The idea of a cashless society is not a new one, and in some form or another, has been tossed around for decades. With the onslaught of COVID-19, concerns have been raised on whether handling cash can spread the virus. This has once more ramped up the discussion of America becoming a cashless society.
Essentially a cashless society means exactly that. No cash. Nothing. Zilch

Its a fact that a cashless society is is not perfect. Catastrophes, computer glitches or even human error can leave you without the ability to purchase necessities. The Balance points out that these same events make it impossible for merchants to accept payments as well.
A cashless society would leave people more susceptible to economic failure on an individual basis: if a hacker, bureaucratic error, or natural disaster shuts a consumer out of their account, the lack of a cash option would leave them few alternatives

What would happen to these individuals in a cashless society had no ability to open a bank account or had their bank account cancelled, it would become very difficult, if not impossible, for these individuals to purchase necessities.

Basically we are moving into a cashless Orwellian society, where they check everything. Check where you live, whom you visit and communicate with and how your mind works that makes you behave the way you do. Just another massive stepping stone to control populations.

Living in a cashless society also increases the risks of loss of security, privacy as people become even more reliant on technology and the information age. The information age of data modelling that produces so called evidence based results, it’s bad enough now but its going to get so much worse.

Other risks are, its takes a chunk out of small business profits, that’s if you are lucky enough to own a small business after Ardern’s government have finished stripping us all of our rights. Of course when you pay for products with a bank card then in tis digital world the information gained is huge, where you shop, what eat etc.

This new wonderful world of enlightenment and utopia is suppose to be so trusting NOT. A utopian cashless society is merely a mirage, another delusionary socialist, Marxist communist ploy.
Approximately 500 years ago Thomas More’s Utopia has influenced everything from the thinking of Gandhi to the tech giants of Silicon Valley,. More is best known for his invention of a word – and for his development of an idea that would be exported around the world. This concept would shape books, philosophies and political movements as varied as Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine of passive resistance and the founding of the state of Pennsylvania. The idea, of course, was ‘utopia’.
More coined the word to describe an island community with an ideal mode of government. First published in Latin in 1517, the book Utopia means “no place” in Greek; Some coined the word utopia to describe an island community with an ideal mode of government

More’s Utopia was not the first literary work to play around with policy ideas: dreaming of a better life is an innate part of being human. Is vision was attractive to early socialists who saw this imaginary society as a blueprint for a socialist nation. These became known as the ‘utopian socialists’. Those who favoured an egalitarian distribution of goods, alongside the total abolition of money in order to achieve perfect social and financial equality.

Animal Farm by George Orwell brilliantly exposed the flaws in the communist view of society. The novel offers a view of human behaviour at odds with the philosophies and principles of a ‘perfect society’ as described in Utopia.
Many advocates of the ‘cashless society’ suggest it could offer a better and more-efficient world, but do they also fail to see how the behaviour of humans means the utopia of a cashless society is merely a mirage?

Utopia goes even further back in history to 380BC, when Plato wrote his dialogue, he described it as a communistic egalitarian city-state ruled by philosopher-kings called guardians, made up of both men and women. Instead of procreating within a family unit, these leaders leave the city once a year for a wild sex orgy. The resulting children, happily ignorant of their real parentage and brought up by the state, become the new generation of guardians.

For some people a cashless society may sound like science fiction, however its very real. Citibank and other financial institutions are already discussing, planning this.
The Computer Weekly News on 17/11/2016 reported, Citibank will no longer handle cash at its six branches in … which has been identified as potentially being the first cashless society, Today Citibank call this ‘banking for sustainable development’ (UN Agenda 2030)

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand documented a government paper entitled “Future of Money-Te Moni Anamata. Have your say (a what do you think article).
Below is part of the article a link is provided:-
The Reserve Bank is inviting your feedback on a series of issues papers to test our thinking about how we should approach our new role as steward of the cash system and make sure that central bank money continues to do its job in light of significant changes affecting how New Zealanders pay, receive and save money.
Future of Money – Stewardship (Te Moni Anamata – Kaitiakitanga) seeks your feedback on how we should steward of money and cash following a recent law change. • Future of Money – Central Bank Digital Currency ( Te Moni Anamata – Aparangi ā Te Pūtea Matua) wants your views on how we propose to explore whether a CBDC is right for Aotearoa.
You can both read and give your feedback online for these issues papers by 10am, Monday, 6 December 2021. • Future of Money – Cash System (Te Moni Anamata – Punaha) to publish in November 2021 will explain issues facing the cash system and explore options to achieve greater efficiency and resilience. Feedback will close in February 2022
The link is below and well worth a read.

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/-/media/ReserveBank/Files/Notes%20and%20coins/Future-of-Money/Future-of-Money-issues-overview.pdf?revision=c7b72a5f-4924-43ef-bd5f-f109db8bfbf2&la=en.

As the government and mathematical statisticians dribble their verbal diarrheal, referring to Māori and Pacifica’s poverty, hunger etc.,
Perhaps those that are suffering should be made aware of what their elite Iwi leaders are up to.

A certain specific group on Iwi Leaders are boasting they are getting very rich and wealthy referencing $70 billion.
Many Maori blooded and Non Maori people would not be aware as to this preplanned lavish trip to Dubai.
The Dubai Expo is referenced and supported by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

A certain IWI Leader state they are the largest producers of beef and sheep in New Zealand

Whilst not being able to cross borders to see loved ones in NZ or overseas. Small businesses and the farming community are hugely impacted by severe Government restrictions, as job losses escalate and many more become homeless, sleep in cars and vans. .of Maori blooded and non-Maori blooded all suffering. It’s time for peace and unity.

Call at halt immediately to Identity Politics’, this divide and conquer to weaken a nation so that people destroy each other as NZ Government take more control of our lives. Stop robbing tax payers pockets to benefit those that promote globalization, multilateralism and demotes patriotism and nationalism.

NOTE: CLICK ON ARROW ABOVE LINKING TO RUMBLE VIDEO FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS TOPIC)

Vaccines have a pitiful grubby history of how they become Intellectual Property. The World Trade Org., (UN) trade related Intellectual Property Rights agreement, this is an extremely undemocratic, an expression of ‘private- public global corporate power’.

Intellectual Property Rights are quite simply explained. If you possess a cow and some-one steals it, you have lost your cow, however if you discover a process to make that cows milk safer to drink, the possession of that knowledge does not reduce your store of it. Jefferson’s famous formulation: he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me”.

The concept of Intellectual Property was resisted in Europe right into the 20th century as late as 1912. Rejecting Patents that they called a “free trade in inventions”. This was consistent with the liberal doctrine as they were suspicious of patents. The Economist advocated for the abolishment of the English patent system, that was before inventors established a right of property in their inventions. It was viewed that inventors ought to give up all the knowledge and assistance of their inventions, this was suggested in a magazine dated 1850….”That is impossible, and the impossibility shows that their minds and their inventions are, in fact, parts of the great mental whole of society, and that they had no right of property in their inventions”

The first patent system arrived in Elizabethan England not to ’drive innovation’ nut to limited Crown-dispensed monopolies. Actually, the hatred of these monopolies played a starring role in the American Revolution, where the leaders were opposed to patents. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin thought patents as being impediments to progress. In fact the phrase Intellectual Property was coined in post revolutionary France to obscure the royal origins of monopoly, markets and theories did not fit into rights and property.

The word ‘Property’ itself had an unpleasant ring of ‘Privilege’. Patent was just an unaccepted theory and was very insincere, was viewed with suspicion. Then medicines started to be added to debates. Switzerland first became a pharmaceutical powerhouse, but did not add patents until 1977. Prior to the World Trade Org., (UN) in 1995 there was little power to enforce patents outside a country’s own borders.
Estes Kefauver was a Arkansas Democrat who oversaw an investigation into the post war pharmaceutical industry. He became focused on the industry’s business model, patents, cartel and monopoly pricing. Americans and other around the world then started making markups as high as 7000% on patented drugs, that were created using natural processed discovered in publicly funded labs.

Kefauver revealed that there was corruption and scandals related to the highest markups by Merck and Pfizer as they targeted middle class India and the Nehru Government responded with further investments in the country’s generics industry. In New Delhi they began drafting a new patent law to replace the British colonial regime that was still on their books.

The concept of intellectual property was resisted in Europe into the twentieth century. As late as 1912, Holland rejected patents and maintained what it called a “free trade in inventions.”. Merck CEO John O’Connor announced the patent law “A victory for Global Communism” From thence on, as time proceeded patents become increasing politicization of technology that the US Drug Industry took the lead in formulating the plan that culminated a quarter of a century later in the founding of the world Trade Organization of the United Nations.

In May 1974 a declaration was passed in the UN General Assembly calling for a ‘New International Economic Order’, a more equal distribution of global financial, natural knowledge resources that relates to human health. The UN Vision included a rejection of Intellectual Property as an illegitimate tool of the strongest against the week, a neo-colonial straw designed to continue siphoning wealth from the South to North.

In September 1978 Halfden Mahler a WHO (UN) Director General unveiled an agency program to help poor countries reduce their drug spending by building up their domestic drug industries this came about with the ‘Declaration of Alma-Ata’, to provide health for all by the year 2000. It was affirmed once again by the WHO (UN) that ‘health as being based on equity and social justice’

It is documented that the Alma Ata conference remained unfulfilled because of an obsessive revenge drive of a CEO of Pfizer in 1972, the year that India’s Patents Act entered into force. Developments threatened Pfizers ambitious plans for dominating global markets and agricultural products especially in Asia, however Pfizer lead an industry counter-attack against what is known as the G77. Pfizer’s patent lawyer launched infringement suits globally. In 1962 Pfizer sued the British Government after the National Health Service purchased an Italian generic version of Pfizer patented antibiotic, tetracycline.

Editorials documented that Pfizer owed its power to wartime contracts to produce penicillin which had been discovered and developed in Oxford that had left the public domain. British authorities have been in several legal conflicts with Pfizer. Over quite some time the N World Intellectual Property Org, (WIPO) oversaw the 1883 Paris convention for the protection of industry property.

Of course the Big Tech companies later became all part of the information economy with very powerful interests. In entertainment, software, biotech, agriculture and of course the pharmaceutical industry. Wealthy clubs and Regimes, groups were built around these big techs and big pharma industries.

Nations that refused to recognise the authority of the U S Patents Office were known as rogue nations. There was a tense worldwide struggle for technology supremacy. It was said “all freedom loving nations to get in line behind the proper enforcement and honourable treatment of intellectual property that singled out ‘computers, pharmaceuticals and telecommunication’ as area’s of knowledge being stolen by the denial of patent rights” It was also said that the their was a grab for high technology inventions for underdeveloped countries. Of course the UN and world Economic Forum now obsessively promote Pfizer patents and other Pharmaceutical Companies

Going back to the UN Marrakesh Conference on 15th April 1994, when 124 UN Member States signed the bringing of the World Trade Org., (UN) into existence. A treaty was signed “ a new era of global economic cooperation reflecting the widespread desire to operate in a fairer and more open multilateral trading system for the benefit and welfare of their peoples.” In return for enforcing Western patents on medicines and other technologies, G77 nations were promised access to northern rich markets, and a conditional “freedom from fear”

And hear we are today people ravaged with fear as a global experiment knocks on everyone’s door, as governments demand us all to be human guinea pigs to the pharmaceutical companies, for in New Zealand Pfizer.

BELOW ARE JUST A FEW OF THE LAWSUITS AGAINST PFIZER:-
CNBC report on 16/12/2020 that Pfizer or Moderns under the PREP Act are devoid of being sued if any person has adverse reactions from COVID19 Injections. The Government is not likely to compensate you for damages.

25/06/2019 — Pfizer and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company paid $2.3bn to settle criminal and civil liabilities for illegal promotion of their …

Pfizer lawsuit (re administration of experimental drug in …https://www.business-humanrights.org › latest-news › p…
In a separate action, the Nigerian federal government filed suit against Pfizer and several of its employees in June 2007 seeking nearly $7 billion in …

Pfizer recalls all lots of anti-smoking drug over … – Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › healthcare-pharmaceuticals › pf…16/09/2021 — Pfizer Inc said on Thursday it was recalling all lots of its anti-smoking treatment, Chantix, due to high levels of cancer-causing agents …

Laws suits refer to Pfizer’s Chantix having effects on peoples mental health, suicidal thoughts, depression and also causing suicides have been reported for many years. Chantix was approved by the FDA on the 5th October 2006 to help people quit smoking. There was a voluntary callback of Chantix by Pfizer in September 2021. It has taken 15 years to announce a voluntary call back of Chantix.

BENEFITS AND RISKS: Currently, the FDA tells patients that the benefit of using the voluntary recalled Chantix “is to keep on using it, the benfits outweigh the risks” The World Health Organization takes the same stance as FDA on the benefits and risks as FDA.

COVID19 Injections the same stance applies to the global human experiment of injections..The benefits verses the Risks. The benefits surely belong to the power and money hungry of this world.

PATENTS- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DO NOT PROTECT THE HUMAN LIVES OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WORLWIDE WHOSE GOVERNMENTS DEMAND THEY ARE HUMAN GUINEA -PIGS. THE DESENSITIZING AND DEHUMANIZATION OF HUMAN LIFE ITSELF.

IN December 2020, US family doctor Steven LaTulippe had his licence to practise medicine suspended over his opposition to mask wearing and other preventive measures against COVID-19.

According to the Oregon Medical Board, LaTulippe regularly advised patients it was “very dangerous” to wear a mask, particularly for older people and children.

Masks increased the body’s carbon dioxide content, he said, exacerbating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma and increasing the risk of multiple serious conditions, including heart attacks, stroke, collapsed lungs, methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), pneumonia and hypertension. Signs posted in his clinic warned of carbon dioxide toxicity with mask wearing.

The Board found LaTulippe’s continued practice would constitute an immediate danger to public health and safety. His advice to patients about the alleged failure of masks to prevent viral transmission and their potential harm was counter to basic principles of epidemiology and physiology, the Board said.

When a clinician advises patients to act in a way that risks their own health and that of others, the situation seems fairly clear. But how should regulators respond when a doctor makes similar claims in a public forum, particularly if they use their medical training to bolster their authority?

LaTulippe’s opposition to masks was not confined to his clinic. At an Oregon political rally in November 2020, he had exhorted those attending to “take off the mask of shame”, the Washington Post reported.

Other US doctors have publicly touted debunked cures or described the pandemic as a manufactured crisis.

New York psychiatrist Dr Andrew Kaufman, for example, has built a huge global following through his denial of the existence of multiple viruses, including those behind measles, poliomyelitis, HIV/AIDS, chickenpox, and of course COVID-19.

He has described vaccines as “syringes full of poison” and promised followers that, if it gets to the point where soldiers are holding people down to vaccinate them against COVID-19, he will “give out a ‘recipe’ that can mitigate things for people that are held down by force and vaccinated”.

Dr Kaufman’s statements and opposition to mask wearing appears to have lost him some employment as a doctor but has not, so far as I am aware, posed any risk to his licence to practise medicine.

In Australia, professional watchdogs tend to take a harder line on promotion of non-evidence-based views with the potential to undermine public health, particularly in relation to vaccination.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) issued a statement in March 2021 warning clinicians to stick to the evidence when commenting on the COVID-19 vaccination program.

“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign … may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action,” the statement said.

“Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by Ahpra.”

Melbourne GP Michael Ellis had his licence to practise medicine suspended in 2020 as a result of a series of posts he made on social media before the COVID-19 pandemic with titles like “PROOF OF THE TOXICITY OF VACCINES!!!!”.

More recently, he had reposted on Facebook a claim that vitamin C supplements were very effective at killing the coronavirus.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in August rejected his appeal against the suspension, saying they had “a reasonable belief that Dr Ellis poses a serious risk to persons and that it is necessary to take immediate action to protect public health or safety”.

Should doctors have the right to spout unscientific, even harmful, nonsense outside clinical settings?

US psychiatrist and bioethicist Dr Jacob Appel argues for a three-tiered approach to answering that question, one that distinguishes between “citizen speech”, “physician speech” and “clinical speech”.

In his country, physicians have generally been given “wide latitude to voice empirically false claims outside the context of patient care”, he writes in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

In an age of mass communication and social media, that allows dissenting physicians to offer misleading medical advice to the general public on a mass scale, he argues.

Dr Appel’s proposed solution to the problem would preserve a right for doctors to speak on issues such as health policy as private citizens (“citizen speech”), while introducing some degree of regulation around public statements that claim to be evidence-based and could be taken as medical advice (“physician speech”).