the following: “Schismatic movements like SSPX or Sedevacantists however well-intended are an injury to the body of Christ.”

 J. Strickland

@Bishopoftyler

·

Follow

In these troubling times with so much confusion even from Rome it is critical to remain IN THE CHURCH. Schismatic movements like SSPX or Sedevacantists however well-intended are an injury to the body of Christ. We must fight for total unity, not just aspects of Catholicism

 

It was May 13, the Feast Day of Our Lady of Fatima, and I was on my way to a wedding at an SSPX Chapel when I was sent the tweet. My first reaction was essentially, “Well this sucks.”

Bishop Strickland in many ways has been quite the champion of conservative and traditional Catholic viewpoints and opinions in recent years. He has been strong on dogma in the public forum and was very good when it came to defending the conscience rights of Catholics who did not want to inject themselves with an abortion-tainted substance that they were not comfortable with.

Furthermore, in 2020 he celebrated his first Traditional Latin Mass. About the experience he said:

I have to say, I could hardly say the words of consecration because I became so filled with emotion, so deeply struck by those words. Thank God we only must whisper them in this rite, because I am not sure I would have been able to speak above that whisper, so struck I was at the profundity. It was the first time in my life that I had ever said those words in Latin, and I could hardly get them out. It’s indescribable, really.

I remember reading his words in 2020 and was moved by how honest he was about his experience with the Old Mass. He was ordained in 1985 and had never said the TLM, and I imagine it took a lot of humility to submit himself to the training and study needed to say the Mass of the Ages as a bishop so late in his career. What an amazing witness of openness to Tradition by such a strong defender of Catholicism in America.

In addition, when I saw his tweet against the SSPX and a seeming equivocation of the Society with the various sedevacantist groups, I couldn’t help but think that a storm of criticisms and attacks would be coming for people like myself. For the most part, the strong bishops in the public forum have been quite kind to the SSPX, or even promoters of Lefebvre’s spiritual sons, so this statement by Strickland offered a rare bit of blood in the water for the malcontents who live and die for reasons to yell “schismatic” at people like myself.

During the wedding Mass, which was exceptionally done thanks in large part to the magnificent sermon and the world-class choir directed by my dear friend, I prayed very hard for the good bishop, and also prepared for an onslaught of insults and “I told you so” from the usual suspects.

However, in dramatic fashion, Bishop Strickland tweeted a correction to his previously held opinion, stating: “A correction…as Bishop Schneider has stated, the SSPX is not in schism. The SSPX continues to hold Tradition out for the Universal Church.”

A correction…as Bishop Schneider has stated, the SSPX is not in schism. The SSPX continues to hold Tradition out for the Universal Church. The Eucharist of the SSPX is held as valid by the Catholic Church. We must turn to Jesus’ Eucharistic face.

What a whirlwind!

One minute I was preparing for the Catholic tabloids to excommunicate and anathematize every man woman and child who holds Archbishop Lefebvre dearly in their hearts, and the next minute the whole conversation turned 180 degrees.

We should add that we have Bishop Schneider to thank in many regards, as he has been a champion for the SSPX, which is fitting because he was an official visitator of the Society in 2015.

As an aside, it should tell us something that those bishops who have an intimate understanding of the SSPX always seem to come out swinging in favour of Lefebvre and his priests, whereas the harshest critiques tend to come from those who do not.

At any rate, what is most impressive about Bishop Strickland’s public change of opinion about the Society is not merely that he recognized the obvious truth that the SSPX is not, in fact, schismatic.

Respectfully, as it stands in 2023, to say that the SSPX is schismatic is essentially to deny reality. This is because it is impossible for priests that are suspended to receive faculties or have their faculties recognized by Rome, let alone for priests who aren’t even in the Church to have faculties. The SSPX clearly has faculties for confession and matrimony as stated explicitly by Rome, which is an obvious sign that they are in the Church.

Of course, some members of the unelected YouTube magisterium will tell you that contrary to the facts, the SSPX is still somehow schismatic because they somehow do not submit to the Pope, and that we should ignore the Pope and submit to their opinions. As the saying goes, “If they did not have double standards, they would have no standards at all.”

But as I said – what is most impressive is not that he recognized what some cannot, but rather that he admitted he was wrong.

During his weekly radio show with Virgin Most Powerful Radio, Strickland told co-host Terry Barber on Tuesday that even bishops must be “willing to learn” when they discussed the SSPX Twitter saga. In fairness, he also said that he did not know all that much about the situation, which he described as “complicated,” and that he wanted to know more.

Well, if His Excellency is willing to read a book that, I believe, presents a strong defence of the SSPX… I do happen to know a guy who could provide him with the requisite literature.

 

 

In all seriousness, we would do well to praise the good bishop for his humility in a world that celebrates the deadly sin of pride as if it were a virtue.

Thank you, Your Excellency, for demonstrating a true episcopal spirit in an age of hirelings.

Kennedy Hall is a contributing editor for OnePeterFive. He is the author Terror of Demons: Reclaiming Traditional Catholic Masculinity and Lockdown with the Devil, a novel published by Our Lady of Victory Press. He is a writer at Catholic Family News, LifeSiteNews and is the host of the Conservative talk-radio show, The Kennedy Report. He is married with four children and lives in Ontario, Canada.

 

Pentecost
Anthony van Dyck

Come Holy Ghost, Creator, come

From Thy bright heavenly throne;

Come take possession of our hearts

And make them all Thy own. 

 

Scroll right down for comments (Twitter is making things difficult).

LABOUR'S LIES RE RACISM AND WHAT THEY COST US

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address FB Messenger or Twitter.

The gent come in for his jacket must be Uncle Herald

This Labour Government is spending millions of our money on 'racism' when it doesn't know - or refuses to admit - what racism is. Hardly surprising, when the Prime Minister doesn't even know what a woman is.

But New Zealand knows that racism did not exist in this country (or not so's you'd notice) before this ghastly Government superimposed it on goodnatured Kiwis in an attempt to divide and conquer us in a bloodless coup for their Marxist state. 

The racists ne plus ultra are in fact the greedy Maori supremacists and their enablers in Cabinet, "whose mouth speaketh guile, and whose right hand is the hand of iniquity" (Ps 144: 8).

Labour MP Arena Williams ' lie about her hard-up Dad (a knight of the realm who lives in a $1.3 million shack complete with swimming pool and Jag) and his prescription costs got her in trouble on Twitter and with Judith Collins (how she must long to be back in Parliament now!) but not with Labour's left-hand woman, dear old Aunty Herald, who climbed into Collins instead.  

Anyway, Casey Costello at Hobson's Pledge thought taxpayers were overdue for an explanation from the Beehive movers and shakers of just what it is they're throwing so much money at. 

In general, we Kiwis don't like to rock the boat. We are pretty well-mannered and don't charge into confrontations at the drop of a hat. We're good-natured and laid-back and tend to employ a "she'll be right" attitude.

Our good nature is being taken advantage of.

I don't need to list all the ways in which drastic changes to our policies and laws have been drip fed, snuck in, and even rammed through in the past six years.

Throughout all this radical change in our country, a particular weapon has been wielded against those of us who have raised objections. It is a weapon that strikes the heart of our desire to get on with our neighbours and be a harmonious people - the accusation of racism. 

Racism is something we all rightly abhor so to be called a racist is disarming and upsetting. It makes us stop and not want to speak up for rights and beliefs that we are entitled to. It creates a chilling effect that shuts down dissent relating to Government policies like co-governance.

Speak for yourself: not everyone reacts to bullying so compliantly. But most Kiwis do. 

Racism accusations are foundational to how this Government justifies treating New Zealanders differently depending on race. But the genius of this tactic is that they get to decide what racism is and we are not allowed to question this. When there is no set definition and the accuser can't be made to justify themselves, it is impossible to defend ourselves against the smear.

Seeing how often the Government is using this racially antagonistic tactic, we decided to ask ministers what definition of 'racism' they were using in the context of their ministries. We also asked if it is possible for white people to be victims of racism and if there are degrees of racism depending on the race or ethnicity of the person being accused and their 'victim'. We also asked the Human Rights Commission.

The responses we received to our Official Information Act requests were disappointing, to say the least.

From the Human Rights Commission we received:

"The Commission does not hold a single agreed definition of the term "racism".

They refused to answer the other two questions. At least they replied! The Race Relations Commissioner responded to our OIA acknowledging receiving it on 11 April 2023 but despite an "I’ll get back to you soon," we have heard nothing.

 

Labour MP Arena Williams whose pants are on fire

 

From ministers we received the following:

"Aotearoa New Zealand has no agreed definition of racism" - Marama Davidson

So they disagree with the dictionary definition? 

"The OIA cannot be used to force Ministers or agencies to engage in debate or to create justifications or explanations in relation to something a person might be interested in. There is no obligation to create new information to answer an OIA request.

Your request is therefore refused under section 18( e) of the OIA, as the information requested does not exist. " - Ginny Andersen

Andersen (Minister of Police) has apparently never read a dictionary.  

"Your questions appear designed to engage in a debate about the Government's policies to address racism...I am therefore refusing your request under section 18(g) of the Act." - Barbara Edmonds

"The questions you raise do not appear to be seeking any official information likely to be held by this Office." - Kieran McAnulty 

"This information is not held by the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, nor my Office." - Priyanca Radhakrishnan

Radhakrishnan and the Ministry for Ethnic Communities evidently do not possess a dictionary. 

"Your questions appear designed to engage in a debate about the Government's policies to address racism...I am therefore refusing your request under section 18(g) of the Act." - Ayesha Verrall

"Your correspondence does not meet the threshold for being a request under the OIA as in order to respond to your query would require an agency to form an opinion or provide an explanation and so create new information to answer." Nanaia Mahuta

Quite apart from her faulty syntax, Mahuta is surely missing an opportunity to give her rellies yet another taxpayer-paid position.  

"The questions you raise do not appear to be seeking any official information likely to be held by this Office." - Peeni Henare

Information need not be official to be applicable. 

"The information you have requested is not ‘official information’ and not something which would be held in my capacity as a Minister." - Andrew Little

"An agency (or Minister) is not required to form an opinion or create information to answer an official information request." - Willie Jackson

"The questions you raise do not appear to be seeking any official information likely to be held by this Office." - Chris Hipkins

"Questions that require the creation of new information, such as forming an opinion or providing an explanation, are not requests for official information." - Jan Tinetti

The Minister of Education's response is in itself an illustration of the dreadful state of education in this country.  

"The questions you raise do not appear to be seeking any official information but rather appear designed to engage in a debate about racism." - Kelvin Davis

"Your questions appear designed to engage in a debate about the Government’s policies to address racism." - Kiri Allan

Additionally, Willow-Jean Prime, Carmel Sepuloni, and Michael Wood transferred the OIA to their ministries.

In fact the only minister who responded in a slightly fuller manner was Deborah Russell (Minister of Statistics). She began by saying "Stats NZ does not have a standard definition of racism" but then made an attempt to discuss the Human Rights Commission's definition, how Stats NZ deals with discrimination, and explains that Stats NZ collects information on people's experiences of discrimination through the New Zealand General Social Survey.

In short, our Government and its ministers are either unwilling or unable to tell us what 'racism' is and whom it can affect. This is significant for many reasons but I'd like to raise two major ones here.

1. Our Government spends a lot of time and money on anti-racism programmes. If they don't know what racism actually is, what are they spending our taxes on? A few examples of this are the $2 million spent by New Zealand Police on research into 'where bias and racism exist within policing practices', an undisclosed amount spent by the Ministry of Justice on 'a national action plan against racism,' and $42 million spent by the Ministry of Education on 'an antiracism initiative for schools and communities aiming to help Māori students'.

2. Principles of natural justice are undermined when a Government is able to make sweeping accusations that can't be proven or defended. As New Zealanders, we have the right to be heard and to be protected by fair process.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights says:

27(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.

It seems that despite not knowing exactly what racism is, our Government is willing to use racismsit to stifle debate and distract from key issues. 

This dirty and unethical strategy will continue until it simply doesn't work anymore and how long that takes is entirely up to New Zealanders like you and me.

We must refuse to allow our good-naturedness as Kiwis to be used against us. We must collectively refuse to be manipulated by race-baiting politicians and bureaucrats. It is entirely up to us.

We are bloody sick of the cries of racism and fabricating of victimhood in order to justify terrible, divisive, and damaging legislation and policy that distracts everyone from a Government that has failed by virtually every measure. By turning us against one another, they avoid scrutiny.

And, to make sure their justification for racism continues, there is the propensity to cry victim no matter how successful and affluent the individuals concerned might be. As we saw this week when Labour MP Arena Williams shamelessly used her father by claiming he was choosing health over heating.

So what can we do? Here are three suggestions we can all commit to in our everyday lives. Let me know how you go!

1. Refuse to be divided. Push back on rhetoric that divides us into white and brown by reminding people that we are a multi-cultural country made up of people from all sorts of backgrounds. It is not racist to demand that ALL New Zealanders are treated equally before the law

2. Start saying "that tactic does not work on me" when unfounded accusations of racism are levelled at you for speaking up about policy and law. Assert that you know you are not a racist and do not let underhanded and unfair accusations prevent you from speaking up. 

3. If you haven't already, please take 10 seconds to sign our open letter to Minister of Justice Kiri Allan. Click here to sign.

I think I have gone on enough for today! I just wanted to reach out because with all that is happening to us, we cannot allow our voices to be silenced. 

- Casey Costello, Trustee, Hobson's Pledge.