stealing their grain through taxes and unfair rent." (Amos 5:11)
[updated September 19th, 2022]
I just came across the quote "You can solve all of the world's problems in a garden," and there's a lot of truth to that, but why does almost everyone ignore the fact that having a garden-based society is not going to happen as long as it is not financially possible for most people on Earth to participate in one? And rather than think band-aid small/limited steps in the right direction, as good as they are (I certainly like to see them), like a bit more urban "green spaces," community gardens, or plants on top of and inside city buildings, rather than focus on those small and limited steps, why can't we be focused on the real big-leap solution that would have the mostpositive benefit and also be the mostjust, namely recognizing that a bit of land, water & seed for nonviolent/veganic homesteading is a birthright of every human? Why is that repeatedly ignored, even when spelled out in detail? By ignoring that we will in fact never see significant positive change for the better, we will never "return to Eden."
If people had the option to have some private/sovereign natural space (approximately 1 hectare), where they could cultivate a garden and orchard for themselves and/or family (in a natural voluntary gift-economy community of others doing the same), ending their dependency on the soul-sucking money-system, also ending unnecessary hunger and various other hardships that come with this unnatural and unjust global social-system set-up, don't you think billions of people would do so? Of course they would. But this real solution is almost never discussed or even debated, due to people apparently mentally stuck in the Status Quo Fallacy, Failure of Imagination Fallacy, and Fallacy of Incredulity, and the fact that's it's never presented as an option to think about at all.
When we can't grow food freely we're really not free; people often promote decentralization and self-sufficiency, but the key for that, ignored over & over, is recognizing human birthrights to survival natural resources: The key property rights needed for freedom are bodily autonomy, and birthrights to survival natural resources: homesteading land, water & seed. Why does almost everyone crazily dance around that clear and comprehensive solution? Without sovereign gardening space you're necessarily being exploited and ruled over; and since voluntary communities of sovereign homesteads exist nowhere right now, fundamentally all the people in the world are actually under different shades of Communist rule.
Unfortunately and ironically people have been programmed to associate land redistribution with Communism (as if only State-employees could ever do that), and they ignore that their "free" "capitalism" is actually a social-system run fundamentally via central banks and income tax, which are two pillars of the actual Communist Manifesto! People have been duped into believing up is down and down is up. So many problems would be solved from disconnecting from a toxic unnatural social system, yet people cling to logical fallacies as good reasons to continue on with the status quo.
Along with the aforementioned benefits of ending the root injustice of homesteading natural resource birthright denial, if everyone could eat fresh and organic vegetables, greens, herbs and fruits from their own garden, and be able to enjoy the sunshine and fresh air while gardening, that would no doubt alleviate myriad physical and mental health issues people are suffering with as well, better than the band-aid treatments of pharmaceuticals and heart disease surgeries, et al. People go to detox centers where they basically just get a version of living on a veganic homestead, but it's only temporary because they gotta get back to earning money to pay the rent/mortgage/proprety taxes. Everyone is dealing with the myriad problems of living with The Root Injustice, but no one is pinpointing what that injustice is exactly, and what the exact solution to it is, so the drudgery just goes on and on.
You will never see or hear a barrage of mainstream media promoting the benefits of men, being naturally and fully masculine, and women, being naturally and fully feminine, living self-sufficiently, non-violently and truly sustainably off the land, because that is where real empowerment is, freed of system-dependency and negative karmic-feedback, it would be a return to the original perfect design for humans for highest happiness, a “return to Eden,” a return to the original design of the good Creator. In order to not be a slave of the system we must get our needs directly from the Earth instead, so this is continuously made out to be backwards, dangerous, stupid, etc., (as well as economically impossible for most people) when in fact it's the ideal way for humans to live on Earth, with the highest potential for satisfaction and social harmony/justice. The big picture of what's going on is that God's original plan for humanity, to be gardeners who cultivated and cared for the natural world (including animals), as pointed to in Genesis 2:15, is in fact the ideal, on multiple qualitative & moral levels, but humanity is being distracted away from that fact constantly; the system is a grand deception and conceited folly, trying to improve upon that ideal original plan for humanity;; no improvements have been made, things have just gotten more toxic and oppressive, as the only truly good and free way of life is made more and more obscure, as homestead communities exist less and less every year globally.
It's not that complicated, but people seem to always overcomplicate it. Land, water & seed for natural living, survival, privacy, and freedom, are pre-existing God-created birthrights of all humans. That's what needs to be focused on and repeated, not going off on dismissive "that's impossible/impractical" or irrelevant "but some people won't like that" tangents; the societal change will organically occur at local levels once that birthright is widely accepted as true and good. About 2 acres for sovereign veganic/nonviolent homesteads (not enslaving and murdering animals or spreading toxins/GMOs), forming voluntary communities, is the clear answer that the Non-aggression Principle and Reality/Nature points to.
The objection that "all the land is already owned" ignores the main crucial point that owning more land & water than you need for your iwn homestead is actually the theft of other people's birthright, so it's not valid ownership just like owning slaves you paid for isn't valid.
A slaveowner can say "I paid for this man," but the man was never rightfully up for sale in the first place; having more land & water than you need is actually stealing the survival/freedom birthright of others; that's the key truth almost no one is talking about, and that's why nothing is really changing for the better.
To "agree in principle" but then not even repeat the solution to anyone because of possible bad reactions or logistics that need to be voluntarily sorted out... I'm trying to make it clear, as L. Rose has too (in his more generalized way), that it's actually getting people to understand and agree openly with the principle/solution that is most important, saying "but making it a reality could be difficult!" is like telling a warrior defending his village before battle, "but they will resist you," yeah no kidding, abusers resist stopping the abuse, which is ultimately irrelevant. Please try to focus on "sovereign veganic homesteads," it's tiring being the only one actually saying the words, as if everyone else is under a spell preventing them from spreading the actual solution.
Just because there would be difficulties/resistance/complications doesn't mean it's not the best and just solution overall, it clearly is, because anything less than that is actually social-injustice; denial of homesteading land, water & seed is a form of slavery, and slavery is the evil we need to fully abolish.
Land, water and seed are already built, it's a straw-man fallacy to say that I'm saying others will be required to build houses and gardens for others. And again the main point of a birthright (as in it belongs to newborn babies, without them doing anything for it), is that is not "given" by anyone because it was not theirs to give in the first place, God already gave it to us. Those objecting to sovereign homesteads being a birthright if everyone talk like slave-masters who used to say things like "Why should I just give this man his freedom, he has to earn it, take action, be responsible, before he deserves it." The idea that a birthright claim *to not be abused and exploited* is "irresponsible" and even somehow abusive itself (demanding "sacrifice" of others), is completely absurd (and again sounds like authoritarians of the past and present).
To object by basically saying "you gotta work for it" is completely dismissive of the justness of it being a cost/tax-free birthright not created by any man *needed for survival and freedom*, and the economic reality that most hard-working people still can't afford their own homestead, and even if they could, if it wasn't sovereign they still wouldn't really be free (e.g., property tax). A close-minded regurgitation of academia's platitudes (and/or a favorite author's view on natural resource property) doesn't actually hold up to reality and the Non-aggression Principle.
If people crash-landed on an uninhabited island they'd share the pre-existing food/seed, water and space because that's the sane and ethical thing to do, and that's the same exact thing I'm advocating; the objection "Well it's different because some rich people already bought all the land" is weak and false ethics, that again ignores that morally right birthrights actually do exist, that the inalienable birthrights of life & liberty *are* denied if you're denied cost/tax-free survival/homesteading land & water, because that undermines both life & liberty directly.
"By removing opportunities to live self-sufficient lives, the Marxists create a system of slavery and convince everyone that it was done in the name of fairness. It’s the same story every time."
So if you agree homesteading land, water & seed is a free birthright of humanity, please bring that crucial truth and solution up with others regularly, because it will never happen until more people are talking and agreeing about it; the thinking must be aligned with it before it can start manifesting.
“You know that in this world kings are tyrants, and officials lord over the people beneath them. But among you it should be quite different." "The ruler of this world now stands condemned."
- Jesus Christ (Mark 10:42, John 16:11)
"We live in a very low state of the world, and pay unwilling tribute to governments founded on force.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson, from his essay Politics
"Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than human beings!'"
(Acts 5:29)
[updated 7/10/22]
Most people, and understandably so, find anarchist philosophy to not be something practical for society, because they've been led to believe that anarchy is the same thing as chaos, that if there was anarchy, then bad people would just do whatever violence they wanted to do, and no one would stop them; people have been led to believe that anarchy equates to no moral law in effect, and so immoral behavior would then run rampant and unchecked. And no one in their right mind wants there to be more violence and destruction in the world, so anarchism is dismissed, usually immediately, again because the people doing so have been led to believe that anarchy means chaos, no moral law, and no bad consequence for violence. Anarchy actually just means "No Rulers," the second definition of "destruction
and chaos" is actually a false replacement definition that rulers have put on the word anarchy, in order to neutralize any resistance to their rule. Who is a ruler? A ruler is a
person that abusively controls other people. And guess what happens when you make abusers the leaders of society? Well, ironically for those believe States prevent chaos, repeating patterns of chaos/war/terrorism/tyranny are what happens. This shouldn't be a surprise, the problem is most people don't believe the abuse is abuse, because they've been heavily indoctrinated to not see it (especially the foundational extortion/taxation) as abuse, but rather as a "service." In other words people have been deceived into seeing abuse as love, and this has been the root cause of humanity's problems, from the very beginning.
Abuse is the opposite of
love, it's evil behavior. So, since extorting rulers are abusive, an anarchist is simply someone who is
against abusive control. In other words, anarchy is an expression of the Non-Aggression Principle, the principle that states that the initiation of violence is always wrong. Self-defense force is not aggression/violence, as some also wrongly define that as; defensive force is the forcible and proportional response to violence that has already commenced, so pure anarchism is not against that.
When most people think about why we need governments, the #1 reason thought of and said to be why is protection, and that protection means fundamentally protection from abuse; the Bill of Rights are fundamentally about being protected from abuse. So then, why would we need to set up a system of abuse, to protect us from abuse? Why think we need evil to do good in the world? The mistake is not only thinking that we need evil to accomplish good, but that evil could ever accomplish good; in reality it ultimately can't, that's what makes evil evil, it's the opposite of good, and God's creation doesn't allow for the nonsense backwardness of evil and the sane good of the non-aggression principle really being one and the same. It really is this simple, but the propaganda/indoctrination/brainwashing is constantly working to confuse you about this so you'll accept evil as a means to accomplish the good, more specifically and fundamentally in this discussion, so you'll accept that extortion is the best means of ensuring protection.
In the current March 2022 issue of the print magazine America's 1st Freedom, the cover story article is on 10 truths about our rights, and the first truth stated is "We all have natural rights, which are granted by our Creator, not our government," and #2 is stated as "Our government exists to protect our natural rights." #1 is certainly true, but how can #2 be true if that "protection" is actually done by violating those rights, which are again fundamentally the natural right to not be abused? The intention of government may have been the protection of our natural right to not be abused, but if government is actually based on abuse (which it is), then the means are contrary to the intention; again you can't actually achieve good ends from evil means, that is a key ethical and metaphysical truth for humans, that although most might agree with when stated plainly like that, they don't usually see or agree that they are actually going against that fundamental ethical and metaphysical truth by overlooking the abuses of governments as a "necessary evil" in order to achieve "the greater good." That utilitarian tough-love viewpoint might seem smart and practical, but it's actually neither.
When people say that we need "The Rule of Law," that's true, but the devil is in the details concerning what "rule of" should be, and what that "law" is fundamentally. The fundamental moral Law is actually what Jesus said it is: to comprehensively love (Matthew 22:36-40 & Mark 12:28-32 & Luke10:25-28). And the opposite of loving action is actually abuse, so abuse is really what's against the true and fundamental Law for humans on Earth. And again, defensive force is not a form of violence/abuse, it's actually a form of love, defending people from abuse. So the right way to have "rule of law" is first to be clear that abuse (which can be in the form of aggression, deception/cheating or theft) is what Law-violation actually is, and then secondly, to be clear that using defensive force to stop that abuse is the proper loving response, in keeping with that Law. So the mistake, again due to deception and propaganda, is thinking that rulers, who fundamentally exist and operate because of extortion, which is a form of abuse, are necessary in order to carry out defensive force against abusers; humanity has been deceived into believing that we need abusers to stop abusers; we don't, and that's why anarchism, especially Christian Anarchism, makes a lot of sense and is not at all "crazy" as you've been led to believe it is. Institutions based on abuse should be condemned rejected completely; a of good-intentioned people hesitate in doing this because they right think that we should never condemn an individual person, mistakenly equating the abusive social-system structure with a person, the latter being redeemable while the former is not. Yes governments are made up of individual people, but they are people carrying out an abusive program/paradigm, and so rejecting that paradigm is not equivalent with rejecting/condemning individual people, which Jesus told us not to do when he said "Judge (i.e., condemn) not..."
Again the true Law that is the foundation for any sound moral rules, is simply The Non-Abuse Principle (the other side of The Greatest Commandments of Jesus); it's an extremely basic ethic, it's just
promoting basic decency. If a "regular" person committed extortion against you, or tried to coerce you into taking their favorite drug, or tried to disarm you even though you haven't been violent, would you find all of that to be aggressive? Of course you would. And if you became shipwrecked on an uninhabited island with a bunch of other vacationers, wouldn't the rational thing to do be to share the land, water and seed on that island evenly among you, so that no one could dominate and abusively control any one else? Of course. But what if a politician commits extortion, drug & medical device-pushing, disarmament, and controls the necessities of survival that are actually your free birthright? Wouldn't it still be wrong? Here is where the statist departs from common sense and basic ethics, and enters the fairy-land of "social-contracts" and "representatives," an abuse-condoning illusory realm inhabited by indoctrinated idol-worshipers that never speak of the Non-Aggression Principle. Here is where The Golden Rule is discarded, supposedly for "the greater good." Here is where basic neighbor-to-neighbor ethics is discarded, because people irrationally think States aren't actually just people too (just people with a different job), and irrationally think those people are somehow automatically superior to everyone else, just because of that employment. Here is where the three main blunders (or deceptions) come into play:
1) The blunder/deception that "Some people are bad, so we need government to protect us from those bad people," as if those bad people couldn't be, and never have been, the government themselves, and
2) The blunder/deception that abuse (e.g., extortion, medical tyranny and disarmament) equals protection, and
3), The blunder/deception that we couldn't have safety, education or health services without extortion, ignoring the private sector and charitable organizations as if they don't exist and oftentimes do a better service than the government version, and ignoring that local police, firefighters, teachers and medical experts could basically just continue on with their jobs, continue on with offering their services to the community, just without their paychecks funded by extortion, and without having a "commander in chief" politician that they have sworn to obey no matter how deranged he or she is.
So the big "revelation" with exposing these 3 Blunders is simply that governments are just people too and we don't need people given the "authority" to abuse, to make the world a better place! Adding abuse to the world doesn't actually help! It's really that simple!
It is that simple ultimately, however because of how people have been programmed, it takes some discussion to get to that simple conclusion; it takes critical thinking and analysis; some debate and some questioning of unquestioned "truths," to reach that simple truth that really is true. Stevie Ray Vaughn asked in one of his songs "Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?" and the answer is that it was thwarted by immoral deception, immoral deception that you can start to free yourself from by thinking through those aforementioned blunders; also key is to keep in mind that what's going on is fundamentally a confusion over identity and ethics, namely rulers have people confused about who they are fundamentally, and what fundamental basic ethics are. Who are you fundamentally? What's fundamentally good and what's fundamentally evil? If you really knew the correct answers to those questions, anarchism wouldn't seem like a foolish philosophy to you, it would seem like common sense. Are you a human being, created by God, or are you the livestock of politicians that you happened to be born near? Why is something abusive when you do it (e.g., extortion, restricting someone's travel, disarming them, invading their privacy, pushing drugs and medical devices on them, etc.), but not abusive when politicians do the same thing? Knowing your core identity and knowing core ethics would actually bring down their house of cards, and so that's why they're constantly working on confusing you concerning your identity (e.g., with identity politics and nationalism), and confusing you concerning what's unethical (e.g., with daily fear-mongering and guilt-tripping). This is why they employ controlled opposition to say things like "Our leaders are out of control, no longer serving their own populations," so that you still subconsciously identify with the false identity as human livestock, and still subconsciously accept the false morality of the appeal to authority and "obedience to rulers/system = being a good person," and still subconsciously accept that the solution is simply petitioning politicians, assumed to be legitimate "leaders," to rule correctly (deep ethics reminder: abusing/ruling over people can't be made good because abuse is pure evil).
Keeping you confused on your true identity and confused about basic ethics is also in large part accomplished by simply having one major crisis follow another ("social-engineers" do actually exist), and have the crisis always support two main goals upon your subconscious: 1) "You are a citizen in the grand play as presented to you on your TV screen, not an autonomous human being created by God on the planet Earth with other humans like yourself who you should treat how you want to be treated," and 2) "The Non-Abuse Principle needs to be put aside to take care of the crisis, we gotta let these "authorities" take the reigns and do whatever they say."
"Here you will find, wedded to each other, the two essential elements of contemporary nihilism, the great diffused fear of contemporary man and his singularly terrorist [i.e., abusive] passion. Nihilism, terrorism, here is the heart of the disturbing reality which, in the past thirty years has broken through the last romantic languors [i.e., through dreamy, in a good way, notions of peace & love that people instinctually have]. Here is that scandalous and secret spot where the decomposition of the societies recently fighting for human liberty merges imperceptibly into the delirium which opposed them [i.e., those that fight for liberty actually end up supporting its opposite when they are just hit with yet another crisis and the need to "do something" about it, and that something of course invariably being something abusive, hence the nihilism, the abandonment of the Non-Abuse Principle, for supposedly "practical" and "necessary" reasons]. Nihilism, which engenders the spirit of catastrophe [i.e., the moral relativism and moral decay fostered through mass-media/entertainment supports acceptance of yet another manifestation of abuse as "crisis solution" from the terrorist-rulers posing as caretakers], is a vast reaction of infantile type. You know how easily children or the weak or sickly or nervous, are discouraged. They analyze neither their action nor their thinking. The original impulse is global, enthusiastic and blind. Something gets in the way [of society actually progressing toward liberty] and the whole wave collapses upon itself [and that's why social-engineers have one crisis follow another, forever creating "order out of chaos" as their motto goes, that order being their abusive control and exploitation of the masses]." - Emmanuel Mounier, Be Not Afraid (1946)
Those are the deeper core elements at play, but I'll return to those main 3 Blunders to hopefully help make this all more simple and clear to you, because again, it really is fundamentally simple, and because most people seem to have their minds tear them away from actually hearing what the real crucial truth and solutions are. Why is that? Why can't most people focus on the key truths that would be most productive to focus on? People have developed theories, like "System Justification Theory," or "The Ostrich Effect," and although they contain some valuable insights for sure, the theories themselves actually circle around the key points that need to be focused on; it's as if people are influenced to talk about everything except what's most important; you can call that Demonic Influence Theory if you'd like, as I haven't found another label for that allergic-to-the-actual-crucial-truth-and-solution human psychology/behavior that is definitely affecting most people, the Three Blunders being ignored or just irrationally discredited (falsely equating them with other ideas, etc.) being a perfect case-in-point.
Many spiritual people look at problems caused by governments and theorize on cosmic meanings for it, always trying to see some bright side to something that is completely dark, and never considering that the reason the tyranny/oppression/state-sponsored terrorism is happening in the world yet another time is simply because people are paying taxes under coercion, simply a matter of society being established on abuse, and so most people are empowering abusers, who then, as should be expected, like clockwork, abuse even more. That true answer is never considered, and instead they'll go on about astrological shifts or what have you.
Again, Blunder #1 is dealing with the most common objection to anarchism, that it is a utopia vision that denies the existence of bad people; that's completely false; it's actually because there are bad people, and because they can (and often throughout history do!) occupy positions of power where they can (and do!) do even more destruction (a military can do far more damage than a gang, look into the numbers with democide, the most violence throughout history has come from States), that it makes no sense at all to set up those positions of power in the first place. Those that support a ruling class are the ones actually living more in a fairy-tale wherein it's actually fair to be ruled over and abused because you can vote every now and then, and maybe they'll count all the votes, and maybe the person you vote for will win, and then maybe that politician will keep their word and do exactly as they promised, and maybe all the unelected people in government will likewise be saints and not abuse their power... that's a lot of maybes, and even if all those things happen, there is the very real problem of founding a society on extortion (trying to make good come from Evil, which God does not actually allow in His creation), and the very real problem of an ever-growing State that gets more and more powerful and abusive as they continue to funnel in money from everyone every single day automatically. The claim that anarchists are the ones disconnected from reality, and believers in politics are the "realists," doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Once you actually question common platitude objections like "We're not a pack of wolves," or "We can't return to the law of the jungle," or "We can't have everyone being the legislator, judge and jury," or "It would be gangs taking over" or "It would be mob rule," etc., once you can consider for a moment that good men can actually form communities wherein they don't abuse each other, and actually help each other, then you can begin to see that anarchism is not actually more naïve than statism is.
This leads to Blunder #2, when you can get a moment of clarity wherein you see that the command of Jesus to love our neighbor didn't have any exceptions added, not because Jesus was naïve, but because Jesus was our Master Teacher and really did know best. Because of massive indoctrination, starting from childhood, and remaining continuous from then, people are led to believe that they're being smart and reasonable by accepting human rulers, accepting abuse (the complete opposite of love), when they're actually being neither smart or reasonable, they're actually being deceived into being naïve idol-worshipers that ignore current events, all of history, and basic logic and ethics.
The idea that we have to allow some people to commit aggression towards everyone, all the time, in order to prevent some people from being aggressive some times, is an idea that is almost never pin-pointed and questioned, it's just accepted as a given, again because of massive indoctrination. If you were to pin-point this auto-accepted idea, and then actually question and analyze it however, going against the programming/indoctrination, you'd probably also come to the conclusion that "We don't actually need to allow constant abuse in order to defend against abuse, and giving people this immense power is extremely dangerous, allowing for even greater abuse than anyone could do without that extortion-system and monopoly on violence in place."
The ridiculousness of much of political activism (which I've done plenty of in the past) is that it's usually basically just asking officials to stop what they're doing, stop being abusive in various ways; so big picture zoom-out in this: some people fund the pay-checks of other people who have these positions as rulers, and then lo and behold, they don't just twiddle their thumbs but get to doing their job, i.e., ruling over other people, and we oftentimes, as should be expected, don't like the results, so we then petition them to stop. [insert forehead-slap here] Wouldn't it be better not to set up this dynamic in the first place? Wouldn't it be better not to accept that some people have the right to extort money from and rule over and abuse other people? Of course it would be better! Again it really is that simple, but all kinds of "experts" will disagree, and people submit to their "authority," and so the machine keeps churning, society keeps facing the same problems decade after decade, the same patterns of tyranny keep repeating, and things actually get worse overall with advanced technology/weapons/toxins/propaganda at the disposable of the rulers and their supporting institutions.
If you've wondered why the world is so
messed up, why there is so much injustice and corruption and
unnecessary suffering in the world, it's because basic decency (and basic logic) has been disregarded, and even worse, that basic decency has been labeled
"extreme" and "dangerous." If your immediate
reaction to this is something like "I don't know... I still think we
need some military and police to keep us safe," like most people
say, that right there again is an absence of basic ethics and reasoning (it's basically Blunder #3), specifically by having
conflated abuse with safety, even though those are contradictory
terms, even though abuse always undermines safety (if you're being
abused, you're not safe.)
A big part of why people accept abuse, why they actually become moral nihilists to large degree, is probably also due to the false apostle Paul's doctrines of "human depravity" & "inherited sin" combined with his other nonsense notion that "governments and slave-masters are ordained by God," leading people to subconsciously think that people are inherently wicked, and so some abusive control by these "divine" human authorities is necessary and good. Are you holding that belief in your subconscious? Do you deep-down think we need abusive rulers because humans are evil at their core? (Re-read the above quote by Emmanuel Mounier as it's very relevant here). If so, you then need to de-program yourself from that false doctrine disseminated by a false apostle and pushed everyday by a church establishment that is not true to the teachings of Jesus, if anarchism 101 is ever going to be seen by you as the common sense that it really is. If you think we need abusive
rulers for security, you ignore that there is no security in constant and ever-expanding abuse! Slaves aren't safe!
The police-state and medical tyranny grows, all
because people have been largely brainwashed to never think the thought-crime that we can actually have health and security without abuse. It's
sad, and tragic. We don't need politicians making medical decisions for us and our children to make good health choices, and we don't need a ruling class to have more security; we aren't better off accepting a system of abuse that gets more and more powerful, secretive, deceptive and destructive century after century. If you still doubt that, and wonder what a world without abusive social-systems/human-farms bordering one another would look like, it's really not hard to imagine, and this is undoing Blunder #3, de-programming/un-indoctrinating yourself from that blunder, actually imagining the alternative to living in an abusive social-system.
What would a post Blunder # 3 world look like? It would look like local teachers and experts in health & wellness offering their services to their local communities, without State involvement; it would look like gun-ownership being commonplace, as well as
independent (not under the command of some politician, like the
military is) local militias trained and ready to get together to
defend against any aggressive groups in their region. Not rocket-science. If you pay taxes so that you can call 911 and someone will
probably show up (and if it involves an ambulance, expect to be
charged thousands of dollars despite your taxes), why is it so hard
to imagine calling a local 24-hour health or security service instead? Or even
better, calling your local militia members or community health experts, who don't charge you any
monthly fee, but simply expect help in return if they ever need it and you are able to give it? Is that really so far-fetched? No, it's actually what goes on regularly in more natural communities that still exist, where people haven't yet all been corralled into city-control-grids through economic coercion (and this is why recognizing homesteading land & water as a birthright is key, because without that we'll always be living in some kind of abusive system that undermines the ideal potential of natural communities from ever manifesting on Earth).
"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to your neighbor to steal from you." - Ron Paul
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry.” - Thomas Jefferson
Is it really for the greater good to have the foundation of society be abusive, instead of using abuse to build up these tax-charging, privacy-invading, propaganda-spewing, war-making,
nuclear-bomb building, water-fluoridating, chemtrail-spreading, bio-weapon manufacturing, wireless radiation
and GMO proliferating institutions of illegitimate power that attract
satanists, narcissists and pedophiles? Is it really the right and safest thing to allow extortion to
go on every day to fund them, so we can be "secure" under their rule? Beyond the abuses we can observe, the truth is we have no idea what our tax dollars are used for in large part, all the secret programs, operations, technology, etc., oftentimes making our lives and the world worse, oftentimes decreasing our health and well-being in ways we don't even know about; we oftentimes face the consequences of their secret activities but never know the origin, our own money being used against us, like a parasite that grows stronger the more blood it takes from its host. Why support the conditions for a dystopia? Why support toxins & tyranny? Why give some people the unnatural power to do that, to do things that are considered abusive for "regular" people to do (aka a monopoly on violence)? Why think that people stealing money from us will then stop being bad after that theft, and use the money only for good? Would you trust a robber to take care of you?
Saying that "taxation is not theft because some services are provided for by that taxation" and/or "you use services that taxation pays for so you shouldn't speak against taxation," again forgets basic neighbor-to-neighbor ethics: if your neighbor fixed up your driveway for you, but you never asked him to and never agreed to pay him to do so, would it be right for you to pay him simply because you continue to use your driveway? No, because you never agreed to the exchange, you never gave consent, and that matters! It's amazing how statists side-step consent as if it's irrelevant! Or they say consent was "implied" by you simply using your driveway, or simply using services (services that can be very poor by the way) that were payed for with a fraction of the money stolen from you! Statists claim that what you wouldn't accept your neighbor or a stranger to do, you should accept if that person simply says "I work for the government." Wow, what magic words those are! It's like the word "emergency," that whenever uttered by officials, supposedly gives them "emergency powers" to abuse people! Again magical words! And yet it is the anarchists who are living in a fairy-land? To think abuse/stealing is sometimes okay (i.e., to violate the command of Jesus is sometimes okay), if the person doing the abuse/stealing simply has a certain the job, doesn't actually make ethical sense, it's not actually legitimate, despite all the people that say so matter-of-factly that it is legitimate. Why ignore that abuse is always an evil, and that unnatural power tends to corrupt people? Why ignore all of political history, and just hope for the best (and plan on regular protests and demonstrations, and voting, to "remedy" the inevitable abuse of power that will arise)? There's really no logic to it, there's really no "common sense" to ignoring crucial truth about ethics and history, ethics and history that are of course absent from State "education" of the public, i.e., indoctrination, coming from those profiting from an abusive system that starts from an unethical foundation.
The "common sense" pushed by the powers-that-be goes against our own conscience and reasoning, forgetting how neighbors in a neighborhood should treat each other, forgetting how two strangers on the road should treat each other. Letting the mainstream narrative do the ethical thinking for us, telling us the ethics changes "in a society," or "in civilization," and/or "in an emergency," telling us that abuse is okay when they do it, but not okay when we do it... this is in fact deception trying to convince us that they are doing us a favor by abusing us! All of the distractions and "emergencies" (many of which agencies of the State create themselves), that are pushed hard every day by the mass-media, additionally support this narrative of being "helped" by the government, and hinder people really thinking for themselves, living in survival-mode most of the time while simultaneously being lied to by talking-heads and controlled opposition over and over again. It's the strategy of an abuser: keep them emotionally traumatized so you can more easily deceive and control them; it's the worst of human behavior that has been put on a pedestal as "civilization," as if it was actually something great. Anarchism 101 becomes more accessible when you stop watching mass-media, stop worrying about conforming to mainstream society, avoiding toxic distractions, avoiding "higher education" and propaganda outlets like
mainstream news/movies/TV/Netflix/TED talks/popular social-media commentators (many of which are controlled opposition, never telling you the crucial liberating truths). Be sure to set aside free
time in your life to just read, think, and write independently; I imagine most
people would probably come to the same conclusions if these
changes occurred in their lives, rather than remaining too busy being
entertained/brainwashed, self-medicating/drugging (as I used to, a lot) and/or working to
pay for things they don't really need, on top of us all having to pay taxes unjustly and, perhaps most importantly (yet also most ignored), unjustly having to pay for our free birthrights of homesteading land, water & seed, pre-existing in Nature and necessary for survival and freedom.
Some argue for States by saying something like "If people are being unjustly deprived of the basic necessities of life, then it would be justifiable force for the starving to take what they need from those who have too much of those survival necessities," and that's not actually wrong because that would be justified defensive force against aggression committed against them, but the problem is in seeing States/extortionists as the only way to solve that imbalance, when the real answer is recognizing those survival natural resources, namely homesteading land, water & seed, as *a cost/tax-free birthright* of everyone on Earth; the real answer, that people keep ignoring, is *voluntary communities of sovereign veganic/nonviolent homesteads*. (Those that want to continue to live in control-grids with a ruling class can do so, but not force others to join them.) Freeing people to live more naturally and cooperatively is a truly reliable "social safety net," the idea that without the State we would be abandonding the poor and hungry is a false dilemma because it ignores the real solution, recognizing land, water & seed as a birthright of all humans, a birthright that is the best poverty solution possible. Fruit & nut trees keep on producing fruit & nuts during an economic crisis! Most people's #1 expense is having to pay rent just for a place to sleep on the Earth at night (let alone a space to grow food), and if you think that's fair because "we have to work to survive," you're ignoring that homesteading involves work too and you're ignoring the issue of the land water & seed being pre-existing in Nature and necessary for survival, and so therefore restricting access to it is unjust and exploitative; again, one would still have to work their garden and orchard, and most would be glad to be free from other work to do so! God said we are here to be gardeners (Genesis 2:15), not money-slaves to governments and corporations.
Related to this issue is the pro-State slogan that says "If you don't like it leave," assuming that the State is really the rightful owner of the Earth (they're not, the Creator is), and that there is some non-State-human-farm out there when in fact the whole world is one State bordering another; to think it is ethically legitimate to tell someone to endure the hardship and great expense (assuming they can afford that expense, most can't) of leaving their home and trying to find another place to live just because they don't want to be your slave, is not ethically sound; again the Earth is for all humans; land, water, & seed are a birthright, so if anyone is acting as a controller of your birthright, then they are being abusive, and so they are the one who is wrong; it's really that black & white, the ethics is really that clear.
Returning to "but how would that work?" again, education can be provided by teachers who simply aren't employed by an institution that utilizes extortion of the population, and likewise defensive security can be provided by firearms and voluntary local defense networks, aka Militias or "Mutual Assistance Groups" (or other private defense services, all better than standing armies that can be used domestically by officials for tyrannical purposes), health security can be provided by local experts in that field (or becoming an expert yourself), and
food security can be provided by our own gardens & orchards in a community of
others with their own gardens & orchards, ideally forming a gift-economy community of independent sovereign veganic
homesteads that share and help each other. We need freedom for community homestead security; instead we got slavery for "homeland
security," i.e., State security; they've given us their substitute that serves them
and disempowers us, like advertisers that play on our natural desires
and make us think their product will provide happiness for us; it's a counterfeit of the the real and good thing that God wants us to have. Property tax alone undermines free & natural living on this planet; even if you buy your home, you're still having to pay rent to the State in the form of property tax, which shows you never really owned your home but have rather then been renting it from the State, demonstrated by the seizure of your home and your forceful eviction from it if you stop paying them that tax; that control of private property is actually a form of Communism, just as medical mandates are as well.
But "We need the military."
If all of the above reasoning and ethics is basically just thrown out the window with a thought like "We need to have a military to protect us from other governments," realize that that's saying "We need government, to protect us from government"... that's the same as saying "My abuser protects me from other worse abusers." Think about that. Is that the right foundation for society? Why not support thousands of voluntary extortion-free militias instead, so there really would be (almost) "a gun behind every blade of grass" to dissuade possible invading forces who want us to submit to their abusive social-system/human-farm? Also one must face the reality that when militaries are under the control of politicians, those politicians can and do send men off to die for mistaken reasons, they can and do give commands that make no military sense whatsoever, and they can even be operating on nothing more than a personal grudges they may have with another politician, or simply out of greed for wealth and resources for themselves and their corporate partners, and also they can and do turn militaries against the their "own" people. Military being used against the very tax-payers that fund the military's existence is a real possibility, and that can come about vis infiltration in a government (or a coup) that then misuses or transforms the military from the top down to get more agreeable generals, et al. in place, say by pushing "gender equality" measures that are really just a smoke-screen for changing the military to more socialist-minded soldiers (and unquestioning military robots/drones), in the interest of a dictator-type government to be activated post-transformation. And when things like this happen, the warriors of the nation having been for the most part all co-opted/hijacked or replaced by the State, there are no strong militias in place to actually protect the people anymore; then people will finally realize, too late, that founding societal protection on extortion (a form of abuse) and blind obedience to a "commander-in-chief's" hierarchy, really was not the better option; again when you can see the simple and deep ethics at play, the simple fact that supporting large-scale abuse is not the right prescription for large-scale safety, then you can see the objective reality that God keeps trying to show us by the moral fabric of His Creation.
The Key God-given Right & Law
Many conservatives/patriots have an immediate knee-jerk reaction to the terms anarchism or anarchy and see it as Commies/socialists/Marxists trying to tear down all that's good in the place called the USA, and this is mistaken and unfortunate, true anarchism is totally opposed to Communism, and it isn't about removing any good traditions and values already in place. Philosophical Anarchism recognizes the good elements in USA tradition, the Deceleration of Independence and Bill of Rights in particular, and actually wants to elevate and expand on the pro-freedom anti-tyranny principles described therein, not tear them down as Marxists want to do (to be replaced by a Communist totalitarian society, which has been advancing in the so-called Land of the Free). The Bill of Rights are a list of rights, first of all given by God, not by politicians, and secondly the rights listed are all speaking to aspects of the most fundamental God-given right, the right to not be abused; aggression and theft are acts of abuse, and tyranny and taxation are acts of aggression and theft. A true Land of the Free, a nation of truly independent people, who are free of all abuse (including the abuse of extortion, and the abuse of survival birthrights being controlled), would consist of sovereign individuals (i.e., people not ruled over by anyone), who all have their birthright to sovereign homesteads, which are absolutely necessary in order to be a free human being on the planet Earth.
If the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights was actually taken seriously and not held back because of a mistaken statist view on the supposed necessity of human rulers, then we'd recognize each other as sovereign individuals created by God, the only true Authority worthy of worship and obedience. The answer, as Leo Tolstoy forcefully promoted in his book The Kingdom of God is Within You, a kind of Christian Anarchism, is a more correct "spirit of 1776," it's the spirit of man's desire to be free from slavery while choosing to follow the perfect moral law Jesus pointed us to, which is simply a law against all abuse, in all scenarios, for all time, no exceptions. Thomas Jefferson too was going in the right direction when he said "resistance to tyrants is obedience to God," and "I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master."
Some related tweets that were ignored or shadow-banned:
So
there's this school of thought that's existed for hundreds of years,
it's called anarchism; it's about not basing society on
extortion/aggression, not creating a ruling class that does immoral
things in the name of safety or the greater good. Most people call it
stupid & evil.
So
$191 billion tax-dollars were used to weaponize viruses against
humanity, and y'all still think anarchism is more dangerous? Oh and don't forget historical democide.
It's
never-ending examples of doing things in a harmful backwards way
because slavery always produces harmful and backwards results, it
never can actually produce good no matter how often it says it will;
this the anarchism and karmic reality people need to understand but
ignore.
Saying
anarchism doesn't solve all problems, and so should be discarded, is
the Perfect Solution Fallacy, the logical fallacy that says all
difficulties must be solved by a proposal for it to be a solution.
Anarchism solves the problem of the automatic & systemic abuse by
States.
Are
you against slavery and violence? Then you should be against statism
& carnism, and for anarchism & veganism. It's really that
simple.
#Anarchism,
without land equality, isn't a good replacement for social-$ystems
(which we have become dependent on for survival). #Anarchy
Human
authority loses legitimacy the moment it becomes abusive. Extortion
is a form of abuse. Controlling the bodies, businesses and travel of
nonviolent people, are forms of abuse. The so-called social contract
is really just a smokescreen for an abusive relationship. #Anarchism101
The
hypocrisy is never ending because it's an institution based on
immorality (namely aggression e.g., extortion/taxation) acting as
society's moral authority. If most people understood that, we could
have global transformation for the better; but they don't, so we
don't. #ChristianAnarchism
To
make an institution that only exists because of aggression (e.g.,
extortion/taxation) the moral authority for humanity ignores history
and the fact that God didn't create a world in which good can be
secured via evil.
Why
is ->unalienable<- rights hard to understand? Why are more
people not pointing out that if you're not *actually* violating
someone else's rights than you get to keep yours, and preemptive
attack "to try and save lives" is not legit?
Basic/foundational ethics is critical for effective resistance.
Again
with the "we." If you understood why it's irrational to say
that you'd also know why all these irrational police actions take
place: slavery is irrational, slave-masters aren't aligned with logic
& goodness. Anarchism101 to be ignored cuz "it's not that
simple." Yes, it is.
When
the means of accomplishing a good end are evil, e.g.,
aggression/extortion, the end will invariably be evil too; you'd
think humans would have noticed this pattern repeating for thousands
of years, but no, idol-worship over ethics, again & again.
Philosophical Anarchism 101.
You
set up positions of power so some people can rule over other people,
and the former will get the idea that the latter are their livestock,
and the more that idea becomes reality, the more they like it.
Anarchist philosophy 101. #EndMedicalMandates #IrelandHasFallen
How
about the "personal boundary" of other people not getting
to coerce you to take whatever drugs they want to inject you with?
The fact that there's any debate over this is sad and ridiculous;
being a slave isn't safe, even if you're a healthy slave. Basics for
Humanity 101.
They
were always the latter and never really the former; a servant doesn't
carry out extortion and aggression against the person they're
serving, that's an insoluble contradiction, covered over by
indoctrination. #Anarchism101
So
if you won't accept injections filled with whatever they want,
they'll contaminate the whole water supply with IQ-lowering
fluoride... also for "safety" of course. At what point
would anarchism not be "crazy" to the masses? That requires
critical thinking... so fluoridate H2O.
Because
what you say here is indeed possible, among other countless examples
of destructive use of unnatural power, anarchism is actually the
safer way, but that crucial truth and solution is constantly brushed
aside, so the pattern and downward spiral continues. Statism is dumb.
Wrongly
conflating anarchism with senseless violence & destruction is a
discrediting tactic used for centuries; true anarchists don't believe
having rulers is best for society, because ruling over others is
itself violence, true anarchists are more anti-violence than any
statist.
How
is setting up society on a foundation of extortion, creating
positions of mostly unaccountable power, a better idea than
anarchism? Every statist response I've ever heard is nonsense; folks
need "individual sovereignty" in their daily vocabulary to
end the karma of #slavery.
If
you give an inch, they'll take a mile. Anarchism is better than
statism, tyranny is not safety.
A
servant doesn't carry out extortion and aggression against the person
they're serving, that's an insoluble contradiction, covered over by
indoctrination. #anarchism 101
The
fundamental blunder is believing the smart idea is to set up a small
group of humans (called "representatives") to rule over
everyone else (supposedly kept angelic by a principled guiding
document & institutional "checks & balances"),
because anarchism is surely a worse idea.
There's
a crucial "Aha" moment for anyone working for
#SocialJustice, when they realize all the things they're protesting
come from Establishment Institutions, & those Institutions were
established by a non-voluntary coercive system. "So, origins
matter. #Anarchism is necessary."
You
can't establish greater peace & justice through a form of
violence; extortion is a form of violence; taxation is a form of extortion. This is why anarchism makes sense, but societal
conditioning against it is so thick that cognitive dissonance can
beat logic.
Wisdom
"separating the wheat from the chaff" -> "And if
you only greet those you already know, what do you do more than
others? Don't even the tax collectors do that?" -Yeshua the
Messiah (aka #Jesus Christ), Matthew 5:47
Jesus
called tax collectors immoral and said those that have to pay taxes
are not free. (Read Matthew 5:47 & 17:26) #BibleStudy #Anarchism
Media
keeps portraying #anarchism as irrational & violent; a
never-ending smear-campaign against rational & nonviolent
anarchist philosophy.
Anarchism
and Veganism, the "extreme" notions that people and animals
aren't the property of other people. Check your beliefs.
Anarchism
& Veganism, the "extreme" notions that other sentient
life isn't your property, i.e. slavery is an evil.
Veganism
& Anarchism are complimentary; both are fundamentally against
aggression & slavery (done by humans to animals, & humans to
humans).
Reformism
is wrong medicine used for a misdiagnosis of the disease. Anarchism
is the right medicine used for the true
disease.
If
you want to stop future abuses of power like the killing of EricGarner
then stop being a fool supporting State power, support anarchism.
The
destructiveness of racism/ignorance is intensified via artificial
centralization of power into the hands of the few. We need
#anarchism.
The
solution I'm referring to is sustainable egalitarian anarchism:
gift-economy communities of sovereign veganic homesteads.
Why
supporting social-systems, instead of #anarchism, is what's truly
wishful thinking, irrational, and unrealistic:colindonoghue.wordpress.com
"Tolstoy
believed the state to be an intrinsically violent institution, and
concluded the Gospel implies anarchism."
Are
you saying the state is overall good or bad? If the former, how do
your ensure a benevolent state and override the reality of "power
corrupts"? If the latter, why not clearly endorse egalitarian
anarchism wherein everyone has land & water?
“The
reason there will be no change is because the people who stand to
lose from change have all the power. And the people who stand to gain
from change have none of the power.” - Machiavelli Solution: Humans
claiming their birthright to Sovereign Veganic Homesteads. #anarchism
About
370 years ago a man named Gerrard Winstanley made pamphlets that
struck at the root of social injustice, including the spiritual
dimension of it. Unsurprisingly in this world dominated by delusion,
he's been mostly ignored. #LandRights #RadicalHistory #Anarchism
#Homesteads
New "Pandemic Treaty" Warning: Was 2020-2022 a global test run for permanent medical tyranny?
New Petition Against World Health Organization's Plans:
"The past two years has been rife with infringements on civil rights by national governments, but now the World Health Organization is seeking to appropriate those same draconian powers to itself at a global level.
194 countries representing 99% of the world's population are expected to sign pandemic treaties that would allow the WHO to dictate exactly how your nation responds to a new disease outbreak which they consider a pandemic.
These are precarious times in which freedom and self-determination must be defended from those who would ride rough-shod over your civil rights.
Tell the WHO you will never live under their control:
The wheels are already in motion, with the Biden administration submitting amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR), which would give the Director General the right to declare health emergencies in any nation, even when disputed by the country in question.
These amendments, which will be legally binding if passed by the World Health Assembly (the governing body of the WHO), set the stage for a fully-fledged pandemic treaty to be passed.
With 20 national leaders already calling for a Pandemic Treaty, we must oppose a return to global lockdowns, vaccine mandates and propoganda, most of all from the WHO.
Our right to self-determination must be respected in all policy decisions.
Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this petition to show the WHO that you won't accept their power-grab.
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government,
but illegal for the citizenry.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Medical mandates are not ethically legitimate, and should not be accepted, because:
1) One neighbor does not have the right to coerce another neighbor into being tested for a disease (a test which may or may not be accurate), or into using a medical device (like a mask), or into taking some kind of pill or injection. That would be abusive control, it would be criminal. The reason it is wrong and criminal for you to coerce your neighbor to take medical tests, drugs, or use medical devices, is the same exact reason why it is wrong and criminal for politicians to do that; it does not become okay just because they are people on TV that say the word “emergency.”
2) Governments are people too (“of the people”), and we are not the livestock of these other people; we refuse to be human livestock on their farms that they can control and medicate however they want to; they are not our parents, we are not their children; they are not our masters, we are not their slaves; when they do something abusive, it’s still abuse regardless of what crisis is happening (or is reported to be happening by the fear-pushing mass-media or designed-to-be-addictive social-media). Politicians can be mistaken or deceptive (and sometimes even create a crisis so that they can offer their “solution” of having more power); pharmaceutical companies (making tens of billions of dollars off this, and not liable for any injuries or deaths caused by their products) can be mistaken or deceptive. Coercing people to trust them with our lives and the lives of our children, to inject with whatever they want to (like aborted fetal cells), forever, is just plain evil; it’s authoritarian medical tyranny, it’s totalitarianism, fascism (merging of Big Pharma and Law, purchase and use of their products made mandatory) and Communism (the State taking control of private business and the most fundamental form of private property: our own bodies). Government employees don’t own the bodies of non-government employees; again, citizens aren’t the livestock of the State. Freedom is another form of safety; we aren’t safe if we don’t have the freedom to control our own bodies (or the freedom to protect our bodies, with whatever weapon needed to do so).
3) Preemptive attack is when someone is committing real violence now, to supposedly prevent possible violence or harm; if we accept this bunk premise, then people could commit violence whenever they say “it’s for safety” or “the greater good.” One neighbor cannot be abusive toward another neighbor (for example, by disarming that neighbor, or pushing drugs on them) just because they say “it’s for safety.” Preemptive attack in any form, including medical mandates, is never ethically legitimate; it’s bunk morality used by abusers over and over as supposed justification for their abuse.
------------------------------------
[please copy and print the above as a one-page flyer for in-person distribution (that's the most effective way to educate on this right now)]
------------------------------------
And here's an additional idea, ask all members of law enforcement that you know the following questions: "If one citizen were to go next door to a neighboring citizen and start coercing them to take certain drugs and use certain medical devices, would that be a crime? What crime exactly? What's the exact words for that criminal offense? Why can't a person who is simply a government employee not be charged with that same offense with that same exact crime? If someone has a title "governor" does that make them above the law any time they say the word "emergency"? Can they do whatever they want as long as they say "it's for safety"? If the law does not apply to them, what protection is there from a dictator or tyrant who can easily hide behind the false "caretaker" role by just saying the word "safety" over and over?"
What if a lot more people were dying of an illness (and not just the "medicine")? What if it was a real and obvious pandemic? Many people would say, "Well now we certainly need to accept medical mandates." Wrong. As long as people think inalienable rights are actually only valid in non-emergency circumstances, all the control-freaks have to do is up the level of emergency until most people agree it's "reasonable precautionary measures." People need to get a handle on the ethical fundamentals: aggression (e.g., coercing people to stay home, not travel, not assemble, get vaccines, etc.) is evil, and preemptive attack in the name of public health & safety is a form of aggression. Otherwise the door stays open for deception and abuse.
Concerning churches being forced to close, freedom of assembly and religion, violated because some people are sick and dying in the world, is 0% ethically valid. Counting on States to protect our natural rights is foolish because there's no guarantee they will, no matter what's written in a Constitution, and because the main master-slave arrangement of automatic citizenship and extortion/taxation is aggression, so it's fundamentally relying on someone who's been repeatedly attacking/violating you to also simultaneously defend you from attack/violation, which is irrational, it's actually an impossibility. If most people could really understand this we could transform into a truly just/nonviolent/free society, but Stockholm Syndrome is unfortunately very dominant and entrenched worldwide.
Yet pro-mandaters think they're smarter, saying things like "It's an INFECTIOUS DISEASE, we have to take precautions you dumbass!," as if we don't understand what infectious means or that we don't think anything infectious exists, or don't believe in any form of healthcare or medicine; they are projecting their own ignorance, in this case an ignorance of what tyranny is (unable to define it if asked) and mislabeling it simply "precautions," and if they do have some understanding of what tyranny is, they don't believe it can actually exist here and now, because of "checks & balances & voting & rule of law."
Abuse/Tyranny/Slavery is never actually a valid response to a sickness (voluntary precautions are), because that's just adding one problem on top of another, and two problems are worse than one; it's really that simple, but the mass-media and politicians are constantly trying to confuse you and make it seem more ethically complicated than it really is. A website like Vaccine Liberation should never have been needed to be created.
It's good to give accurate perspective on this so-called pandemic, but in a sense the numbers are irrelevant, when we are talking about freedom vs. slavery; at what % mortality from a virus is it justified to have your life controlled by other people, people that simply have the State as their employer? 5%? 50%? To be open to enslavement under any circumstances = an inferiority complex ingrained via indoctrination. Aggression is always wrong, as is slavery; true morality is absent in the mass-media programming.
The possibility that authorities could be wrong, or even malicious, is unthinkable to those in which the irrational indoctrination that "those with power are the most trustworthy" is still unshaken, the cognitive dissonance acting as a shield to their core beliefs, all questioning of authority perceived as irrational, projecting their own irrational trust in it; and so the world gets worse, one big lie deception at a time, preemptive attacks tightening the controls on a population perceived as human livestock by "the elite."
