Posts
Questions
about the 2011 Christchurch earthquake
I have always been somewhat reluctant to entertain 'conspiracy theories' about the 2011 Christchurrch earthquakes.It always seemed a step too far,
However with the recent events in Christchurch this question raises its head once more.
I would say that there is considerable anecdotal evidence that this was not entirely a natural event.
In their recent discussion Alfred Lambremont and Ole Dammegard discuss this.
In terms of indicators there is this double-banger Freudian slip by then- PM John Key who is solidly in my mind connected to an assault on Christchurch and the South Island.
If I had to guess I would say that this had something to do with land and resources.
Why was then Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano doing in NZ less than a week before the quakes hit?
Just one of those endless "coincidences"?
McCully
welcomes US Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano
16
February, 2011
US
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will attend the
fourth US/NZ Partnership Forum in Christchurch from 20-22 February,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully has announced.
Secretary
Napolitano heads the 200,000-strong United States Department of
Homeland Security, which is responsible for safeguarding the US'
domestic security - from global terrorism threats and natural
disasters to immigration and trade security.
"Secretary
Napolitano’s visit to New Zealand is a testament to the new level
of dialogue and cooperation New Zealand is enjoying with the US as a
result of the Wellington Declaration," Mr McCully says.
"We
already work closely with the US on challenges like counter-terrorism
and disaster response. We plan to do more work together in the
Pacific, on border security and to ensure the smooth flow of trade
between New Zealand and the US, as mandated by the Wellington
Declaration.
"I
look forward to discussing these and other areas of cooperation with
Secretary Napolitano when she visits this month," says Mr
McCully.
***
Is this an indication that Israel's Netayahu has been harbouring intentions of revenge against New Zealand for backing Palestine?
Netanyahu'told New Zealand backing UN vote would be declaration of war'
Israeli
PM reportedly warned that support for motion on settlements would
‘rupture relations’ between two countries
****
This article in my mind shows that there has been a 'shock doctrine' attack on Christchurch and Canterbury. Events since then have borne out these early suspicions.
The
Shock Doctrine has come to New Zealand
27
March, 2012
We
are in Lyttelton, a suburb (albeit through a fairly recently built
tunnel) of Christchurch, New Zealand's second largest city. The
entire city center has been cordoned off, and the vast majority of
buildings have either collapsed or been condemned. Much of it can
never be rebuilt, since there is no way to assess the real risk of
further collapse of either buildings or even foundations.
Now,
ever since we got to Australia and, later, New Zealand, I've had the
impression that the main priority of the respective federal
governments is to sell off any and all domestic resources as fast as
they can, and for short term profit only (or, well, maybe to cover
the deficit losses they've run up). New Zealand is actively trying to
sell some of its most productive farm land. What's more, it's
attempting to raise revenues from the sale – though the government
claims it's actually a form of public-private partnership – of a
portion of its hydro infrastructure and -power.
This
morning, we were having a conversation with one of our local hosts,
and I said that in the light of the above I was sure that the
aftermath of the devastating February 22, 2011 earthquake would be
the next chapter of the Shock Doctrine. I had no proof of this, but a
strong gut feeling; some things just can't be any other way.
Up
until just a few decades ago, New Zealand was a very rich (about 2nd
globally per capita) and, relatively, very egalitarian society. None
of this is still true: income inequality has risen enormously, and
per capita wealth has plummeted. So the Shock Doctrine has been in
the works for a while. The earthquake 13 months ago was simply the
event the disaster capitalists were waiting for, and were ready for,
ready to act while the population was still in shock.
As
I said, when I said I expected the next chapter of the Shock Doctrine
this morning, I had no proof, just a suspicion. Then Nicole sent me
this article below, which dates from February 2, 2012, written by Lyn
Williams. Now I have proof, as well as suspicions. I'll let the
article speak for itself, and thank Lyn for writing it.
A
Tale of One City
This
is a tale of a city that outlived its usefulness.
The
problem for the city was it sat at the centre of a region with vast
natural resources that the central government wanted to exploit.
There was considerable and varied local opposition to this largely
because of the effects on the environment.
This
was a wealthy city that had developed as a light industrial hub for
the traditional rural economy of a wealthy region. Clever
manipulation of national laws aimed at privatising the public sector
had enabled the local government to maintain effective control of
much of its assets.
But
the concentration of population and wealth was seen an obstacle to
the Government’s plans to exploit the region’s natural resources,
and to sell off the city’s assets.
The
Government’s first move was to declare the elected Regional
Authority to be incompetent and to install commissioners selected by,
and answerable to, it.
The
region’s elected Mayors, organised by the City’s Mayor, all
actively collaborated with this.
The
government’s next move was to support the re-election of those city
and district mayors who would work with them in the exploitation of
the region’s natural resources.
Plans
were well under way when nature stepped in and gave the Government a
helping hand in the form of natural disaster.
The
shock of this disaster, and an effective PR machine, ensured the
election of government friendly mayors right across the region. More
importantly, it gave the Government the justification for creating
even more swingeing legal powers.
A
second, even more catastrophic disaster, resulted in the Government
creating an overarching authority run by people selected by them –
which had complete power to do whatever the government deemed
necessary. The powers given to the central government and bureaucrats
were unprecedented in peacetime.
The
city’s re-elected Mayor proved to be a very popular figure in the
aftermath of the disaster and was very useful to the Government in
managing the public response to it – but he too was to outlive his
usefulness.
He
continued to work in the way he always had, doing deals behind closed
doors and colluding with the CEO to reduce the effectiveness of the
council.
The
Mayor’s power base in the city council began to be challenged by a
group of councillors who attacked the way the council was being run.
The dissidents presented themselves as champions of the people
whilst, probably unknowingly, actually doing the work of the
Government. The Council split into two opposing camps.
The
local press started a campaign which seemed to be about demanding
greater accountability and democracy but which had the effect of
further undermining local confidence, not just in the Mayor and CEO,
but the whole council.
Even
with a mayor and councillors who were prepared to stand up to the
government, the Council would have struggled to represent the people
of the city and stop the plundering of the city’s and the region’s
assets. In the political and managerial void left by the increasingly
dysfunctional council and CEO, the Government’s new Authority
rapidly expanded its role.
And
then came the proverbial straw – an action by the Mayor and his
supporters that outraged his opponents and, when it became public,
also outraged the population of the city.
People
had had enough and many disparate interests coalesced around the
understanding that, while this Mayor and CEO were in charge, their
city was never going to be rebuilt into a vibrant modern version of
what had been destroyed.
The
calls for the sacking of the CEO and Mayor began. Normally compliant
and conservative city dwellers flooded the local media with their
angry views and began to stage protests.
Councillors
who had approved the action that had sparked the outrage called for
the dissolution of the Council and blamed the dissident Councillors
for the mess.
The
Mayor, despite having colluded with the sacking of the democratically
elected regional authority, put his grave, pro-democracy face on and
warned the population to be careful what they wished for.
The
CEO who had always stayed out of the media limelight for the very
good reason that he was PR-challenged, tried to make amends and made
matters worse.
The
government appointed a single observer and claimed not to be
interested in the dissolution of the Council – unless it had no
alternative.
Central
to the Government’s long-term plan was the depopulation of large
areas of the city and key satellite towns. These happened to be the
areas occupied by people likely to be troublesome to the government’s
plans for the region. the effects of this diaspora had already been
felt in the national elections.
Many
people had been left to camp out in their ruined homes and
neighbourhoods for months before the government declared swathes of
the city as uninhabitable. The months of anxiety, inactivity and
uncertainty were followed by offers for resettlement that appeared to
be fair and generous but which actually made it impossible for many
people to stay.
This
was a forced resettlement. On the surface people were given a choice
– the government appeared to be generous by offering to buy
people’s homes and land from them but, leaving the development of
new land to the market resulted in a free for all – and land, rents
and building prices sky rocketed.
Many
people found that they had to increase their mortgages to afford to
replace like with like. Others, unable to afford larger mortgages or
refused loans, had to downsize – or ended up renting or were forced
to leave town.
The
Government’s writing off the land also gave the insurers an out.
They not only saved money on some payouts but they avoided future
liability by the Government forcing large numbers of people away from
a region that was deemed no longer worth the risk of insuring. And
behind these actions lurked the spectre of bigger commercial
interests, the exploitation of the region’s water and oil
resources.
A
government of the people, for the people, by the people would have
stood up to the insurers and forced the insurers to meet their legal
and ethical obligations. It would have purchased land and created new
subdivisions and sold them at prices that enabled people to replace
what they had lost. It would have leased land on 999 year leases and
given the freehold titles to the Council or community housing
associations. It would have assisted in relocating whole communities
that wanted to stay together. It would have invested in land
remediation leaving only those areas which should never have been
built on to be turned into nature reserves and parks. It would have
given people security and choice by buying the mutual insurance
company it had already underwritten, merged it with its own
earthquake insurance bureaucracy and created a state insurance option
for domestic dwellings and local and central government
infrastructure.
And
it would have more wisely and circumspectly managed the vast reserves
of taxpayers’ money that had been built up over decades in the
national disaster fund.
But,
this was a government of big business, by big business, for big
business. It not so much got into bed with the insurance industry, as
bought the best bed on the market, made it up with fine linen and a
goose down duvet, tucked the industry in, made it a mug of milo and
read it a bedtime story.
What
happened to the city? Well, it ended up less than two-thirds of its
original size. Its political structure had changed forever and much
opposition to the government was wiped out as formerly cohesive and
well-organised communities were fragmented and dispersed.
Go
there today and it’s a pretty sad place. The city centre still has
great gaping holes where buildings once stood because there’s no
incentive to build. Vast swathes of its suburbs are weed-ridden
wastelands. The region’s once glorious rivers and waterways are
polluted and depleted by the intensive agriculture that exists solely
to feed an increasingly unsustainable international neutraceuticals
industry.
Its
oil resources are being exported and the promised wealth has not
trickled down to the populace although some have become even richer
and retreated further into the safe confines of their gated
communities or moved north.
No
doubt I’ll be labelled a conspiracy nut or accused of being
unhelpfully negative and pessimistic by painting this picture of
Canterbury but I think that the people of this region need to wake up
and smell the fertilizer because this is what has been and is being
done to our region.
Lake Forsyth on Banks Peninsula is emblematic of Canterbury's problems
We
do not have a vote in local regional democracy until 2013; in all
likelihood the people of Christchurch soon will not have a say in the
running of their city as it may be a matter of time before the CCC is
dismantled. Every action and inaction of the council combined with
the low public profile and high pay of its CEO are more nails in the
coffin of local democracy.
Local
councillors were powerless enough before – they are seen as a waste
of public money now. The wealth of ChCh and Canterbury as a whole is
about to be sold off to the private sector, not to rebuild the city
and region, but to be milked for as much short-term profit as can be
extracted from it.
I
do not believe that this government has any loyalty to Canterbury. It
doesn’t want a big, bold, wealthy city guarding and drawing on the
natural resources of the Canterbury plains and seabed.
It
wants to sell the best stuff to its mates -the people in whose
interests it governs, which – let’s face it – isn’t ordinary
folk. Some will profit – the vast majority will not. In fact, an
awful lot of us will be impoverished, left further in thrall to the
banks and/or forced to relocate from the city and region we call
home.
I
have a big emotional investment in Canterbury – I never knew how
much until I saw it threatened. And I’m not talking about the
threat of the 9000 or so earthquakes since September 2010– I’m
talking about the political and economic quakes. They’re what will
destroy NZ’s second city and take most of the Canterbury we knew
with it.
