I have written a few blogs over the years which have always been relevant in some loose way to the community that gathers for food on Friday mornings so bear with me on this one.  From the influences and effects of industrial farming, to chemical companies’ domination, dietary and health consequences, to environmental damage and government decisions.

What we can grow and make and how we can buy and eat it is in essence the core of what the markets are about. It’s a basic thing growing and eating your own food, making practical things like soap and tools. Not industrialised, unadulterated. We all use our hands. It’s a direct experience. It’s a community around food. But it’s been more than that.

The skill and expertise of many artisans sometimes involves using very old ways of doing things. To be able to do this in a globalised, industrialised world that has a preference for digital technology, and within a free market economy which favoured industries that were super-efficient at production, was a wonderful freedom. The markets have weathered commercial and socially driven fashion and trends and endured tyrannical and totally loose food safety officers, plus law changes such as the new Food Act. We were looking at the looming climate change initiatives as our next big challenge; with the possibility that meat eating; gas guzzling drivers may be brandished as domestic terrorists.

Instead we are amidst a social change that caught most of us off guard. Science, technology, digitisation, and economics all became bedfellows in this current Cytokine storm kicked off by the threat of a pandemic.

The government threatened to require us to exclude members of our community because of their perceived ‘health status’ by way of vaccination passports.  Fortunately, and wishfully thinking with some resistance from the right places, this did not eventuate.

But this blog is a somewhat cathartic response to those recent events that are still challenging us and rattling some of our community to the core. The ever increasing regulations that are impacting on our lives are not all good ones and I suggest the response from those advising government fuels the fire of discontent because the of the mindset used to create the advice.

We have witnessed first-hand, and had experience of how the government responded to a crisis before; the Christchurch earthquake, and now this pandemic. How it responded to the bad farmers in the context of climate change seemed appropriate at the time. But we knew that not all farmers were bad farmers, we also knew that bad farmers were sometimes the symptom of their time.

The free market postmodern era starting in the 1980’s, dubbed neoliberalism, enabled farming to become big business with the help of science. Growth was good. Too much growth is bad. But they did not act alone. Externalising costs for business is how many manage to succeed. To maximise profit they off load costs onto third parties. Farms use herbicides, artificial fertilisers and cheap labour that leads to dead soils, high nitrate levels and dead water ways with increases in bowel cancer and demand on health care.

The industrial food system, which grew exponentially during this era, fuelled us with cheap, refined, processed foods, at the expense of giving their customers chronic diseases, which incidentally increase the health risks of a virus and increase the demand on the hospitals. A consequence is that otherwise healthy low risk people are forced into having a vaccination partly because the hospitals have operated a very neoliberal just in time system and can’t cope with anything above normal demand.

Although there are obvious differences between some farmers and anyone with a vaccination concern, be it with the genetically engineered vaccine or the implications around vaccine pass mandates, both groups are effectively experiencing the same thing, both are being treated as heretics by the government and also by their own communities.

It’s a shape up or ship out mentality and unprecedented in my lifetime.  In the case of those mistakenly labelled ‘vaccine hesitant’, they are being exiled from living a normal life.as local councils arbitrarily decide what public facilities they can use. But they can still shop at the supermarket. Fortunately at time of writing they can still shop at their farmers market and they always will be able to as long as we are able to.   

A large part of a market’s success comes down to the community that has evolved. Nothing special here maybe, but hopefully the norm for many other markets and other small businesses. It is however something special all the same for us, and especially so today.  The market has become a way in which many people identify themselves. It has become, unintentionally, a form of identity politics. But we don’t have an overt political agenda; just a philosophy.

It’s that philosophy that has appealed to the most unlikely of followers. A sign of success maybe, is farmers market images being used by industrial producers and those with other commercial interests as a means to promote themselves to their customers. But market customers are a diverse group. So when the possibility arose that we might have to exclude people, customers, friends, artisans and family from the market because they did not comply with current government regulations by way of a vaccine passport, this was deeply disturbing.   

The markets are a direct experience as opposed to the imagined experiences you might encounter online. They are all about inclusiveness and we have never denied anyone the right to buy food from us. Why would we. Even when in the midst of governmental regulations because of a pandemic.

Even booze barns and junk food chain stores could continue to sell their products to those with liver disease and the diabetic and the morbidly obese who unwittingly choke up the hospitals and cause long wait lists. Where was the Ministry of Health on pushing healthy food during this diet related health crisis? Instead we got and get illogical and arbitrary information around efficacy of the vaccine, mask wearing confusion and madness, and vaccine passports that look like a punitive kind of treatment of those selfish heretics, and demonization of anyone qualified or not if they dare question opposing science. Vilification from the establishment was and is rife. The pandemic seems like a side show to what else is going on.

For some it is not easy going with the flow especially when you struggle with the information you are supposed to simply follow. Usually because what you see and experience is different. This is a problem.  It is especially hard when the general mind-set, consensus is world-wide and that we are apparently all in the same boat, a team of 5 million in NZ. The thought of being transported to the sport stadium in time of crisis is alarming to many.  

How did we get here? Scientists with their digital tech, graphs and spreadsheets are guiding political and bureaucratic systems which are being used in unprecedented ways to make significant social decisions that affect us personally. Sometimes it makes sense and we want to trust they know what they are doing.

Science has helped most disciplines from medicine to food safety. It’s a useful tool. It’s being used now, but it’s only one tool. It has to be used carefully. Combine it with medicine and you get real vaccines, with ecology and you get nitrate levels, combine it with digital and you get vaccine passes and AI, tech you get surveillance, combine it with genetics, you get GE and pre-natal augmentation. 

It’s just a shame it can’t do the most basic of things like ensuring the hospitals are funded so they can be more resilient in time of crisis. At the moment they, not the vaccination rates, look like the millstone around the neck. Or so we are told.

Science normally creates knowledge but has always had its roots in the bed of reductionism which is proving to be a poor growing soil in times like these.

One can imagine the buzz in the institutions of power that has been going on for many months, excitement even. Science is now cool. But even self proclaimed experts who are providing the government with guidance and advice along with the MOH have seen the weaknesses in relying solely upon the reductionist way of doing things.

Reductionism divides up complex issues. One such group of academic experts who push the transdisciplinary approach make up Te Punaha Matatini. They have the politicians ear and are many of the ‘faces’ and voices you will be familiar with, who are providing advice to the government during this crisis.

Doomsayers. They say the world is at a tipping point and paint a bleak future of violent extremism and mis-information alongside human health and wellbeing.  Its not clear how much direct experience each of them have of any of these doomer predictions but climate change is at the forefront of their being. This quote provides some understanding of what they are all about. ‘‘Based on coordinated collective action, this strategy provided the critical breakthrough needed to overturn the status quo and create beneficial new outcomes’.

Te Punaha Matatini claim quite immodestly  to ‘span the breadth of human knowledge’ at the same time as wanting to make up for the lack of humanities in previously reductionist disciplines. Incidentally humanities had its funding reduced in NZ Universities in the mid 1990’s and replaced by commerce and marketing. Yet, Te Punaha Matatini’s ‘transdisciplinary’ approach to issues other than just climate change look more complex rather than less  They combine  the likes of  computational science to environmental economics, from linguistics to indigenous philosophy to mathematical biology.  It is also profitable when stakeholders get on board, even if it does raise issues of conflict of interest.

That aside, of course they are experts in their own fields, who have become ‘faces’ celebrities in their own right. With a lot of government funding some of the more ego-centric of them are making big assumptions and decisions on how we are supposed to behave in order for us to survive this crisis, and you are reading about it in the media as ‘the science’.

Hats off to Te Punaha Matatini for attempting to consider alternative ways of looking at things, as reductionism can become a belief system and it does not grapple with issues like ethics or morals very well. As they say , ‘reductionist science – the traditional framework of our universities and national research institutes – fails to describe how people, the economy, and the environment can, do and must relate to each other.’ Must, is a strong word. But no matter how many reductionists you get together you still have reductionists. Reductionists struggle with ethics and morals. These are complex things and feminists might see them as obstacles to social change. Maybe they might call them social constructs,along side women, men and families, but they are real all the same. Dangerous territory especially when combined with science without ethics.

Science does not do ethics. You can’t usually identify an ethic or a value under a microscope. So without an ethic or a moral which is usually formed from direct experience, to guide you  it is easy for generalisations, imagined experiences and questionable claims to be made with selective scientific backing. Reductionists do dualism, right or wrong. Transdisciplinary does non binary, not right or wrong, just neither. The transdisciplinary approach puts the collective over the individual. Individuals are complex therefore problematic.

The transdisciplinary approach tries to incorporate holism as a way of making up for the complex ethics and values reductionism struggles with. But just like reductionism the approach fails to respect individual and collective diversity if it is able to recognise these traits of humanism at all. The social unrest that is being played out worldwide as a result of authoritarian regulations is indicative of this. It’s like a kind of social experiment being forced on people. Unprecedented in our lifetimes.

The Government was right in saying we are all in this together, but some of us will disagree on how together we all are. Individuals are indeed part of their communities; and diverse we are. This includes even so called academics and scholars. How we tolerate each other often comes down to how we view ourselves and how we see others.

Science is one method to accumulate knowledge; it does not have all the answers. It is just a tool. Academics, experts and scholars may be knowledgeable in their fields of expertise but some are using their tools badly. In positions of influence reductionists use marketing words from Zen masters like mindfulness, compassion and empathy, but their actions speak louder than their words. Reductionists try to control mindfulness, measure compassion and select empathy.

It looks like we are all in this together in a more complex way than the government has been telling us. Limitations in understanding mean we have a society where human identity is deemed a social construct and there are no ethical norms. So is it time to run for the hills? The advice that many of these academics are providing the New Zealand Government today goes way beyond their scientific expertise, to a more social agenda where they seem to have little street credibility. The social and community related problems that are being created in our communities as a result of the regulations only raise questions about government decisions and where we are heading.  

When reductionists do things badly they rely solely on selective data, statistics and science.  They resort to assumptions and generalisations; they create division, which in turn ironically create mis-information and misleading stereotypes. Yet those who cry foul about misinformation seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are doing exactly that. Social media along with the freedom of the unfiltered internet are also data and can be turned into statistics. Both are useful and both dangerous. There is only right or wrong in a reductionist mind. Defensive and reactionary. You can rationalise anything, and without an appreciation of ethics and values we get something like bad science and lynch mob facebook and people not being able to go a family funeral, or families being separated for two years too long, or banning of some kinds of people from their community. We are experiencing the cost of this daily. Quite obviously some academics and politicians see it differently.

Self called government or industry funded ‘Investigators’ spending way too much time trolling through the internet and social media platforms for memes that support their bent is not rocket science. It would be far more honourable to venture out on the street and talk to some real healthy people who are making well informed decisions to choose not to be vaccinated, witness what families are having to endure when they have mortgages to pay and no job or business, when loved ones die overseas and you never got to say goodbye.  But those feeding us the ‘correct’ information won’t be looking for that online and anyway going outside has bright light and that’s dangerous.

Here in New Zealand it looks like Te Punaha Matatini with their transdisciplinary view of the world are making the most of this opportunity along with obtaining more funding, and are influencing decisions that are making significant social changes, based upon their own bleak outlook on the future of the planet. Along with the MOH their personal expertise appears to be rooted in postmodernism, which has a ‘general suspicion of reason’. Could this explain why some regulations are so inhumane? What kind of mindset comes up with this stuff? Right now government regulations which are partly based upon this organisations advice are potentially quite cruel on individuals and families, as we may understand them that is.

What is Intellectual understanding without direct experience? Direct experience usually includes emotions and not imagined ones. It doesn’t help if we are saturated with fear. Without humanity which includes ethics, morals and instinct science can be bad. When governments don’t do morals then what do they do? Obviously in a healthy society some people might feel a bit aggrieved about these apparent flaws.  It’s a visceral thing. Gut instinct. When communities are encouraged to snitch and nark on each other it doesn’t feel right for some. It flies in the face of being kind. It sets a bad standard. When science is used to claim the higher moral ground then it is worrying. In the wrong hands it has proven dangerous.

But when science is good it’s a useful tool. It’s about knowledge and intellect. Knowledge and understanding are not synonymous. It’s like expecting a doctor to understand about nutrition, not all do, and it’s like a mathematician understanding instinct, not always possible. It’s like expecting a farmer to understand soil science, not always possible.  It’s like being a physicist academic calling anyone who chooses alternative medicine anti science.  So you can be an expert in your field and know a lot, but understand nothing.

When did it go wrong? If you were born in New Zealand or any western country and are Caucasian then you most likely had a reductionist influenced childhood at least.  Science not only created the processed food industry in the post WW11 period but it also influenced generations of parents raising children including  Gen Z and for well over 40 years on a first world global scale. It was all about knowledge. It probably still is in some households.

Generations tech savvy Y and Z were preceded by their relatively risk taking ‘modern’ parents or grandparents who may be nurtured under the guidance of child psychologist Dr Spock. Selfish reductionist childrearing practices morphed into the 80’s era of crèche babies in many modern western nations including here in New Zealand.  Health professionals promoted the scientifically supported Dr Farber’s ‘Let them Cry’ sleep programme in New Zealand. Data and statistics gave legitimacy to desperate practices that enabled the less confident parents to get the required hours of sleep necessary for a productive day at work.  At the expense of their instinct and the needs of their children it sometimes worked.

This entrenched the era of nature over nurture. There was a difference between a need and a want. according to the government funded Plunket. Medicalized childbirth was the convenient safer modern way.  Instinct was not helpful when you had to juggle a baby and a career outside the home. ‘Natural’ was starting to become a dirty word and an impediment to jobs and careers. Double incomes were an important part of the neoliberal economic boom. Greed and exploitation was becoming the defining spirit. It has lasted for about four decades up to today.

Some of those kids became the high achievers who studied science and medicine and in the technophilia era they became the tech and digi geeks and nerds and they probably joined underfunded government institutions. Science and tech were not cool. Gen Z were not allowed to climb trees in their playgroups or crèches, it was about safety over freedom ,whereas the boomers and Gen X were all about freedom over security. Big difference. Cultural differences. You might have noticed that freedom has now become a dirty word. Like selfish.

Today the government is asking others to protect others by sacrificing themselves in some way and not ask questions about it. Just like war draft. It’s a big ask, and you have to make sure you have the justification to do this. It’s a group thing, that helps. I guess it helps if you were a crèche kid and are used to being told what to do and when. Institutionalised.

Thing is, those with opposing views are also part of a group which is quite diverse and many are not necessarily politically correct. Many are not the cliches you have been told about, you have been mis-informed. Many are low risk healthy, intelligent, tax paying people vaccinated and not vaccinated who are used to taking care of their own health and lives and they have some pretty good questions that need answering. They are not scared. They do not deserve to be exiled from their own lives. They may run their own businesses, and they have to turn away their customers who have supported them for years and fire their staff. Their choice the nay-sayers will say. No. It’s not their choice. That’s the point. That’s the dirty word - freedom.

The government even suggested we turn away relatives who are not vaccinated at Christmas.  Seriously!  Where do we draw the line. It doesn’t help things when the media is involved as it starts to look like propaganda and dogma. If the objective was to get us all vaccinated then that has been largely successful, apparently. If the objective was to keep us all in line then they failed astronomically. The cliché of the Trump flag waving sausage eating anti-vaxer is only a useful fool for those avoiding any intelligent conversation. It is starting to look like a wrung out cliche that is being used to ‘capture’ anyone who is opposed to government directives.

Many of us know that there are brave scientists, doctors, academics amongst others who are having concerning conversations that question the narratives we are being told over and over again. Like the sloppy safety standards that most probably led to the virus escaping from the only laboratory in the world which was experimenting with bat coronavirus and gain-of-function in the Wuhan Lab in China and under the watchful eye of Dr Fauci, Instead what a spectacular coincidence that the virus could have come from a wet market several kms away as a result of an extraordinary natural process. Which incidentally was most unlikely according to the lead author of the virologists study into the virus who informed Dr Fauci of this. But then he changed his mind. Gain- of-function makes a virus a super spreader. China and the USA were experimenting with this in Wuhan, that’s what scientists do. Looks like slack safety checks maybe? What would be the implications for Governments and corporations and future GE trials if this virus had escaped from that one experiment? It’s just a question. Why care? Why lie? So where does the truth start or stop.

As a consequence of the virus doing it’s super spread thing, there are alot of unanswered questions that keep getting asked. What are the ethics behind the campaign to vaccinate those who are not likely affected by the virus at all like children, why was natural immunity poo-pooed, why do we continue with ongoing boosters after it has been proven by many scientific reports that the vaccine boosters do not last or work after repeated injections and in fact more likely increase the likelihood of doing harm, and how much did Pfizer and and the big Pharma companies make from all of this? What happened to the definition of a ‘vaccine’ as we understand it? If it doesn’t work is it a vaccine?

If you believe the hype then how do you feel about ‘taking one for team’ ? Should it have come with a health warning if it really means putting at risk the otherwise healthy low risk lives of those young men and women who died or were damaged by myocydartis. Why block and discredit all discussions like these or hold contempt for those who dare ask questions at all?  Why is there still such inadequate scientific reporting and recording of the many adverse effects of the vaccine? Censorship only raise questions, lies or incompetence negate trust and so it goes on.

How will those people complicit in this peddling and shut down of information justify themselves in the years to come? How can they be so sure they are right, if the right questions are not allowed to be asked? These are the sort of things that create division. Or is this what some people want?

This sort of reaction by government and media is not dissimilar to other nations who also use punitive measures to control social behaviours that they don’t like. Even the silly Godwin’s Law inference that some computer junkie came up with that forbids any mention of WW11 is desperate, Has Anzac day been cancelled? The mis-information and dis-information nonsense is not unique to one group. Government is dealing with a crisis of sorts and creating another one.

The ongoing suffering that is happening to families and individuals is more often than not, not directly because of the virus itself. But we are told otherwise.  Government decisions are creating significant social imbalances and upheaval for all for those who comply and for those who don’t. For over 2 years a largely successful campaign by the government to get as many people ‘vaccinated’ as possible has worked. Big Pharma have made obscene profits. Yet our hospitals have been underfunded while money goes into Quarantine facilities and wage subsidies. They say Gen Y have issues with problem solving too.  

After two and half years the threat of the virus wanes yet it still continues to hang over some of us like the sword of Damocles. But really it is the Government induced fear and regulations that linger most. We have to continue to find ways to navigate around it in order to live our lives. By far the majority of the population have been compliant and such good citizens. But the macabre enforcements have left serious scars in our communities, not just here in New Zealand but many Western democracies.

What’s the alternative. The opposite to scientific reductionism is holism. Even Matauraga  Maori embraces a kind of holistic understanding of the interconnectedness of things.  For us it looks like, more local economy as opposed to the global and the industrial.  It is also a way of thinking too. With holism the whole is larger than its parts. The world is bigger than us, you. Holism appreciates nature and embraces it. We react to bad things happening around us, literally. Holism is about an open mind and is accepting of complexity. It’s about looking and being aware of yourself and your surroundings and accepting that you are part of that. Not separate. Not easy. Death is part of that cycle. We need to grow up and talk about death. Humane societies deal with it.  Science does not do death well. It sees it as a failure.

Bio dynamics, organics ,alternative medicines, yoga, meditation, Ayurveda, acupuncture, TCM and integrated modern medicine all fit into our scheme of things. Not anti-science but not bad science either. Many of us still use our hands to make things yet we are modern too, Markets are simple things in theory. It’s the real thing not imagined. That’s the point. Direct from grower producer to you. You know your locals.

Turning people away because the law says so is a big ask. It is not one we want to have to make. But I guess that depends on where you stand. Of course no one in their right mind would wish anyone ill with any virus. No one in their right mind would want to infect someone with a virus.  No one in their right mind would feel comfortable forcing anyone to be injected with a vaccine they did not want or deprive someone of a livelihood because they don’t want a vaccine. What was the point of a vaccine pass when we were nearly all vaccinated? Why would employers continue to enforce the vaccinated status on their staff when the dust settles? When is enough enough? 

This is looking like a revenge on those who don’t conform. Will they be deemed dangerous or a national threat? What we need is a good dose of humanity here. Worldwide. It keeps the lid on things. Humanity teaches us good,nice social skills.  It is about understanding and real experience. It includes things like ethics, conscience, values and morals, humility and it should keep us honest. It helps us think critically. It encourages open mindedness. It is about self and others and what it means to be human. How not to be selfish. How to be aware. It teaches us to recognise instinct. Instinct is nurture. 

But quite obviously not all of us are capable of feeling this or thinking this way. Having conviction is one thing but using selective science and lazy gutless journalism to support some potentially harmful actions is another. When dogmatic science is used to control it can generate fear. We need to keep engaging in debate, the scientists cannot hide behind their shonky statistics; it only fuels suspicion and doubt. Journalists need to get out there and do what they are supposed to do, investigate, and not become a government lynch mob not akin to the East German Stasi.

The government is asking us to do the judging. These are extraordinary times. They have and are working at creating division and consequently outcasts. People and families are being expelled from communities because of the government regulations and our own enforcement of them. It’s not as simple as following the rule of law. Sometimes laws and rules are silly, or just wrong, look at history. But to some, it’s the law so it must be right.  How can you be sure you are doing the right thing now? Who are you punishing? Who are you saving?  Some of us will rely on gut instinct others will follow the ever expanding rule book and in fact rewrite it to suit the political agenda of the time. Once a reputable source of information Wikipedia has become a mouth piece for arbitrary censorship, so beware your rule book. Universities too seem to be at the forefront of redefining these changes; how we speak, what we should think, and how we should live.  

Some folks might find it comforting New Zealand is as rigorous with its regulations as are Singapore Austria and Germany.  Some find this disturbing and feel anxious. The pandemic has provided the reductionists, technophiles with a leg up into influencing politicians. This is power they didn’t normally hold.  It looks like a social Cytokine storm of their making.  Some call it culture war.  People are more fearful of the government and their neighbours than of the virus itself, and for good reason.

Things start to look crazy when the Christians start to look rational. Hopefully and it is a big hopefully, the virus and its associated compulsory vaccine will eventually be no more. It will take time however to forget the fear, unnecessary surveillance, censorship and vilification of those who thought counter to government spin, as well as the memories of forced isolation and separation. The divisions the government has left in our communities are palpable. Will they replace one fear with another?   Who will be right in the times to come? Will anyone be held accountable. Time will tell.

https://bretweinstein.net/ (Bret and Heather are the most sound, sensible, logical, insightful and learned authorities on the current zeitgeist we have heard. Highly recommended.

https://www.tepunahamatatini.ac.nz/2021/11/09/mis-and-disinformation/ University/Govt funded group of individuals with a formidable agenda.

tps://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/d/75/files/2017/01/working-paper-disinformation.pdf Example of the mind set behind the academics in Universities today.

https://www.juliusruechel.com/2021/12/a-half-truth-is-whole-lie-omicron.html?m=1