Freedom Wasn't Lost. It Was Taken Before You Could Speak.
You were born sovereign. Then they gave you a name, a number, a flag, and a master to serve. Freedom wasn't lost. It was taken before you could speak.
Never Forget Their Excuses for Lockdowns.
story by John Tamney / image by Alexandra Koch
The worst arguments against the lockdowns inspired by the coronavirus were medical and statistical. To see why, it’s worth remembering that as humans we’ve evolved to protect ourselves from death and disease. The taking of freedom to protect us is always and everywhere excess.
The above statement of the obvious requires mention as free thinkers and free-thinking organizations continue to either ignore how they sat out the lockdowns, or worse, excuse their inaction amid a massive bludgeoning of freedom back in 2020. Let’s start with those trying to excuse their inaction.
The not-infrequently offered excuse is that since most organizations and individuals in the libertarian space either weren’t staffed by medical doctors or weren’t medical doctors themselves, how could they have made credible cases against the lockdowns? Instead, and rather than take a stand, they adopted “wait and see” approaches so that medical verdicts could be rendered. About those verdicts, some libertarian types are now saying that those who were publicly against the lockdowns back in 2020 were correct, but they made their cases obnoxiously and blindly given their lack of medical knowledge. The only response to this kind of dissembling is nonsense, utter nonsense. See this write-up’s introductory paragraph to see why.
Just as the worst arguments against the lockdowns were medical and statistical, the medical and statistical arguments made in favor of lockdowns were, if possible, even worse. As stated above, no one requires force to avoid sickness or death. About this point, more on it in a bit.
For now, it should just be said that even if the medical consensus had been correct, that millions and millions of Americans would die absent being forced out of work and into their homes, then any lockdown orders foisted on us by nail-biting politicians would have read as tame relative to the precautions taken by free people. The more threatening anything is, the more superfluous is any kind of policy reaction to the threat.
The simple, overwhelming truth is that people should never have their individual freedom to protect themselves taken from them, period. End of story.
Applying the previous assertion to organizations like Cato, Students for Liberty, and others that seemingly took a “wait and see” approach to the lockdowns, their stances were wrongheaded. Lest they or readers forget, the organizations mentioned were founded on the notion of individual freedom as the foremost ideal. In which case a “wait and see what the science or medical establishment says” is dangerously wrong.
It is simply because, as Brownstone Institute founder Jeffrey Tucker has pointed out, politicians at the local, state, and national levels did not take a “wait and see” approach. That they didn’t calls into serious question organizations and individuals sitting on their hands. How could they? Since we know government will never wait and see on anything, what an odd excuse or piece of internal reasoning to explain away a lack of action. It implies that freedom should always be the loser in times of uncertainty, or when politicians are feeling particularly hysterical.
At which point it should be said that freedom is easily the best way to turn the unknowns and uncertainty into true knowledge. So, while libertarian groups and individuals who sat out the lockdowns should reflexively defend freedom every time government is in the process of taking it, it’s useful to add that free people crucially produce information.
Which brings us back to the earlier assertion in this write-up that people don’t need to be forced to avoid sickness or death. Some no doubt responded as they read the latter that some people would in fact have lived, worked, and run their businesses without regard to a spreading virus. To which the answer here can only be precisely.
Precisely because free people will respond in all manner of ways (including disdain) to fears driven by unknowns, we need them to be free. Without millions of different responses, or realistically hundreds of millions of different responses in the US, people (including “experts”) will be blinded to the truth about whatever it is that threatens us, or not. Since free people once again produce information, the only answer to uncertainty about what we don’t know is freedom.
It’s just something to keep in mind in the here and now. Four years ago this month, over 40 million Americans lost their jobs, and hundreds of millions around the world found themselves hurtling toward starvation amid a global panic among politicians. Shamefully and tragically, some of the foremost organizations and individuals devoted to liberty sat out the tragedy and seemingly defend their inaction to this day by hiding behind medicine, science, and a lack of information. The excuses and internal justifications are wholly insufficient. Freedom is its own always and everywhere virtue, period.
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Source: The Brownstone Institute / RealClearMarkets.com
The Existential Threat of the Existential Threat.
Image by Gerd Altmann
The Existential Threat of the Existential Threat.
Climate change is an existential threat.
Misinformation is an existential threat.
Inequality is an existential threat.
The next pandemic is an existential threat.
Our democracy is facing an existential threat.
And everyone must be prepared for each of them and prepared to do anything to stop them.
That’s the current line, at least – the line that is driving global society at all levels just up to the edge of sanity and cohesion.
And that’s on purpose, because it’s much easier to push someone over the edge when they are already standing next to it.
Each of these false threats are being intentionally inflicted, becoming comorbidities on an already weakened body politic, making it even more vulnerable to its destruction and its eventual death.
Being told you are going to die is devastating. Being told you and your family are going to die is monumentally awful. Being told everyone is going to die is…numbing. It creates a state of utter helplessness, a state in which you are far more pliant.
Your situational awareness dims, your flight or fight sense slows, and you just stand and stare until someone puts their arm around your shoulders and leads you away.
And those invoking that dread are waiting nearby to do just that – take society by the shoulder, offer it comfort on the form of entertainment, medication, and basic sustenance, and lead it away.
Each of the threats is aimed directly at the first principle of Western society – the primacy of the individual. All the threats, all of the communitarianism being foisted upon the culture – including the claim that it is what group a person is a part of, not the person themselves, that is the most important defining human characteristic – have the same underlying message: the elimination of the idea that society is made up of discrete individuals with personal agency.
And from not acknowledging individual agency to not permitting it at all is a very short step.
That is the actual existential threat of the false existential threats now bouncing around the globe, clattering into people and families and societies and cultures and intentionally causing so much chaos and disruption that just standing in one place is not necessarily an irrational decision.
Of course, none of the current coming catastrophes are existential threats – they aren’t really threats at all but the vanguard of the global socialite socialists statists has made sure the public thinks they are, under penalty of ostracization, job loss, and censorship.
Besides not being actual threats, they cannot even remotely be described as an existential threat. An existential threat is – in part – defined as a threat to the very existence of a thing or a system. It is terminal, global, and transgenerational. It is not transitory, it is not political, it is not determined by the people making the claim: to be an existential threat something must be real and unprecedented and permanent.
But the term – which seems to be important-sounding because it actually is – can be misused by people and groups to heighten the impact of their statement, no matter what it may be, because the actual definition is either not widely known or purposefully ignored by the people using it and the media that reports what they are claiming.
This opens the door to anything being described as such a threat.
There is also the issue of the origin of the term – existential philosophers focused on subjective ideas of thought and emotion and action as they relate to existence while the more concrete “threats” described when the term is used are putatively real and specific. That is an additional misleading element of the use of the term.
In other words, the term is used to apply a thin veneer of intellectual certainty to the threat that it is claiming actually exists.
Despite the protestations of the greenocracy, the real global existential threat is not fossil fuel or proper food or basic human mobility or all of the other aspects of the material economy.
The real threat is from the ethereal economy of government agencies, civil society actors, non-governmental organizations, foundations, and academia, all aided by the information cabal. Together they do, in fact, currently have the power to foist something upon civilization that truly is transgenerational, global, and terminal.
And the never-ending pretense of emergency is a powerful tool in accomplishing that goal:
What happens when that dreaded decision whether to jump right or left in the face of an oncoming car is not a once or twice in a lifetime decision, but a daily question? That constant state of trepidation grinds on people, placing humans into a state of making most if not all decisions from a place of panic instead of reason.
And it is during that constant state of nervous exhaustion – a state manufactured out of whole cloth by its potential beneficiaries – when those who wish to wield power in society strike.
What is being offered is a society in which no one can fail. But a society in which no one can fail is also a society in which no one can succeed, especially to the point where they can threaten the existing power structure.
And it is that threat – which is an existential threat to that spider web of profitable tyranny – that is being targeted by the global fear noise.
The democracy being threatened is “their” democracy, not “our” democracy.
The climate being threatened is their silver sheened scrubbed personal environment – the actual environmental destruction that is occurring is out of sight, the denigrating of the sub-Deltas who inhabit other places, is immaterial.
The information being threatened are the lies being told to prop up the societal transformation.
The equality being threatened is their right to be more equal than others forever.
And the pandemic being threatened is the right to declare a pandemic on a whim, terrifying the public into ceding basic rights in the name of safety.
The means and the ends are interchangeable, creating a Mobius Strip of dehumanization on which every degrading tactic can be hidden – unless you know exactly where they lay, they are visible only out of the side of the eye, an oblique uncertainty, and can be easily dismissed as figments, as conspiracy theories.
It cannot be known exactly what will be touted as the next existential threat.
What is already known is whom it will benefit.
Note – it may seem a bit odd, but then again really not, but it could behoove all of us to take the advice of Hannibal Lecter when considering what the societal serial killers are seeking:
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License courtesy of The Brownstone Institute.
The Vaccines Have Frozen Them In Time
In the heartbreaking video above, parents speak with CHD's Polly Tommey about the injuries their children suffered from vaccines. The children are "frozen in time", the mother said.
Vaccines harm children. The childhood vaccine schedule that parents are bullied into giving to their kids is causing horrific, irreversible injuries. The list of shots is long, and many make no sense at all. Why are infants given Hepatitis B vaccines at birth? Why are they given a flu vaccine at six months old? Many vaccines are given as multiple injections all at once, yet no scientific studies have been done to see how these vaccines react with each other in the human body. By the time a child reaches the age of 18, he or she has received up to 80 vaccines, including boosters.
According to Children's Health Defense, "vaccines contain numerous concerning ingredients including aluminum, mercury, aborted fetal cell lines, antibiotics, monkey kidney cells, formaldehyde and more." Most doctors have no idea what's really in the shots they're pushing to trusting parents. And pharmaceutical companies have complete immunity from liability for any vaccine recommended on the CDC’s childhood schedule.
Before you make a mistake you can't change, check out this information on the CHD website:
Vaccine Curriculum: What Parents Need To Know
Once the needle goes in, you can't change your mind and pull the poison back out.
Guard Your Mind. Save Your Soul.
"A diseased mind leads to a dead soul." - Timo Malum
Guard your mind. Save your soul. (You're in control)
What Is The Story Behind Panda Eyes?
The "panda eyes" theory is a popular idea on the internet that suggests that dark spots around the eyes, similar to dark circles or bruises, indicate that a person has suffered abuse, violence or, in some more conspiratorial contexts, that the person has undergone some kind of ritual or traumatic procedure.
The exact origin of this theory is unclear, but it has spread through social networks and conspiracy forums, especially in communities that discuss theories about manipulation and psychological or ritualistic abuse.
How does it happen?
"Panda eyes" occurs when a victim is sodomized by some "monster". This is done so violently - on purpose - that the blood vessels around the eyes rupture due to the physical displacement of pressure.
What does "panda eyes" mean?
It is pedophile slang for child sodomy. When a child is forcibly sodomized, their eyes can turn into dark circles due to the trauma involved, making them look like those of a panda. There is even an online clothing store selling “Panda Eyes” for the pedophile community...
Many pedophiles also joke about this online when talking about children. There are many symbols and codes that they use to inform other pedophiles about their perversions.
Conclusion: “Panda eyes” are, according to conspiracy theorists, a clear sign that a person may have experienced extreme psychological and physical abuse, often associated with secret rituals and mental manipulation. These dark circles around the eyes, according to this view, are not just ordinary dark circles, but marks of intense trauma. In certain elites, these rituals are used for psychological control and submission, a way of exploiting the person emotionally and physically to “program” them according to hidden interests. Although controversial, this theory sees in the "panda eyes" visual evidence of evils practiced in the shadows.
[content contributor: Revellati Online]
Joe and Jill Biden on Halloween Day, 2024. Jill is wearing a panda costume. Why would she choose this particular costume, considering the "panda eyes" theory is well known, and the Biden family has been accused of incest and pedophilia? Is Jill Biden ignorant, or is she mocking us?
