A Genie Let Out

Bags of domestic house cats taken from the homes of people testing positive for the famous pathogen in Shanghai, China, on the street, alive, awaiting collection for slaughter. People all over that city of 25 million locked in their houses, indefinitely, screaming from their windows and balconies, suicides by jumping and hanging all over place. Drone dogs walking the streets and flying drones above telling people to stay indoors and to quash their need for freedom.

Drone ‘dog’ with loudspeaker attached to back

Is it acceptable to say yet in polite company that the ‘remedies’ are now orders of magnitude more fearsome, gruesome and harmful than the modest risk they are supposedly meant to mitigate? For those that would say, ‘But that’s China! Would never happen here.’, I would respond that China has received praise for its handling of the ‘crisis’ from people at the public servant forefront of the c19 social phenomenon in Western countries, and there is certainly no outcry or condemnation from the officialdom of the West. It can happen anywhere, especially while people continue to claim that it can’t, completely ignoring history in so doing.

Who cares, anyway, where it’s happening? The crisis, response and policies were global ones, and mostly uniform from the start. China is just the leading edge of all of it. A totalitarian place where the state can do absolutely anything it wants without hesitation or possibility of reprisal, and a testing ground.

How close to Terminator and 1984 does the world have to get, I wonder, even if not yet fully in place on one’s own shores, before the regular people that live upon it (not those running it), that have thus far supported the extreme and irrational measures taken to contain a relatively minor viral risk for anyone under 70, might rethink that support, and start showing some concern for their own basic liberty and that of others? Is one ‘safe’ without freedom? Is the greater good served by its removal, by its conversion from fundamental right to conditional privilege? Is it not obvious that getting a virus is by far the more benign scenario in comparison to the totalitarian ‘safety’ measures China has put in place, and which are likely to get exported elsewhere, to some degree or another (and already have been to Australia and New Zealand)?

What are supporters of official policy and narrative going to do if it does and the health services come for their animals? Will it finally register then what they’re supporting, and that those measures have nothing at all to do with public safety or the ‘greater good’, or will they just hand over their family member – that’s what pets are for many or most – for slaughter and continue trusting and apologizing for the ‘authorities’ and such vicious policies?

What a horrifying end for those suicides and animals (dogs are being slaughtered, as well). Imagine the torment of the jumpers (some apparently have no food, and can’t even leave their homes to get any), not knowing when it might ever end, deciding they can’t do it anymore. Imagine the ongoing anguish and memory of those that have their animals taken, trying to live with watching your beloved creature ripped from your arms and stuffed in a bag, looking out at you wondering what’s going on? The impotency and transgression, the violation of that moment, and the memory it would create, is hard for me to imagine being able to reconcile with. That’s staggering harm caused to a person’s psyche and soul. And, compared to catching and fighting a virus? That’s the benefit? I’d rather lose to the virus than experience the moment of my animal being taken.

Most important, can you imagine the hearts, minds and souls of those issuing such orders, and, of those carrying them out? Look at the videos linked herein. I assume they are sadists and sociopaths. Without empathy, certainly. Ultimately, they are the problem and the heart of the phenomenon, what makes it possible. Those people start refusing their ‘orders’ and it all ends.

Plenty of people in the West admire the Chinese state, its orderliness and resolve. Do you want to be living in a world dominated by such people, by THAT energy and outlook and credo? Would it not be incalculably better to risk contracting a survivable virus, however unpleasant, which if you survive, as you likely would, you would then have natural immunity from, than to face the risks, evil, ugliness, and quality of life obliteration that this all represents?

All the ‘measures’ were nominally about public safety, the general welfare. No one is safer for any of this, and the general welfare has been dealt a savage blow, a deadly genie released from its bottle.

I hope people are starting to see it. A Rubicon has definitely been crossed. It won’t just be China, and there will be other pathogens. Always, and this one was/is mild and very survivable. If freedom is now conditioned upon the absence of contagious pathogens in society, then we no longer have it.

China under COVID is a hell on earth

Here are several videos of what’s happening in China-a horror story that “our free press” is not telling, since all they do is pump out propaganda, and propaganda only tells one story at a time.

The Situation and Choice Made Clear

‘I am opposed to self-defense’ – Macron says farmer had no right to kill a burglar who broke into his home

After a farmer shot a man who broke into his home, French President Emmanuel Macron said the French people do not have the right to self-defense, and the man should have instead let the police handle the incident. Macron made his controversial remarks on Europe 1 news channel while broadcasting in Fourras, France, after learning […]

‘I am opposed to self-defense’ – Macron says farmer had no right to kill a burglar who broke into his home

This is as clear as the distinction between individual liberty/self-ownership and collectivism – i.e., enforced association with a ‘group’, and the idea that the group owns the individuals thought to comprise it, or has the controlling interest, at least – can be made.

Macron’s position means that someone, and in this case, also that someone’s child, being actively trespassed against and threatened, property and person(s), will be considered criminally in the wrong for defending himself and his child in the moment against the threat, and should simply submit to the will of the intruders if police help cannot be called in time to intervene, or perhaps called at all. If they are harmed or killed, so be it. Bad luck for them, and maybe next time the police will get there in time to avert the same outcome, but at least the group will feel ‘safe’ knowing that the (law abiding) citizenry is disarmed. Meaning, I guess, that in the event someone was harmed or killed in such a moment, that the people of the ‘group’ – none of whom are present or in any danger – would presumably feel safer (if those harmed were among the people being intruded upon, rather than the intruders), knowing that, at least, the victim wasn’t armed, too.

This is where ‘the social contract’ and ideas of the general welfare and the greater good always lead, with the conceptual welfare of the group – musn’t let things become the ‘Wild West’ (with defending oneself from violence, in the moment, as opposed to pre-meditated vigilante retribution after the fact, being considered a Wild West feature) – deemed paramount to an actual and current threat being faced by a real physical person and his child, and this is a simple enough scenario for anyone to contemplate and make a choice about. It relates to nearly everything in human society.

• There is a moral component – which is enough for this writer by itself – that being the question of whether each person can be said to own his or her own life and person (body). I decided long ago that this is obviously correct and reasonable, an unavoidable conclusion. Therefore, no permission from the group is required to defend oneself, and it can never be made illegal to do so.

• There is also a practical component, and which should be equally obvious, that being that the police are not normally able to and cannot be expected to reach crime scenes in progress in order to intervene in time to save the targets of crimes and violence, and that, further, it may not even be possible to contact the police at such a moment, for any number of reasons.

For both reasons, the notion that self-defense be considered immoral and made illegal is completely absurd, and a kind of slightly veiled evil cloaked in a pseudo-noble concern for the group’s (conceptual) welfare, while completely dismissing the welfare of the real persons under actual threat. Someone not being able to legally defend themself against intrusion and actual, threatened or implied coming violence is preposterously unreasonable, and the ‘group’, to the extent that it can even be said to exist, is not at all threatened or undermined by such self-defense by a real person. On the contrary, the prospects and options for others in similar situations are only enhanced. In any case, the intruders’ lives and welfare were forfeit the moment they stepped onto his property, for being there uninvited with the intent they brought with them.

If, after considering this very simple scenario and choice, one finds oneself in agreement with Macron, that it should be illegal to defend oneself (that means completely; with enough force to end the threat, lethal potential force versus same if necessary), then to those people I would say that your awareness of history is either feeble or sequestered, on hold, and that there’s something fundamentally broken about both your moral compass and your practical reasoning. Or you have a spiritual or psychological pathology.

There is no defending this position. Macron and his outlook are a clear and present danger to free, peaceful people of goodwill. It’s not his call. The defense of your life is not Macron’s (or anyone else’s) call.

Another Peek Behind the Curtain

Ex CIA Chief Duane McClarridge “We’ll intervene whenever we want to – Get used to it world!”

John Pilger interviews ex CIA Chief Duane McClarridge Segment from the documentary War On Democracy

It’s the viewing of exchanges like this, and there are so many of them now to see, which make it increasingly amazing to me that people continue to care about the public spectacle theatre that happens in front of the curtain, think that it matters, expend energy analyzing and arguing vitriolically about it. Trump v. Biden, for one example. Neither should have become President or even have had the chance to hold the office, and they aren’t in charge, anyway.

The unelected and unaccountable people behind the curtain at the back of the house run the show, the world, and do so at the behest and on behalf of those that own the theatre. What those two entities, the real managers, like Clarridge, and the owners, do matters greatly, and makes hypocrites of us all. At the very least we can definitively say the foreign policy of the United States (of any western nation) has nothing at all to do with making the world ‘safe for democracy’, seeing as how it undermines democratic processes routinely, relentlessly, and by design.

That policy and the entities that carry it out exist to defend, preserve and expand the interests of the ownership class. All discussions not factoring in that and other bedrock, fundamental aspects of human society and governance just enable the continuance of the harm and hypocrisy indefinitely.

This exchange describes how the world really works. One very important aspect, at least. Powerful people and entities do what they want, and make it look like or call it something else, or make it invisible. Should that reality ever get accepted by the majority, and be the thing gets addressed and discussed above all else, then the basis for positive and permanent change in human society will become a genuine potential, but not until then, or so I believe.

All One Needs To Know

Lawrie Letter to Andrew Hill
https://odysee.com/@OracleFilms:1/2022.03.04-A-Letter-to-Andrew-Hill-V8_HD:3?t=1

Besides that which is objectively verifiable and inarguable, another gauge that I rely on more often when assessing information that’s not as yet clear cut, and perhaps may never be, is the tone and demeanor of those conveying it. Incivility, for one example, is an easy tell for insincerity, lying, bad intent, and abuse of power when the incivility is coupled with a position of wanting or attempting to compel others to do or not do something and has the force of the state to back up that compulsion.

While not uncivil, it is difficult to watch the coward of a man in this video attempt to equivocate his self-serving and catastrophic position, and which he only even feebly does, knowing how indefensible it is. He can barely look at the woman, and makes little attempt to prevent her frequent interruptions, knowing he hasn’t a leg to stand on. This is the very definition of ‘regulatory capture’ (as in, Wall Street owns the SEC; Monsanto owns the FDA, EPA, etc.), and his is the face of a corrupted and cowed bureaucrat. He is not protecting the general welfare, which is ostensibly his job. Dr. Hill is, rather, protecting his job and serving a different purpose.

So, for anyone with an open mind that’s been wondering if Ivermectin is or would have actually been helpful during the situation of the last two years (which is all better now – for the moment – with the European war come to replace it as the crisis of the moment), here’s your answer. There are many studies saying that IVM works, but those are countered by other studies, and fact-checkers, and late-night comedians, and mostly, by the agencies and people that guide the mainstream, approved narrative of the past two years. Most people don’t have the time or the inclination to weed through and weigh all that out.

Anyone has enough time to watch this, however, and watching it one realizes that the claims that Ivermectin works were always true, had to be, as this exchange makes obvious (and that being true, then, the injections were never candidates for emergency use authorization, since with IVM there was always an effective remedy available, so the justification for the EUA was never valid, the same or hydroxychloroquine). One of these people is lying, dodging, showing no integrity. It’s not Dr. Lawrie. She’s on firm ground and she knows it. It’s a humiliating thing to watch, actually. Dr. Hill is embarassingly weak, and people surely died needlessly because of it.

I believe this dynamic informs everything non-trivial that happens in the public sphere, and is the consequential part of why I don’t support centralized power. It always gets captured, and so far cannot be prevented from being so. People like this man and their positions always come to authority over others, or are allowed to, or are specifically installed into such stations, recruited into the service of those with genuine power. His position is weak, wrong and super harmful. It also has had the official backing of states worldwide, the mainstream scientific and medical communities, and major corporate news media.

That is the problem underlying everything, every issue of importance. The details and the particular situations and issues change; that paradigm never does, but it needs to now. It used to be a murkier thing, but it’s become pretty clear at this point, at least for anyone willing to acknowledge that which is standing right in front of them.

Nothing liberal now about the Left

Against free speech, against free (and peaceful) assembly, against bodily autonomy. Outside of a few pet issues, against freedom, in general, and harshly so. Stridently and consistently opposed, should they ever step out of conformity to the accepted narratives or game plans, to genuine liberals like, among many others, the author of the linked article – though deemed completely heretic now, an open-minded, civil and critically thinking absolute champ, a long-time professor at NYU, with an unimpeachable progressive pedigree, and, as a voluntarist libertarian, a liberal I’d be happy to live in community with (or very nearby, anyway) – and to sincere public advocates like Robert Kennedy, Jr. and, before him, Ralph Nader, both men of principle and good will with risks taken, costs absorbed and good works to prove it, yet reviled by the ‘left’, whether the rank and file or the ‘Establishment’.

What kind of “left” attacks the working class as “fascist,” and pushes FOR the “vaccination” of the poor worldwide?

While all eyes have been on Canada, there also have been massive Freedom Convoys, and joyous multitudes applauding them, and turning out to help them, all around the world.

I agree with Miller’s assessment, and think the general re-framing of the issue at hand, made increasingly by many and for awhile now, is correct. None of this is about Left or Right, liberal vs. conservative, capitalism vs socialism. It’s much simpler. One is either for the liberty of the individual, or for control, for both being controlled and for controlling others through the intermediary of the group. You either own yourself or the group does. We know where the latter conception and road leads. People still embrace it, though. It’s remarkable to me. https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/p/what-kind-of-left-attacks-the-working?utm_source=url