Do these people even hear themselves? How can you be against INDIVIDUALS and claim to be for humanity? This came up in my memories on Facebook from a couple of years ago, so I thought I’d share (I set this post to the date of the OP).
They admit they don’t know what they are doing. WHY is anyone still listening to these harbingers of darkness?
Here is the reality: Nothing any government official mandates changes anything anywhere. The virus curve is the same shape and size across the globe despite different places trying different things, with some variation for the overall age/health of the population–countries with older, fatter, sicker people are hit harder… Maybe a question Americans should be asking ourselves is why do we have so many old, fat, sick people? Hint: it’s SAD… it’s the Standard American Diet!
Here’s another hard truth: The powers that be could have spent the past year trying to help make people healthier. They could have advised you start taking care of yourself. That you start taking Vitamin D and Zinc. That you get outside in the sunlight for some daily exercise in fresh air. That you stop fueling your body with junk and start cooking whole foods from scratch. That you get enough sleep, since sleep deprivation is a recognized form of torture. But see… They like you like this… they like you fat and slow and obedient. They like being able to literally terrify you out of your mind.
For the past year, the people who purport to have your best interests at heart, instead of choosing life and health and vitality and hope, chose darkness, tyranny, control, isolation, snitching, and force. They chose to terrify you into submission without solid justification for their actions.
They have spent the last year changing your brain’s neural pathways, priming you to live permanently in fear and unable to think for yourself, which, in case I have to spell it out for you, is a lot worse for your health and wellbeing than a case of Covid.
Stop listening to these people. They 100% do. not. have. your. best. interests. at. heart. Trust your instincts! Peace and love to y’all!
My friend Sarah Chamberlain wrote this essay on Medium, and I wanted to share here too. If you only read one thing today, let it be this.
Please save, screenshot, etc., then boost.
I don’t usually ask for my content to be shared. What I am about to say though is perhaps the most important thing I will ever say in public, and in the present landscape of the internet, there is a very high probability that it is being silenced or erased even now as you read it. So, I am asking you to please, save an offline and/or archived copy of this letter RIGHT NOW.
If, once you’ve read this letter, you feel that it has any value or interest whatsoever, please, as a personal favor, send it on through whichever channels, to whichever people you feel safe doing so.
If you think what I say is absurd, please share my letter with your friends so you can all laugh at me.
If you think that what I say is evil, please share it with your friends so you can all rage at me.
If you think I deserve to be punished for what I say, please send my letter on to the “authorities” or to any person you think might hurt me for writing it. At least then, those people will have a chance to read it.
I am
an American, a New Hampshirewoman, a lover of liberty, and a happily married mother of four beautiful children. I have a wonderful life, a bright future, and could not ask for any greater blessing than those I have already received.
My enemies are
in a word, communists. Modern communists do not usually call themselves such. They do not talk about workers rising up and seizing the Means of Production.
Instead, modern communists adopt a rhetorical stance where they assume that all people and all property are ALREADY COLLECTIVIZED, then calmly discuss what WE should do:
– What WE should ALLOW people to own.
– What WE should ALLOW people to do.
– What WE should ALLOW people to say.
– How WE should ALLOW people to use their property.
– How WE should ALLOW people to conduct their businesses,
– … and WHO should be ALLOWED,
– … and WHERE.
– How WE should ALLOW people to raise their children.
– Who should be GIVEN which roles within society.
– etc.
The issue under discussion is always something sympathetic, something most decent people would like to see fixed: Intergenerational poverty, police brutality, environmental degradation, bigotry, violence.
But the solutions modern communists put forward are rarely passive, and they are never liberating. If a problem can be solved by individual action, voluntary charity, by the free market, or by the passage of time, that is never seen as good enough. In fact, nothing that fails to increase the power and control of governments or certain institutions (or to grow the people’s dependence on them) is ever regarded as a solution at all.
The people who do the work of modern communism, debating and voting on these “issues of the day” are mostly not aware of what they are doing. A majority of them are decent people who want real problems addressed. But their thinking is confined to a multiple choice question presented by prestige media and schools where only oppressive proposals are listed as options.
Even those higher up the food chain, the ones who create the policy proposals or set the bounds of debate around them are not usually conscious of the way they are manipulating the public. They are hobbled by a theory of history (care of the school system) where the past is merely a series of dragons slain by government policy, where everything is “systemic”, and where the free choices and conscientious actions of individuals have no meaningful effect.
This is how the enemy operates.
In order for modern communists to have the latitude to execute their plans, they need every citizen to be as weak and dependent as possible. They especially need the middle tiers of management, professions, and bureaucracy to be filled with minimally competent placeholders who owe their position to political and institutional favor. These sorts of people, since they are only able to achieve their present position through the system, are more pliable to coercion and less likely to see freedom in any aspect of life as promising or beneficial.
As a consequence, modern communists wage eternal war against every wholesome and sustainable aspect of life, society, and culture which gives people or communities strength and independence. They see it as desirable to destroy the natural optimum which people discover through freedom and competition and replace it with fragile, orchid-like solutions which could not thrive without government and/or institutional intervention:
– Those with demonstrable skills must be replaced by those with credentials.
– The self-employed must be reduced to the status of employees.
– Property must become regulated or burdened with tax and debt, and wherever possible, wealth must be rendered intangible as abstracted financial fictions constructed of laws.
– People must come to rely on government programs for security where they previously relied on themselves and each other.
– The traditional family and organic communities it forms, such as churches, must be invaded, defanged, and delegitimized to leave people at the mercy of authorities.
To a modern communist, “freedom” means the opportunity for individuals to choose some fundamentally maladaptive way of life and be protected from consequences, encouraged and subsidized by power.
The weaker you are, the more useful you are to those in power. Those who choose to be weak and dependent where they could be healthy and independent are collaborators.
This is what I see happening.
The American public has come to accept all the components of totalitarian states.
– We have come to accept a militarized police.
– We have come to accept ideological indoctrination in schools.
– We have come to accept mass surveillance.
– We have come to accept speech codes.
– We have come to accept the rewriting of history to serve the interests of the ruling party.
– We have come to accept the tarring of political dissidents as “terrorists”, “extremists”, and “White Supremacists.”
– We have come to accept the State telling us when and where we can meet.
– We have come to accept the State shutting down our places of worship.
– We have come to accept the idea that parents should have no special authority over their children.
– We have come to accept the manipulation of thought through the manipulation of language.
– We have come to accept the radical reordering of society by government in the name of crisis.
In the 2016 election, the full-throated manipulation by the mainstream press, academia, and the political establishment was so intense, and so obvious, that many people (myself included) who did not consider themselves “conservative” voted for Donald Trump just to poke a finger in the eye of Leviathan. So many people did so that his margin of victory exceeded the margin of cheat, and he was actually able to become president.
In the intervening years, the modern communists of both parties (though more so the Democrats) and those same media and academia mandarins have only doubled down on their commitment to subjugating the public and clamping down on our personal freedom and political prerogatives. Somehow, in losing electorally, we are to believe that their mandate for runaway collectivism and authoritarianism was strengthened.
Now, in the 2020 election, the fraud and manipulation became so glaringly obvious that, at the time of writing, at least 47% of all Americans, regardless of party loyalty, understand that the election was stolen and Joe Biden is illegitimate. Somehow though, it is still a long shot that Donald Trump, the person who has done more to expose the mendacity and incompetence of the ruling party and institutions than anyone else, will be seated as President.
Every one of those Americans who understands this must realize that this is it. This is the last moment for the American Republic, the last time we will even have a glimmer of a chance of an honest election result, and the last time any opposition to modern communism will be afforded space in the public square. And yet, neither I nor most of you are going to do anything about this situation that might risk our present status or comfort.
This is why I won’t yet act.
Unfortunately for me, the crisis has come either too late or too early. Our family has four young children, a single income, and a base of assets which could be easily lost but probably never replaced. We are maximally vulnerable to the sorts of attacks which collectivists bring against those who fight back.
Even so, if the fight were on, if the majority of Americans who this past election shows are opposed to creeping collectivism were on the march, I would risk it all to join them. No comfort, no wealth, not even life itself is as important as preserving the possibility of human freedom. The hive-society prison which is being built around us must be demolished at any cost.
But when I look around me, I see many people who are paralyzed as I am. We know that the fight for our republic is unavoidable, and that the time is now, but do not see a nucleus of resistance to which we can pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honors without it being tantamount to suicide. We are watching and waiting for someone else to be that nucleus.
Most people who have not committed to the cause of freedom are not conscious supporters of modern communism. Some hold out the futile hope that things will all go back to normal, others have convinced themselves that what is happening is inevitable and cannot be opposed. Both are dead wrong. As open struggle against collectivism, communism, authoritarianism, and globalism rises, both of these positions will weaken, and support for freedom will grow.
If you have the courage to act where I do not,
here is what I WILL do:
– If you speak out against them, I will listen.
– If you act against them, I will not stand in your way.
– If they portray you as uncool, cringey, old-fashioned, unintelligent, or low-class, I will not laugh at you or think less of you.
– If they call you a racist, sexist, xenophobe, homophobe, Nazi, granny killer, etc., I will not believe them, nor will I care.
– If they call you a terrorist or an extremist, I will not assume that you are in the wrong.
– When they ask me questions, I will lie, forget, or evade as I am able.
– When they tell me their version of history, I will smile and nod and know they are liars.
– If they dispossess you, I will share what I can.
– If they martyr you, my children will learn your name as that of a hero.
– If you have the courage to be shameless in opposing them, you will be honored in my house.
This is what I will remember.
1. The universities and the class of “experts” and “professionals” to whom they grant legitimacy have no constitutional role in the American Republic. No amount of schooling grants one authority over others, and no consensus among the educated should have the force of law.
2. The guarantee in the Constitution of “Freedom of the Press” is not a grant of authority to the legacy media or to professional journalists. It is, in fact, a right belonging to the people: WE have the right to publish and disseminate views and information the same as those who work for newspapers or television networks.
3. The Intelligence and Defense establishments of the US exist to secure the rights and liberties of the American people. The US has constructed a vast apparatus to deploy force, subvert or overthrow governments, and disseminate propaganda, but these activities are only legitimate when they are directed OUTWARD. When the geopolitical capabilities of the US government do not act to empower the American people and sustain our Constitution, they are just as criminal as the same actions taken by private citizens.
4. Law enforcement and defense against violence is the responsibility of each and every person. Even though we have become accustomed to having these services provided by professionals, they remain our right and our personal responsibility.
5. Education of the young is the responsibility of parents and natural communities. Even though we have become accustomed to having this service provided by professionals, it remains our right and our personal responsibility.
6. Provision of necessities such as food and shelter is the responsibility of each and every person. Even though we have become accustomed to these goods being delivered by a vast and interconnected economic machinery over which we have little control, it remains our right and our duty to provide for ourselves and those we care about.
7. Though peace, prosperity, happiness, and a long life are all wonderful conditions to experience, they are not what makes a human life worthwhile. Humans have dignity and value insofar as they are free agents struggling and striving to obtain these ends. “Treating someone as a human being” does not mean coddling them and providing for them like you would a child or a pet. It means getting out of their way and leaving them the freedom and latitude to provide for themselves.
8. Whoever relinquishes their freedom to obtain comfort or security is not acting as a human, but as an animal. Because our fates are all intertwined, such a person is betraying all of us, and does not deserve our concern or regard.
— Sarah Chamberlain
This week, we deep-dive into Manchester schools. What did the recent audit say? (Hint: Enrollment is down and costs are up; buildings need to be shut down.) Also, did school administrators really just get a 5% raise, and extra days off, while schools are closed? Join us for this week’s Manch Talk.
Can someone help me understand where in the Emergency powers legislation it says Governor Chris Sununu can now simply suspend state laws to suit his desires? This is the Emergency Powers law. This is the Executive Order suspending the opt-out portion of state law regarding vaccine registries.
What exactly is the point of NH laws if a governor can now just override laws passed by our duly elected legislature in order to do the federal government’s bidding? What’s next?
For those of us concerned about the Governor’s executory overreach, thus far, the courts have failed us. Based on the initial volley of cases trying to limit the Governor’s emergency powers, it seems hard to find an honest judge who will defend the NH Constitution.
I’m curious whether someone could bring suit under Article 2B of the NH Constitution, which passed in 2018 with more than 80% support: “[Art.] 2-b. [Right of Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent.”I don’t see how suspending a law that protects this sort of privacy can be viewed as anything other than massive overreach… But, I won’t hold my breath.
This was informative, so I wanted to share. I hope people who follow along with me understand something: we are all learning together, which is why allowing open, uncensored conversations is important, without one side controlling “the narrative.” The minute there’s “a narrative,” there’s less freedom, and more control. When that control involves huge profits (rewards) without any liability (no risk), we should be extra, extra skeptical.
You have to ask yourself… if nothing sinister is going on with the government’s response to COVID-19, WHY are they censoring alternative or questioning voices? How, in a free society, is there now only allowed to be “one narrative”? This obvious “tell” should make you extra skeptical before you decide to take a Corona vaccine.
In order for YOU to make accurate medical decisions for yourself, you need:
1. Informed consent (understand what the repercussions will be);
2. Medical choice (you cannot be forced to take a medical intervention you do not want and must be presented with your options); and
3. Body autonomy (you own yourself, aka “your body, your choice”).
This is being stripped from us as the government colludes with Big Pharma to push insufficiently tested vaccines on us.
You need to ask yourself if you are willing to be a guinea pig in a worldwide experiment of a brand new “RNA technology” that NO ONE is willing to insure or stand behind (vaccine makers are exempt from product liability, meaning is something bad happens to you after you get this vaccine, you will be SOL).
This “RNA tech” will introduce synthetic DNA into the human race for the very first time in human history. Since 2002, when they first started trying to develop a corona-vaccine, experiments on animals, including ferrets who have similar immune responses to humans in clinical trails, have had severe negative effects on the subjects’ immune systems.
On top of that, experts are sounding the alarm that these RNA vaccines may caused mass sterilization. I haven’t looked into this yet to see how credible this is, but I will be on the lookout for more data to gain a better understanding of the risks.
The real epidemic that is being spread is fear and hysteria for a somewhat novel Corona virus, with a death-rate similar to previous seasonal flus. The only thing that has changed is how governments worldwide have responded. The time has come to ask WHY? What is going on, and as always, cui bono? Who benefits?
PS: I grant that a few things mentioned sound a little “whoo!” or downright strange. That’s OK. In a robust, peer reviewed world where debate is allowed, we will be able to sift through these positions to come to the right conclusions. Also, before someone says it, I am not categorically anti-vax, I am pro-informed-choice.
A typical progressive position about masks that I run into when expressing my view that in a free society, each individual gets to decide according to their individual risk and health profiles whether to wear a mask or not:
Totally down with personal freedoms if a choice to wear or not wear a mask only affected the mask (non) wearer. But someone else not wearing a mask *does* impinge on my own personal freedom. They can give me a motherfucking virus that we don’t yet have a widely available vaccine for.
Online progressive
My response:
First, the likelihood that bodily fluid from a known carrier lands on you and infects you without YOU being somewhere and having done something (like touched your mask) is almost impossible. By leaving your house, you have always consented to the possibility of infection… or how did flus spread before?
What changed this season? Politicians and the media overreacted, then colluded to scare you out of your mind for a somewhat novel flu with a 99.6% survival rate.
My not wearing a mask does nothing to impinge your freedom. Wearing a mask may create a placebo affect, sure. It may affect how scared/”safe” you FEEL, but you don’t have a right to freedom from fear. Think of it this way, driving a car can be deadly but we don’t call every driver every day a potential murderer. And if you believe that non-maskers are infringing on your right, what “right” is that?
Look, we live in entirely different places, too, and masks certainly aren’t warranted in NH. If there were dead people in the streets, I’d reevaluate what I need to do for me to stay/feel healthy, but given the reality vs. the “pandemic story arc,” as a healthy, free human, I’m making the best choice for me, and you should do the same for you.
My body, my choice, right? Or, are you actually arguing, my body YOUR choice, ‘cos that’s a bitterly steep and dark path. And THAT’S why I am speaking up.
The following is based on an analogy between infectious particles and pollution. However, I realized that it is a very bad analogy. Infection by virii and bacteria is, and has been forever, an inescapable risk of human interaction. As it has ever been, if we do not accept that risk, we should not interact with other humans. Inventing a new right in order to shirk our responsibility for our own health and actions is impermissible. Even if not so, a new right would require the people asserting that right to make the case for it. People that correctly deny that such a right has ever existed does not have to defend the status quo against an empty claim.
A curious “right” has been discovered by some libertarians: The so-called right to not be infected with viruses. Curious, because this right did not exist before, when spreading infection was just the way things were, and the way to herd immunity. Usually, this right is asserted as “You violate the NAP when you don’t wear a mask!”
Let’s get three obvious things out of the way.
First, some hold the extreme position that people are responsible for infection by proxy: Andy bears responsibility for Chris if Andy infects Betty, who in turn infects Chris. Under a just (i.e. free market, libertarian) legal regime, no-one can be held liable for the actions of others. This makes no more sense than if Betty slapped Chris because Andy angered her.
Second, the NAP can only be violated if actual damage occurs, not if damage is possible. Driving a car is not a violation of the NAP, even if it entails the possibility of an accident. Likewise, not wearing a mask, even if it entails the possibility of spreading an infection, cannot be a violation of the NAP.
Third, edge cases, like deliberate attempts to forcibly infect people directly, by restraining them, injecting them, or spraying fluid into their respiratory canals, is outside the scope of this discussion.
With that out of the way, if we examine the mechanics of infection, and the nature of property rights, the charge of a NAP violation, even when spreading infection, becomes mostly baseless.
An infected person expels infectious particles into the air around him, or, transfers them by touch to surfaces. The airborne particles can settle on surfaces, including the bodies of people. Then, an uninfected person has to transfer the particles into their respiratory system via inhaling them, or, via touch. And then, this person may or may not become infected. (There may be a pathway for infection via the eyes or skin, but that would be an extreme minority of cases.) Thus, in the vast majority of cases, the “victim” is an indispensable agent in his own infection.
There is, furthermore, an absolute requirement that a person, in order to be infected, has to be in a place that contains infectious particles. Visiting such places makes the “victim” an indispensable agent in his own infection too.
In a private property regime, leaving infectious particles in the air or on surfaces is just pollution. A property owner can allow infected people on to his property, just like he can allow people who smoke. People can minimize the possibility of getting infected by not visiting places where infected people are allowed. If a person gets infected when visiting such a property, then clearly it is a case of caveat emptor, not a NAP violation.
“Public” spaces would not exist in a libertarian private property regime, so there would not be places where the admission of infected people would not be governed by private contract. “Public property” under the current regime is at best un-owned, or at worst, stolen. If ownership does not exist, or is illegitimate, then all rules governing use of that property are illegitimate. So people that get infected on public property would also be a case of caveat emptor, not a NAP violation.
In cases where property owners bar infected people, and an infected person knowingly enters, the NAP violation is a violation of an implicit contract with the property owner. Simple trespass, not murder, as the advocates for the NAP violation would have it. Anyone who gets infected as a result of the pollution of that property has a dispute with the property owner, not the trespasser.
Since no property owner can guarantee 100% protection against infection, visitors always agree to the possibility of getting infected. If they do get infected, they are due the compensation offered by the property owner (if any), no more. Since they agreed to being infected, what claim do they have against the polluting trespasser?
Finally, it is worth considering that in previous flu seasons, property owners were not barring entry to infected people, and no-one was accused of “murdering grandma” because they left their house without a mask. A somewhat novel virus with a 99.6% survival rate does not justify the establishment of a new “right” and a new “crime”. Under libertarian property law, there is no NAP violation in choosing not to wear a mask, other than run-of-the-mill trespass, where it applies.
(I update this essay to strengthen the argument, based on feedback and counter-arguments. I’d like to thank Varrin Swearingen and Paul Best for their thoughtful contributions.)
- 1
- 2