This gentleman routinely and plainly describes the situation, tendencies and dynamics of human society in a way I completely agree with. Were all those that have the capacity to do so to flip the switch and view things more realistically and as fully as is possible, down to core, behind the scenes aspects, and understand that nothing will or can be ever remediated as society is currently ordered, by design, then the theoretical possibility for a change for the better would exist. So I believe.
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.
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.
Melbourne is a major Western city of the Anglo-Saxon ‘free’ and 1st world, so whatever happens, is happening there, is absolutely possible and perhaps slated to happen also elsewhere in like places of similar values and origins. So, if this isn’t a Rubicon crossing and point to become openly worried, then I wonder what would constitute that point? I suspect that for many no such point exists.
Besides being the most consistent position to take morally, philosophically, and practically, I am the voluntarist type of libertarian at this point in my life because of situations like this. That is, as the linked article lays out, there are SO MANY reasonable, plausible and significant points upon which to question, doubt and differ with the mainstream narrative about CV-19 that there is no way for a thinking person to ignore them all, nor the overwhelming appearance of impropriety, malfeasance, fraud and obvious agendas on display, whatever can actually be exactly proved at any given moment by an individual person just trying to live his life.
I’m certain that I wasn’t born to support or be forced to take part in actions that ultimately seem likely to create far more harm than the original ‘risk’ did itself, nor to spend my life in a mask or stuck in my house based on the edicts of a central authority with motivations and a track record I can have no faith in, nor in proving or endlessly arguing the wrongness or criminality of the actions or behavior of others, much less litigating them at great cost of both time and money in order to take a meaningful action in stepping away from those situations and the people involved with and responsible for them. No more so than I am required to prove the basis for some bad feelings or instinct of warning I might get in the presence of certain people. That is, if my hackles go up around someone, for whatever reason, even if unexplainable or unverifiable, I can simply choose to disassociate. Likewise, should I go into a shop and receive treatment from its personnel I consider unwelcoming or unhelpful. I just don’t go there again.
One cannot choose to disassociate with the state (and its owners), however. Not so far, but this situation is a clear example of why that option will surely be necessary if humans are to continue on as an organic species and to ever really become a free one.