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.
There could hardly be a greater example of not owning oneself or being sovereign over one’s own children than the issue of vaccination, and in Australia they are now ratcheting up the message of just who is the owner and sovereign of the lives on that continent, and in general what the relationship between individuals and their governments is in all like governments worldwide.
The paradoxes are several; one may NOT take one group of drugs (those on the drug war list, some not particularly harmful, some beneficial even), though the entities that forbid the ingestion, possession, cultivation and marketing of these substances have been and are known to have a big hand in the latter two aspects; while one is simultaneously and hugely encouraged to take drugs on a different list (those constantly promoted on commercial television, most of which have long lists of warnings and damaging side effects, and many of which are as addictive or more addictive than the drugs on the first list); and now there is a category of substances that people will be REQUIRED to take into their bodies, per state edict, and which are verifiably known to contain harmful components, like aluminum.
In any case, you definitely don’t own your own body Down Under, and your kids belong to the state. Should be starting to make people really nervous, this sort of thing. I hope that’s the case, or will be soon.
Time to say no. Time to step away.
Australia vaccination: all doctors under the gun: minister of health keeps lying by Jon Rappoport November 25, 2017 Welcome to the Australian state of Victoria, where the minister of health, Jill Hennessy, has just put all doctors under the gun. Vaccinating every child has become so important to Hennessey, she’s declared that a doctor who…
If its impetus and genesis can even be believed to be organic, and not conducted by precisely those ‘unintended’ beneficiaries who may stand and plan to gain from a ‘be careful what you wish for’ outcome (a difficult sell for any mass movement at this point), the linked article below is shared here on The DMP rather than its sister site The Black Sheep Herald because, while it is ‘good news’ in the sense that this tendency/movement in Italy (referred to in a previous BSH post) is growing, possibly spreading even, and is, at least, remaining in the news, it’s also an example of a perfectly collectivist and default perspective. Not good news, in that sense, but the way things are certainly.
That is to say, the commenting linker at Global Research (DK Matai?), calls the movement, “a manifestation of extreme social “egotism”, of generalized destruction of any form of solidarity and adherence to more general projects….’Everybody for himself’ seems to dominate the continent,” while article’s author writes, “It could be said that Northern Italy feels the same way as Northern Europe towards the Mediterranean Europe: a tendency that indicates a more or less marked lack of solidarity between all the European states….,” the implication being that all Europeans should feel solidarity with each other, whichever of its nations they are in or are from. But, why is that, at least for the ones who know better, that may have learned and accepted some things that others haven’t yet or don’t ever want to?
Let’s say a European citizen is aware of the corruption of European governmental actions and of its totalitarian favoring structure and is aware that private entities own that structure almost entirely, and use it to do their bidding – and which as a criticism, by the way, has nothing to do with preferring “Everybody for himself” – and that there is no way to alter the course of that partnered combination entity (that of government with powerful private and corporate wealth) while also supporting it, why should the tepid idea of “solidarity” trump that knowledge, particularly if that solidarity is not about addressing nor even includes an awareness of the more fundamental problem and dynamic?
We don’t own each other, and one is not morally and perpetually obliged to participate in that which one knows to be hyper corrupt and hyper harmful because there are public works or social services that a purported majority of people at any given moment within a given geography would like to see done. “Hey, it’s too bad about all that drone bombing and the depleted uranium and Agent Orange, and those economic sanctions that wound up killing hundreds of thousands of people ‘over there’, but we’ve gotta fund food stamps here at home, so all that will just have to continue, I guess, darn it, because, well, we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater! Thanks! Maybe you can vote those people and policies you don’t like out of office and off the books in, say, a few thousand years or so (and hope that their spots aren’t immediately taken by people and new laws just like them, and into a system that still naturally begets such outcomes while naturally thwarting all others). In the meantime, you’re part of the group and owe it a debt and have to pitch in, forever, so quit complaining. Thanks!”
If the social entity ‘everybody’ thinks is an agent for good is provably not, then why should anyone who realizes this be expected and required to participate in and with it? My argument is that no one should be, and I wonder how many people have ever contemplated the social structure they live under or the assumptions being made to support its existence and adherence to it?
That’s got to be a very small number of people, but I think it’s growing, and it’s likely that some of these people in Catalonia and Venuto and Lombardia and Scotland are not rabid nationalists or bigots, but rather are aware of the above realities and of the warnings of history and literature, and so would just prefer that any centralized authority they are currently required to live under be much smaller and much closer to home.
Venice and Lombardy: Why Is the Request for Independence Growing? The following article was written before the recent referendum in Venice and Lombardy. It remains relevant as far as, everything happening in Europe those days is becoming, more a more, a manifestation of extreme social “egotism”, of generalized destruction of any form of solidarity and adherence to more general projects.