"The Pandemic Response As Contemporary Imperialism" by Addison Reeves, posted at Left Lockdown Sceptics: Socialist Anti-Lockdown News & Analysis, on 16 August 2021

 

Source: Left Lockdown Sceptics

This is a guest article by Addison Reeves, a lawyer, political scientist, philosopher, and civil rights and civil liberties advocate based in New York. Addison critiques modern culture from a radical, leftist perspective at ModernHeretic.com, on Telegram and on Twitter.

The almost uniform support for totalitarian lock-down measures and mandates from those on the left has been shocking to see and has resulted in a feeling of political homelessness for those whose leftist values are what lead them to view the response to the pandemic with a sharp critical eye. This article shows that the reason why so many on the left have abandoned the values of freedom of speech and movement, bodily autonomy, and economic justice is because those people belong to the ideology of progressivism, which exists outside the left-right dichotomy.

Progressivism is an ideology that champions limitless growth, unbridled use of technology and the control of nature over any intrinsic sense of worth or fulfilment. We all get dragged along on the march of ‘progress’ because progressives assume any deviance from their values is inferior and because they tend to control the world’s resources. Progress under this model is linear; the future is always an improvement on the past, and any attempt to resist change or divert course is seen as regressive and unscientific.

Progressives often engage in leftist rhetoric, but their proposals always result in strengthening and expanding the existing, inequitable system and further entrenching the current, elite class. Progressives propose superficial policies rather than measures that would truly allow citizens to become more self-sufficient or otherwise reduce inequality because that would undermine their primary goal of unlimited growth. That is why progressives increasingly take refuge in identity politics; it allows them to talk about changing the system without actually having to challenge the exploitative aspects of society that they rely on for profit and growth. They then blame the increasing disparities on their opponents for resisting ‘progress’.

Progressivism is the direct descendant of the imperialism that dominated much of Western history for centuries. While the common narrative of modern history would have us believe that imperialism faded away in the 20th century as military aggression was replaced with international, economic cooperation and democratic revolutions, imperialism never died. In the United States and other countries there has always been a championing of Enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality alongside the denial of these same values to other groups who were conquered, exploited, or oppressed for imperialist goals of expansion and profit. The legacy of imperialism is just as deeply imprinted on the minds of Americans as liberalism is.

Progressivism = imperialism

Imperialism is the practice of one group of people forcibly subjecting other groups of people to its authority and control for its own benefit, though the imperialists often rationalize their actions as an attempt to save or improve its victims. The history of imperialism in the United States has lent certain traits to its successor progressivism: an extractive belief system, an antipathy towards the natural world, a rigidly prescriptive mindset, and a pathological feeling of supremacy.

Progressivism, like imperialism, is built on the depletion of natural resources, with little concern for sustainability. This attitude extends not just to the plants, animals, and minerals we consume, but to humans (‘human resources’ or ‘human capital’) as well. Thus, the extractive belief system is evident in the slave and sweatshop labor that has and continues to subsidize the economy as well as the rapacious attitude towards nature. As an acquisition-focused philosophy, progressivism treats humans as objects to be possessed and controlled, especially for financial profit. Progressives show no qualms about manipulating people or depriving them of freedom or livelihood to coerce them into compliance because they have no respect for personal agency, seeing other humans as just another resource to be mined.

Progressives view humans as separate from the natural environment, treating nature as something merely to be tamed and conquered. Nature is treated as inherently flawed and in need of improvement by humans. Human solutions, especially technological solutions, are always seen as better than letting nature run its course even when the problems are man-made ones.

Progressives are obsessed with using data, technocracy, and standardization to create a false veneer of objectivity that they use to reinforce the belief in the supremacy of their ideas and to discount the viewpoints that are discordant with progressive ideology, often disdaining opposition as unscientific and false. This is true even where the dissent is unfalsifiable, like satire or an opinion. Progressive imperialists see their own opinions as absolute truth and fail to recognize their own biases and implicit assumptions, just like how early American imperialists deemed their own racialized worldview as scientific and used whatever differences they could quantify between whites and blacks as further evidence of their own supremacy.

Imperialists’ belief that they have ownership of truth fuels their belief in their own supremacy in a circular manner. They believe they are better and smarter than everyone else and therefore that their beliefs are also superior. Deviants and dissenters are perceived as inferior just by virtue of their deviance from the dogma of progressivism. Like the imperialists before them, progressives’ belief in their own superiority is what is used to justify forcing their will on everyone else. They see no problem with censoring criticism, depriving individuals of freedom, and forcing lifestyle choices on others.

Domestic imperialism today

One can recognize progressive imperialists because they are the ones who think their own beliefs are facts and those of the opposition are misinformation to be censored. They may pay lip service to freedom of choice, but upon further questioning you will find that that they also believe that people who make a choice in contradiction of progressive orthodoxy should be punished for exercising that ‘freedom’. They are the ones who increasingly believe that people on the wrong side of progressivism should lose their livelihoods or be excluded from society. They are the ones who believe they are morally justified in forcing other autonomous humans to bend to their will.

The phrase ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is characteristic of progressive imperialism today. The term is a propagandistic tool to pathologize non-compliance with an imperialist vision. Notably, the term implies that there can be no choice on the matter, that it is only a matter of time until everyone gets the vaccine. The entire discussion has been framed in starkly imperialist terms—asking how the state can overcome people’s objections and force compliance—rather than in the liberal terms of personal sovereignty and pluralism (acknowledging that different viewpoints are equally valid and that the decision should be based on personal choice).

Some will protest that the sacrifice of individual autonomy and the state coercion of vaccination is morally defensible because the intention is ostensibly to save lives. That very response is a perfect illustration of the uniquely imperialist mindset. That certainty that one’s position is objectively, morally right; that there can be no room for diversity on the matter; and that one’s superiority of belief is so obvious that it justifies forcing other individuals to submit their very bodies (and, in the case of those who may suffer fatal reactions, possibly their lives) is the epitome of imperialism, the basis from which much oppression has been borne. The assumption of infallibility and the feeling of entitlement to play God with someone else’s health is pure colonization of other human beings. The tendency to assume that someone else’s personal choices about his or her own life should be subordinate to your beliefs is the essence of imperialism. It is an expectation that one can and should dominate others.  Such a person is carrying on the storied legacy of the numerous imperialists before them. Every generation has them, and these people are this era’s imperialist oppressors, though of course, like all imperialists, they see themselves as heroes.

This is particularly salient when you consider the racial dynamics at play with regard to ‘vaccine hesitancy,’ with reluctance to take the vaccine being higher among blacks and other people of color. What could be a more striking example of domestic imperialism than today’s white elites assuming that the reluctance of people of color (as well as non-compliant whites) to take the vaccine is invalid and ignorant and must be overturned? The means that they are employing to entice these communities to comply—using everything from free fast food to hip hop videos—suggests that progressives do not think people of color are capable of having intellectual and philosophical rationales behind their decisions to opt-out. Consequently, progressives rely on cheap attempts to manipulate them emotionally, such as by producing a hip hop video telling people to get vaccinated. It is the kind of patronizing appeal that could only come from people who already assume they are superior and have no respect for the intelligence of any groups they seek to control.

Once again, we see the privileged white upper class acting as missionaries to spread their beliefs as absolute truth to classes of people they deem inferior to themselves, the modern-day savages whom they must tame, control, and manipulate in service of their supposedly objective worldview.

And like the missionaries of old, progressives rationalize their tyranny by claiming that they are doing it for the good of their victims and society. But the end-goal is their own progressive cause. That is why, despite claiming that their desires for vaccine mandates are about saving lives, progressives express little concern for the lives of those people who died after getting these novel technological interventions. Those people died in service of progressive goals so their deaths do not matter. To a progressive imperialist, every such death is a righteous one because humans are just another tool to fulfill progressive ends.

The topic also highlights the progressive loathing of nature. The idea of reliance on natural immunity—what humans have relied on for the maintenance of health since the dawn of human history—rather than on a completely novel technology is disdained by progressives as ignorant and pseudo-scientific. We are no longer permitted to live as human beings have lived for millennia because progressives have decided that such ways of life are outdated and wrong. We cannot opt out of new technologies.

Never mind the fact that proof of natural immunity has been the consensus in the scientific community until last year when progressives censored any scientists that failed to corroborate their directives. Progressives hate nature and refuse to respect its laws. We must all fear nature and live in disharmony with it. Progressives will not allow any other philosophy of living but their own. Yet, for all this faith in technology, the fact that people can still get and transmit the virus after getting the vaccine makes it in fact little more than a superstitious ritual that we all must observe as unwilling participants in the religion of progressivism. It, along with the rest of the hygiene and distancing theater, is an example of how adept imperialists are at transforming their own neuroses and self-interest into moral imperatives for everyone else.

The supremacy attitude and the entitlement to control others and deprive them of rights and privileges are the hallmarks of imperialism, the same qualities that have under-girded all the major human atrocities of the past and those underway and to come.

(Headline) "With a “left press” like this, who needs fascist media?" (Lede) "How our “progressive” stars and outlets manage not to say a word about the gravest crisis in the history of humanity", by Mark Crispin Miller, published on Off Guardian on 27 August 2021

 

Source: offGuardian

With a “left press” like this, who needs fascist media?How our “progressive” stars and outlets manage not to say a word about the gravest crisis in the history of humanity

Mark Crispin Miller

It pains me to say it, but Caitlin Johnstone—whose work I used to champion ardently, defending her against the crypto-Stalinists at Counterpunch—is one of many “leftists” who keep partying like it’s 2019.

Same with the interminable Noam Chomsky, The Nation, Consortium News, MoveOn, Popular Resistance, Nation of Change, Covert Action Bulletin, Naomi Klein, Tom Engelhardt and others that I used to champion, and (in some cases) see as friends, as well as outlets that I used to write for.

So Caitlin loves her boomer Dad for his irrepressible outrage over the bombing of Afghanistan, and loves ALL boomers for their fiery dissidence—on issues that don’t matter much at this apocalyptic moment.

From her, and all those other “progressive” voices/outlets, you’d never know that World War III has been raging (openly) since January 2020—a global war against humanity itself.

Someone should tell Caitlin—an Australian!—that those feisty boomers, with some very few exceptions, have turned rigidly authoritarian, and often downright hateful toward the bravest and most necessary dissidents today, standing firm against the bio-fascist mandates of the New World Order, and the looming portents of the Great Reset: dangers that those “leftist” sages never even mention, much less question or confront.

While Caitlin, resident of Melbourne, riffs indignantly about the bombing of Afghanistan back in 19 B.C. (Before COVID), the staunchest dissidents Down Under are the truck drivers threatening to shut that country down, if its cops don’t take their boots off everybody’s necks.

In the midst of this vast slo-mo Holocaust, conducted in the name of “public health” (much as the last one was), we find no reference to it, nor any reference to the unprecedented global wave of censorship on which that Holocaust depends, or to the naked violence of the police throughout the “democratic” West, or to the financial purposes of this whole global nightmare, in any of the “leftist” outlets named above.

Instead, we get “Ban Killer Drones,” “Why US Policy in Nicaragua Isn’t Working,” “America’s Merchants of Death Then and Now” (with no mention of Big Pharma), “Hidden costs of militarism: Climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss,” and (my personal favorite) “Is a Cold War Still Possible in an Overheating World?”

My point is not that such well-worn concerns don’t matter anymore (though some of them were overblown before the COVID crisis), but that they’re now being used by our “left” press to give the misimpression that they’re really on the left — working for peace, freedom, civil rights and economic fairness, always in the interests of the people over all — instead of blinding us to this unprecedented global drive to make those things impossible, and snuff the people out.

Mark Crispin Miller is Professor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University and the author of several books, including Boxed In: The Culture of TV; Seeing Through Movies; Mad Scientists: The Secret History of Modern Propaganda; Spectacle: Operation Desert Storm and the Triumph of Illusion; and The Bush Dyslexicon. You can read more of his work through his newsletter, News from the Underground

Follow The Money - Medical Murder For Profit By Ventilator

 https://www.themedicalcareblog.com/ventilators-covid19/

Are DRG-based Reimbursements Appropriate for COVID-19?

Current healthcare reimbursements may create incentives for excess use of ventilators to treat COVID-19 patients. Recent research has shown that healthcare providers, including hospitals, have experienced substantial financial losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternative, less-invasive treatments for critically ill COVID-19 patients could potentially improve patient outcomes. But these approaches expose hospitals to losing even more revenue because of higher reimbursements for ventilator care.

Emerging Treatment Alternatives

Intubation involves inserting a breathing tube into the windpipe so the ventilator can pump air into the lungs (see illustration). Among COVID-19 patients admitted to hospitals, at least a quarter require care in the ICU, and the majority are put on ventilators at some point. Hospitalization and ventilation are more likely for Medicare patients who are older and have more comorbidities, making them susceptible to severe COVID-19. Each day on mechanical ventilation increases risk of complications and death, and risks remain elevated for at least a year after weaning.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment guidelines on when mechanical ventilation is necessary were fairly clear-cut. Guidelines were based on decades of research and experience on existing respiratory conditions. However, when COVID-19 arrived, so did the uncertainty about the best timing and criteria for ventilator use in ICUs.

As clinicians learn more about this disease, expert opinions, along with treatment patterns, are shifting towards using less intensive oxygen therapy treatments (like high-flow nasal oxygen) and prone positioning as the first line of treatment for many COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure/ASRD, while intubation is used as the last resort.

Alternative approaches may improve patient outcomes and reduce costs associated with ventilator use. While mechanical ventilation is often a crucial life-saving measure for severe respiratory failure, it carries significant risks, including high risk of death, lung injury, or other complications for survivors. Even when this intervention successfully brings patients back from the brink of death, “weaning” off the ventilator is a difficult and risky process for survivors. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, in-hospital mortality among ventilated patients was 35%, and only 31% of patients were discharged home from the hospital. The death rate among ventilated COVID-19 patients is even higher, reaching at least 60% in New York hospitals in April.

Payment Depends on Treatment Approach

According to updated CMS coding guidelines [PDF], as of April 1, 2020, patients with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 are reimbursed under billing codes (known as diagnosis-related groups, or DRGs) 177-179, Respiratory Infections and Inflammations, with the exact code and reimbursement depending on the presence and severity of complications or comorbidities. However, if mechanical ventilation is required, the codes are 207-208, Respiratory System Diagnosis with Ventilator Support. The exhibit presented below shows the estimated Medicare base payments for these codes, which include operational and capital payments as well as the 20% bump-up in payment that CMS has applied to COVID-19 admissions since April (doctors’ fees are separate and additional).

Hospital reimbursements appropriately reflect the fact that ventilated patients spend over a week in the ICU hooked up to expensive equipment and need to be monitored closely and weaned slowly. But taking care of critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with alternative oxygen therapies in the ICU may be quite resource-intensive as well, with nurses having to tend to awake patients, help them with prone positioning, and constantly monitor for exacerbations that could require intubation.

Choosing the best treatment approach for COVID-19 patients encounters a potential problem in the reimbursement system: COVID-19 admissions that involve ventilation are reimbursed at a much higher rate than the alternatives (see chart). Medicare enrollees with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation over 96 hours (MS-DRG 207) are reimbursed at over $42,000, while COVID-19 patients with ASRD treated with other therapies would likely be MS-DRG 177, which is paid at around $14,000.

This means that hospitals implementing less-intensive treatment approaches would start losing a lot of revenue on COVID-19 patients. If doctors first try less-intensive therapies for a Medicare COVID-19 patient with ARDS, and the patient doesn’t require intubation at all (or dies before being intubated), hospital would lose about $28,000 in revenue on that patient admission. In addition, delaying ventilator use or extubating earlier significantly reduce hospital revenue if continuous time spent on ventilator becomes less than 4 days – about $23,000 difference for someone who spent 96 versus 97 hours on a ventilator.

This problem is not limited to Medicare payments. Most commercial insurance companies and state Medicaid programs now use the DRG-based payment system, which has even higher payment difference in reimbursements for ventilator versus non-ventilator COVID-19 treatments. According to Kaiser Family Foundation research, commercial reimbursement for admissions classified as MS-DRG 207(ventilation > 96 hours) tops $100,000, while is MS-DRG 177 (respiratory infection with major complications) is around $34,000 – a whooping $66,000 difference.

From the patient perspective, the choice and duration of treatment strongly affect quality of life and care experiences. How many patients, given a choice, would prefer to be intubated, put into a medically induced coma, and exposed to greater risk of complications and death if an alternative therapy with similar efficacy is available? Out-of-pocket costs to patients are also higher for more costly hospital stays. Patients are on the hook for deductibles, copayments, and 20% coinsurance payments for physician charges.

Hospitals Have a Strong Financial Incentive to Use Ventilators

The payment for critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with oxygen therapy, or other alternatives to mechanical ventilators, is disproportionately low and may be  inadequate given the resources required to treat these patients. Thus, hospitals have a strong financial incentive to stick with the original approach: “intubate early and often.” It may be true that fewer patient days and nursing hours are involved when patient is managed with alternative treatments, but unless hospitals are at capacity, it is hospital revenues that drive their margins in the short run.

Most clinicians just want to do what’s best for their patients. However, approaches to treating COVID-19 patients with ARDS differ a lot across hospitals. This may have major effects on patient outcomes as well as on hospital revenues, especially in areas where COVID-19 patients are a major source of revenue for hospitals. There is an urgent need to make COVID-19 treatment costs less sensitive to ventilator use and align incentives for hospitals to adopt best treatment practices.

THE VACCINATION CRAZE

THE VACCINATION CRAZE

This is a pre-publication of a chapter that will be finalized in the forthcoming book «Corona Unmasked« by Sucharit Bhakdi and Karina Reiss.

Will good things come only to those who wait?

Until now, most of the public has accepted and sup-ported the development of vaccines without doubt and hesitation. And rightly so, since vaccinations can save lives. But no vaccination will ever be perfect and free of side effects. Useful vaccines must meet two important requirements: 1. the vaccine must offer protection against a serious or even life-threatening disease; 2. its side effects must be within tolerable and acceptable limits.

On balance, the benefit must be much greater than the risk. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? And it is true. Who would get vaccinated against a common cold if this meant taking an incalculable risk of severe side effects? Furthermore, not every vaccination has to be useful for every person. Living in Germany, we do not need a vaccination against yellow fever, since it does not occur here.

We already know that COVID-19 puts a clearly de-fined group of people at risk – namely, those over 70 with serious preexisting conditions. For these people, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 might possibly make sense. Of course, before such vaccinations could begin, the vaccine‘s efficacy and potential dangers would need to be examined very carefully. However, the clinical studies conducted thus far have excluded precisely this group of patients, so that efficacy and risks remained unknown before the roll-out of the vaccine.

Does the »killer coronavirus« justify exceptions?

In mid-October 2020, the President of the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Lothar Wieler, told the Phoenix television station: “We all assume that vaccines will be approved next year. We don’t know yet exactly how they will work, how well they will work, what they will do; but I’m very optimistic that there will be vaccines.” He was right about everything. The vaccines are here, and they are being given en masse – yet we don’t know if they work, how well they work, or what they do. That is why these vaccines have not been given regular approval by the EU, but only a “conditional approval” for emergency use (1). In the next 2 years, it will be re-viewed whether their benefits outweigh the risks. Every person who gets vaccinated now is part of this huge experiment. But, of course, without any liability! Because with vaccinations under emergency rules, the manufacturers make no guarantees whatsoever – in case of serious reactions, or even in case of death, they are free from any liability.

Especially for completely novel, gene-based vaccines such as the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, a careful study of the possible risks would be particularly important, because according to the current state of scientific knowledge, a variety of severe side effects are conceivable.

It is thus all the more astonishing that meaningful studies on the efficacy and safety of these novel vaccines do not exist at all – but at the same time, these same vaccines have already been pre-ordered by European governments for the population in huge quantities. Nor were such studies feasible within the short time available. Three pharmaceutical companies were at the fore-front of the mad race for the highly lucrative emergency approval: AstraZeneca with its DNA vector vaccine based on an adenovirus, and Biontech/Pfizer as well as Moderna with their mRNA vaccines. On December 21, 2020, the EU Commission approved the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine, followed shortly thereafter on January 6 by approval of the Moderna vaccine; and on January 29, AstraZeneca received EU approval, too. While careful clinical testing of a new vaccine was previously known to take at least 7–10 years, the whole process has now been shortened to mere months. Could reliable data be on the table in such a short time, so that the public could weigh risk versus benefit? Of course not.

Nevertheless, everything was accepted and bought sight unseen by the authorities in Europe. In contrast, the Indian health authorities said NO to the Biontech/Pfizer vaccine because the safety of the population was not guaranteed (2).

Do current vaccines protect against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection?

As a matter of fact, a protective effect against severe and possibly life-threatening COVID-19 disease could not be shown in monkey models with any of the vaccines (3–5). All of these trials faced the same crucial problem: infected monkeys never became severely ill, either with or without vaccination (6). The monkeys can model infection, but they cannot model the dangerous form of the disease.

What do the human trials say?

Mainstream media jubilantly spread the press releases of the companies without ever asking any critical questions. Thus, from the media we learn that the protection afforded by the vaccines is simply great – with Biontech/Pfizer the level of protection is even 95 per-cent! That sounds great – bring on the vaccination!

But how do these numbers come about, knowing that healthy people very rarely get life-threatening COVID-19?

In fact, among the 40,000+ test subjects of the Biontech/Pfizer study (7), just 170 COVID-19 “cases” occurred (about 0.4%). Of these, 8 occurred among the vaccinated (1x severe), whereas 162 in the unvaccinated control group. The 8 cases in the first group equal 5% of the 162 in the second – therefore, 95% protection!?

Considering this small number of cases overall, the evidence must be described as plainly ridiculous from a scientific point of view. Moreover: how did this study define a “COVID-19 case” in the first place? Aha: symptoms like cough, cold, hoarseness and a positive RT-PCR test, which is extremely unreliable, as everyone knows by now. So, what we have here is a vaccination that might possibly prevent cough, cold, hoarseness in 0.7% of the vaccinated. For this breathtaking achievement, hundreds of vaccinated people had to accept severe side effects, some of which led to hospitalization.

The situation is no better for the other vaccine manufacturers. Accordingly, Professor Peter Doshi, wri-ting in the prestigious British Journal of Medicine (8), complains: “None of the studies currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in severe outcomes in terms of hospitalization, admission to intensive care units, or death."

How great is the benefit of vaccination, especially for the group most at risk from the infection? No one knows. Thereby, the justification for the conditional approval is the demonstrated prevention of serious or even deadly events. The conditional approvals for all gene-based vaccines were thus made without any basis whatsoever. The human trial continues, and everyone who is now enthusiastic about being vaccinated is taking part.

Does the vaccine prevent infection and thus the spread of the viruses?

A widely proclaimed goal of vaccination is not only to prevent COVID-19 disease in the vaccinated persons, but also to prevent the spread of the virus in the population. Already in kindergartens and elementary schools, children are taught that they could unknowingly kill their grandparents because they carry the vi-ruses without being sick themselves. To prevent this, everyone should be vaccinated, including the children. Does this make sense – can a vaccination prevent an infection at all?

Let us start with the first question: does it make sense to try to prevent the spread of viruses that are of little danger to most people in order to supposedly protect a risk group?

First, some basics. Did you know that 90% of Germans carry herpes viruses around without realizing it (9)? The viruses only become noticeable when the immune system is weakened, for example during other infectious diseases, fever, or stress. Strictly speaking, we all carry an astonishing number of possible pathogens on and inside our bodies – yet we are healthy. Coronaviruses have also been known to be carried around by people for decades without causing symptoms. In the past, these people were called “healthy,” and nobody paid any attention to them. Today, they are deemed “asymptomatically infected” and therefore highly dangerous. However, we now know that the same is true for SARS-CoV-2: people without acute symptoms will not spread the severe disease COVID-19 in public (10– 12).

When we do develop symptoms, this is a sign that the viruses have found a chance to become active, and also that our immune system has entered the battle. If there is no cough, cold, hoarseness, etc., it means that our body is keeping the viruses at bay from the start. The viral load that a person can release into the out-side world without symptoms is too small to endanger other people in public. Therefore, the plan to vaccinate the entire population is a delusional and insane under-taking.

Let us turn to question 2: could the vaccines pre-vent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 viruses at all? The RKI states that this question is completely unresolved so far (13). To find out, one would have to examine whether

1-vaccinated people can still get an infection and whether 2-in this case, the amount of virus present is sufficient to infect others. AstraZeneca alone made headlines with the news that vaccinated people were significantly less contagious. However, on closer inspection, it is blindingly obvious that once more no data exist to draw this conclusion. The study in question only looked at part 1 of the question: how many more people get an infection after being vaccinated. How was this checked?

The only criterion was positive RT-PCR tests (14). Now even the WHO says that the PCR test alone is not enough to diagnose an infection (15). So, what is the unsubstantiated claim worth that the spread of infection was massively reduced by the AstraZeneca vaccine? NOTHING.

Anyone who has the slightest idea about infections and immune defense also knows that the mechanistic concept for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination which is presented to the public is amateurish and naive from the start. The antibodies induced by the vaccination will circulate for the most part in the bloodstream. For an analogy, readers may imagine that they themselves are such antibodies, sitting together in the living room – which represents a blood vessel of the lungs.

Now the virus comes to the house – not bothering to ring the bell, it just grabs the door handle and steps into the hallway: the lung cell. How could you possibly stop it from doing so, while sitting in the living room? You can’t.

Antibodies can basically only help prevent the further spread of an intruder through the bloodstream. But that is not the primary protection against an attack from the air against the lungs. And that is precisely why there is no truly effective vaccine protection against respiratory infections, including influenza.

If the benefits of vaccinations are more than questionable, what about the risks?

We read in the mainstream media: mRNA vaccines are not new after all. That is true, but they have NEVER been used on humans to fight a viral infection. And humans have never been inoculated with recombinant viral genes, in the form of either DNA or mRNA.

Accordingly, the vaccinations were under a dark cloud from the outset. With all three gene-based vac-cines, disturbing immediate side effects were noted – but carefully hidden from general awareness: severe swelling and pain at the injection site, high fever and chills, severe headache, limb and muscle pain throughout the body, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting. Many vaccinated people were so sick that they were unable to work. In the AstraZeneca study, the side effects were so bad that the study protocol had to be changed halfway through: in the later stages, study participants received high doses of the pain- and fever-relieving drug acetaminophen in order to make the vaccination reasonably tolerable (16). Such changes of protocol in the middle of a study are actually not permitted at all. Why was an exception made here?

But that is not all. The AstraZeneca study was interrupted in July and September 2020 because of the occurrence in vaccinees of an extremely rare autoimmune disease, which affects the spinal cord (17). “Transverse myelitis” is associated with paralysis and normally occurs at the very low frequency of approximately 3 per 1 million population, every year. It is surprising, then, that 2 such cases occurred among a relatively small number of vaccinated individuals. AstraZeneca announced days later: calm down people, the first test person had incipient multiple sclerosis, the second case was purely an unfortunate coincidence. The show will go on! And so, it did – AstraZeneca continued to forge ahead. But not only AstraZeneca – so did everyone else. The Biontech/Pfizer vaccine caused acute facial para-lysis in 4 participants, and Moderna vaccine in 2, without the cause having been clarified (18). The prevailing attitude was, apparently: Why bother with such details if the race is on to save the world’s population from ruin, for better or worse ?

Comparable events occurred with competitors Moderna and Biontech/Pfizer. With both vaccines, volunteers suffered similarly severe general side effects. This sentence might be moved up to the discussion of general febrile reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Such a variety of immediate side effects has never been observed with any other vaccination. In America, when comparing the number of reported side effects of different vaccines over the 2 last years, the COVID-19 vaccine already comes out on top, although it was ap-proved only in December 2020 (19).

 

Is the mRNA vaccine dangerous?

"No" is the answer that is spread everywhere. This is because 1) the vaccine introduces into our body only the information for a small part of the virus, for the so-called spike protein, which means that there is no intact virus that could propagate, and 2) the vaccine only imitates what Nature, too, would do. Intact viruses also release their genetic material into our cells when they attack, turning our cells into virus factories. So, no problem there at all, right?

Far from it. A natural respiratory infection typically affects only the respiratory tract itself. If, at worst, cell death occurs, the damage is local and can be repaired relatively easily.

With a vaccine, however, the viral genetic information is injected into the muscle. Many believe that the packaged viral genes remain at the site of injection – that is, within in the muscle. The genes would be taken up by cells at the site, which is where most “virus factories” would be created. Side effects such as swelling, redness and pain at the injection site would be expected because of this, but they would remain relatively harm-less and go away after a few days.

What a fatal mistake!

The virus genes in the Moderna and Biontech/Pfizer vaccines are packaged in so-called nanoparticles – which can be thought of as tiny packages, not made of paper, but of fat-like substances. This protects the con-tents and makes it easier for them to be absorbed by the cells of our body. The packaging itself causes a risk of severe allergic reactions that is many times higher than with conventional vaccines (20). It is thus not without reason that people with allergies are now being warned not to get vaccinated – life-threatening reactions (anaphylactic shock) could be triggered. In fact, such dangerous side effects did occur in some vaccination volunteers, who required emergency treatment. In addition, nanoparticles can have numerous other harmful effects because they can interfere with the function of our blood cells and clotting system (21).

But it gets infinitely worse. It is part of basic medical knowledge that all soluble substances injected into muscle tissue enter the bloodstream and are distributed throughout the body within a very short time. This is precisely why substances that are supposed to act im-mediately are injected into the muscles.

It is known that the injected gene packets also enter the bloodstream (22). Which cell types will take them up, process them, and then produce the virus protein?

The answer to this is not known with certainty. We are now witnessing large-scale experiments on hu-mans. This is absolutely irresponsible, especially since there was reason for caution from the beginning. The potential dangers from the “packaging” were already known. More significantly, however, alarming antibody-dependent enhancement – in this case, the antibodies do not prevent uptake of the virus into cells, but rather enhance it – has been observed in animal studies on SARS and other coronaviruses (23, 24). In the de-cades-long, yet futile effort to develop vaccines against SARS or MERS, this enhancement effect was repeated-ly observed, as one among problem among many others (25). With this in mind, should not animal studies have been conducted to clearly rule out this effect for SARS-CoV-2? Physicians who do not alert those willing to be vaccinated to the risk that vaccination could make the disease worse, not better, are in violation of their duty to inform (26).

And more seriously, could the inoculation of viral genes trigger other novel immune-related enhancement effects? Shouldn’t such very elementary things have been considered and tested beforehand?

As a reminder, lymphocytes have a long-term memory – they remember what the «molecular garbage« looks like that is produced in Coronavirus infections. And corona garbage looks pretty much the same no matter which member of the virus family it is derived from. All humans have had training rounds with coronaviruses, and thus they have lymphocytes that will re-cognize SARS-CoV-2 garbage. People without in-depth knowledge might counter that these cross-reactive killer lymphocytes were detected in only 40–70% of old blood samples, and they reacted only weakly against SARS-CoV-2 (27, 28). However, it is known that only a small proportion of all lymphocytes are in the blood at any given time. The others are just taking a break and resting in the lymphoid organs (including the lymph nodes).

Here, we note an exciting finding: In April 2020, Swedish researchers reported that they had discovered something truly remarkable. Activated and combat-ready T lymphocytes were found in the blood of all people (100%) infected with SARS-CoV-2, regardless of the severity of the disease (29).

This finding is a clear, unmistakable warning.

For context: during an initial confrontation of the immune system with a virus, the lymphocyte response will be sluggish. Rapid, strong reactions such as that documented by the Swedish team reveal that forewarned troops are already at the ready and can be mobilized on short notice. They will swarm out of the lymphoid organs to fight the enemy. Their main task: ex-termination of the virus factories – death to the body’s own cells that produce the virus particles.

And now back to the new reality: the large-scale experiment on humans. The injected gene packets are taken up locally in muscle cells, but a large part reaches first the local lymph nodes and, after passing through these, the bloodstream. The lymph nodes are where the immune cell team resides. When the viral gene is taken up by any cell there, production of the spike protein gets underway. The corona killer lymphocyte next door wakes up and springs into action – the brotherly battle begins! Lymph node swelling. Pain. The lymphocytes psyche each other up and then emerge from the lymph nodes to seek out more enemies.

Yes – over there – the muscle cells! There they are!!! Attack!!! At the injection site redness, swelling, bad pain.

But now the nightmare.

This is because the substances with small molecules – for example, blood sugar – can easily seep out of the blood into the tissue, whereas large molecules such as proteins cannot. For them, the vessel walls are tight thanks to the lining with a cell layer – the endothelial cells.

What are the gene packages like – large or small?

Right – compared to blood sugar, they certainly are large. Therefore, once they enter the bloodstream, they will remain in the closed network of vascular tubes just like the blood cells. A small part of them is taken up by white blood cells. Presumably, however, most of the virus factories will be established in the endothelial cells, that is, in the innermost cell layer of the blood vessels themselves.

This would happen mainly where the blood flows slowly – within the smallest and smallest vessels – because the gene packages can be taken up particularly efficiently by the cells there (30).

The endothelial cells then produce the viral spike protein and place the waste at the door – on the side that faces the bloodstream, where killer lymphocytes are on patrol. This time, the fight is one-sided. The endothelial cells have no defense.

What happens then can only be guessed at. Injury to the vascular lining usually leads to the formation of blood clots. This would likely happen in countless vessels in countless places in the body. If it happens in the placenta, severe damage to the child in the womb could result. Shudder.

Is there evidence that something like this is taking place? Yes, there is talk of rare blood disorders in which a possible link to vaccination would have to be investigated (31). Strikingly, there are reports of patients in whom a sharp drop in blood platelets (thrombocytes) was observed. This would fit the hypothesis put for-ward here, because platelets are activated and used up at the sites of blood clot formation.

Could you check if the assumption is correct? Yes. Laboratory findings provide immediate information on whether blood clotting is underway. Autopsies could clarify whether clots have formed in the small vessels. And in the meantime, consideration could be given to whether anticoagulants should be administered to patients as a preventive measure. The administration of cortisone preparations to dampen lymphocyte activity might also be worth considering.

There currently is a continuous stream of reports on deaths happening worldwide in close temporal connection with the vaccination. Officially it is said, of course, that the vaccination has nothing to do with these deaths. It is almost all older people with numerous preexisting conditions, who would have soon departed this world anyway. If that should be actually so, probably no thinking and sympathetic humans can fathom why these poor people still had to be inoculated with a poorly characterized vaccine such a short time before their natural deaths.

What could cause death in a frail person hours or days after vaccination?  

Several effects are conceivable. Stress from the vaccination itself; allergic reactions. Autoimmune attack. Lymphocytes are also operational in old age. In elderly people with preexisting disease, the attack on the virus factories could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

It becomes somewhat more complicated when a simultaneous infection with the SARS-CoV-2 also comes into play. In several nursing homes, there have apparently been COVID-19 outbreaks just in the days after residents were vaccinated. Funny, funny – up until that point, there had been hardly any cases in the entire area, and all hygiene measures had been followed. There were outbreaks even after the second injection of the vaccine (32,33), a clear and expected indication that vaccination does not protect against infection.

I think here one must distinguish between patients with and without preexisting latent infections – it is conceivable (though unlikely) that those without infection are protected, whereas those with the infection are killed.

What is more, it seems that particularly the vaccinated are dying. Is this perhaps the immune-related exacerbation of diseases we have reason to fear? Not caused by antibodies, but by activated killer lymphocytes? And couldn’t this happen at any time to anyone vaccinated – tomorrow, the next day, next week, next fall? Because lymphocytes have an elephant’s memory. And they recognize something that looks similar in all coronaviruses: the molecular garbage that is produced by the virus-infected cells. That is, the lymphocyte-induced exacerbation of disease progression could arguably occur with any infection with a related virus. In any “successfully” vaccinated person – young or old – and at any time in the near or distant future.

Conclusion

Gene-based vaccines received emergency approval at lightning speed to combat a virus that is no more dangerous than influenza (34). There is now clear evidence that people can become severely ill and die from these vaccinations. No real-world benefit of vaccination has ever been shown. Until reliable and convincing data are available, this high-risk human experiment must not be allowed to continue.

_____________________________

References

(1)              www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-informati-on/comirnaty-epar-product-information_de.pdf

(2)              https://m.dw.com/en/india-pfizer-withdraws-covid-vac-cine-application-for-emergency-use/a-56462616

(3)              https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.11.421008v1

(4)              https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ-Moa2024671

(5)              https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586–020–2608-y

(6)              https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6494/1012.%20long

(7)              https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/%20NEJMoa2034577?query=featured_home

(8)              https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037

(9)              https://www.bmbf.de/de/90-prozent-der-deutschen-tra-gen-die-herpes-simplex-viren-vom-typ-1-in-sich-4310.%20html

(10)            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32453686/

(11)            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467%20020%20%2019802-w

(12)            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591–020–1046–6

(13)            https://www.rki.de/DE/Home/homepage_node.html

(14)            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_%20id=3777268

(15)            https://www.who.int/news/item/20–01–2021-who-in-formation-notice-for-ivd-users-2020–05

(16)            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445431/

(17)            https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Nachrichten/Astra-Zeneca-stoppt-Corona-Impfstudien-412708.html

(18)            https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Impfen/Mate-rialien/Downloads-COVID-19/Aufklaerungsbogen-de.%20pdf?__blob=publicationFile

(19)            https://wonder.cdc.gov/

(20)            https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM-ra2035343

(21)            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6829615/

(22)            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6383180/

(23)            https://jvi.asm.org/content/85/20/10582

(24)            https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jvms/60/1/60_1_49/_article

(25)            https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929–020–00695–2

(26)            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795

(27)            https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-35331/v1

(28)            https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015

(29)            http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.017

(30)            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201906274

(31)            https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/health/immu-ne-thrombocytopenia-covid-vaccine-blood.html

(32)            https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/ge-impfte-altenheim-bewohner-positiv-auf-corona-varian-te-getestet,SOLqrXv

(33)            https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article225923129/Landkreis-Osnabrueck-Trotz-zweiter-Impfung-Ausbruch-von-Corona-Variante-in-Altenheim.html

(34)            https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/%20BLT.20.265892.pdf 

Furor Erupts After Australian Officials Kill Rescue Dogs Over COVID-19 Fears

https://news.yahoo.com/furor-erupts-australian-officials-kill-100754165.html

Furor Erupts After Australian Officials Kill Rescue Dogs Over COVID-19 Fears

Mary Papenfuss

Australian district officials have set off a storm of controversy after ordering the killing of several impounded rescue dogs because of COVID-19 transmission fears, triggering a government investigation.

The rural Bourke Shire Council in New South Wales ordered the dogs shot last week to prevent volunteers at an animal shelter from traveling to the pound to collect them as part of a process to find homes for the animals, according to the Office of Local Government, which oversees local councils, The Sydney Morning Herald reported Sunday.

It was not immediately clear how many dogs were killed. One of them was reportedly a female who had recently given birth to a litter of puppies.

“OLG has been informed that the council decided to take this course of action to protect its employees and community, including vulnerable Aboriginal populations, from the risk of COVID-19 transmission,” said a statement from the office.

There has been a surge of cases in New South Wales. But according to NSW health data, there have been no recent COVID-19 cases in Cobar, where the shelter is located, though evidence of the virus has been detected in Cobar’s sewage system.

The OLG is now investigating to determine if the council violated animal cruelty prevention laws, according to the Herald.

Shelter volunteers are distraught about the killings, a source told the Herald. They had established carefully devised COVID-safety measures in place to collect the dogs, according to the source.

There was no official word from the council or the shelter, which was identified by the Telegraph as the Rural Outback Animal Respite/Rescue center.

Despite a lockdown and other stringent restrictions due to COVID-19, the NSW government had told animal shelters that they could continue to operate with COVID safety plans in place, reported Australia’s News Corp service.

“We are deeply distressed and completely appalled by this callous dog shooting,” Animal Liberation activist Lisa Ryan told the Herald.

“We totally reject council’s unacceptable justifications that this killing was apparently undertaken as part of a COVID-safe plan.”

Sidewalk Authority

An original OP by Disqus commenter ozarkmichael.

Sidewalk Authority

Driving home through the edges of a city, my two lanes became one as I entered a rounded corner before going under a train trestle. A police car, with lights flashing frantically, was parked in my lane. With the police car in my way and the flashing lights there was no way to get around or even see what it was all about. I pulled around when the oncoming traffic cleared.

Normally I dont look at police or wrecks (except to make sure no one is hurt) since thats a great way to get in a wreck yourself. This time I was curious. What manner of crime is so important that the police had to pull over in such a dangerous spot? Glancing to the right I was surprised that there was no other car at all, just a police officer on the sidewalk with his back to me. He had one foot in the brush as he scanned up the brushy but very steep hillside. He had his hands on his hips and he was yelling. There didnt seem to be anyone else there.

So I couldn't help it. I slowed, stopped even. The first thing I noticed was yellow 'crime scene' tape which was stretched all along the edge of the sidewalk for 30 yards, and up the hill through the brush.

Then I saw it. Well, not "it", but "them".

Goats... lots of goats... jostling, chewing, tearing up vegetation. How did they get there? What delicacies did they want on that hillside? I will never know.

One thing I do know. The goats didnt obey the limits placed by the police officer's crime scene tape since they ignored it to get to more vegetation. Nor were they afraid of the police officer but came right next to him.

I drove on and left him to it: hands on hips, legs apart, yelling at the hillside, and lights flashing.

But he kept to the sidewalk.

"Why Do Some People Support Tyranny While Others Defy It?" by Brandon Smith, posted 12 August 2021 at "Alt-Market" and reposted at "Anti-Empire" on 20 August 2021

Mensch59 here. In my email inbox this morning was the quote from this article:

"...call them collectivists, call them whatever you want; but know that the globalists are not our only concern. There is a wall of self absorbed and power hungry peons in the way, and they want whatever scraps they can get from the big boy’s table. They are not oblivious; they have not been tricked into doing the things they do. They are a sad and pathetic bunch but they are still dangerous in their ambitions, and they will continue to slither out of the woodwork as the covid agenda progresses." 

and the suggestion "worth reading in full." It is. So I thought I'd bring it to others' attention. Thanks to you, the readers and the author and to the person who suggested it.  

Why Do Some People Support Tyranny While Others Defy It?

"They understand to some extent that they are helping in the destruction of other people’s freedoms…and they revel in it"

The Covid Rouge

Brandon Smith 20 Aug 21 737  29

“Frankly at this point it is going to be us, or them. Our two tribes cannot coexist within the same society, maybe not even the same planet.”

There is a fundamental question that haunts the pages of history and it is one that has never been addressed in a satisfactory manner. There are many schools of thought on why and how tyranny rises in any given society and all of them miss the mark in terms of explanations, primarily because they all allow their biases to rule their conclusions and blind them to the deeper aspects of power and conspiracy. In other words, they are willing to go down the rabbit hole only so far, and then they deny that the rabbit hole even exists.

The common assumption when it comes to autocracy or oligarchy is that people are “stupid” and easily manipulated into following compelling personalities that make promises they never intend to keep. This is a foolish oversimplification. In truth, the level of manipulation needed to lure a majority of people into dictatorship is so complex that it requires an advanced understanding of human psychology.

In our modern era, people cannot merely be ordered to submit at gunpoint, at least not right away. They must be tricked into conforming, and not only that, but they must be made to think that it was THEIR IDEA all along. Without this dynamic of self censorship and self enslavement, the population will eventually rebel no matter how oppressive the regime. A thousand year tyranny cannot exist unless a number of people are conned into applauding it, or, they directly benefit from it.

And this is where we find the true key to totalitarianism – It only thrives because there is an inherent portion of any given society that secretly loves it and wants it to exist. We might call these people useful idiots, but it is much more than that. They are not necessarily unaware of what they are doing; they understand to some extent that they are helping in the destruction of other people’s freedoms…and they revel in it. Sure, there are elitists and globalists that levy core conspiracies and seek out more and more control, but they could not accomplish much of anything without the aid of the army of sociopathic aberrations that live among us.

This strange and destructive characteristic is ever visible today in light of the covid lockdowns and the push for forced vaccinations. It is clear that there are some people out there that are overly concerned with the personal health decisions of everyone else. The science and the stats prove there is nothing for them to worry about from the virus, but they ignore the science. They thirst for the taste of power. They have become a cult which ignores all logic and demands fealty to their fraudulent narrative. They do not care about the facts, they only care that we comply.

Well, as I have said time and time again: We Will Not Comply!

And so begins the epic conflict; a tale as old as civilization itself. There are two types of people in this world: Those that want to control others, and those that want to be left alone. But what motivates the control freaks? Why are they the way they are? Lets examine some of the causes…

The Fear Engine

There are people that are driven by success, by merit, by hope, by prosperity, by faith, by optimism, by love, and by honor. And then, there are people driven by fear. There are hundreds of various fears, but only a few ways to react to any of them. Collectivists respond to fear with a desperate need to micromanage their environment; they believe that if they can dictate people and events to a certain degree, they can eliminate unexpected outcomes and be free of fear. But life does not work this way and it never will.

The level of influence these people seek is so far beyond them that it can never be attained. That is to say, they will never be satisfied until they get more. Their fears will always haunt them because fears cannot be dealt with from without, they can only be dealt with from within.

Furthermore, the things they fear often revolve around their own narcissism and are of their own making. They fear failure, but they rarely work hard enough to succeed. They fear exposure, but only because they constantly lie. They fear conflict, but only because they are weak in body and character. They fear death, because they believe in nothing greater than themselves. They clamor for dominance of their surroundings because they wrongly believe that they can cheat fate and the consequences of their own terrible choices.

The Safety Of The Mob

The issue of fear extends into the common mindset of the totalitarian and how they find safety. The idea of standing on their own two feet and standing by their principles in the face of opposition is completely foreign to them. They avoid these situations at any cost and the notion of risk is abhorrent to them. So, they instead look for a mob to blend into. This makes them feel safe in obscurity while also wielding force through collectivist action. They can feel powerful while at the same time being pitiful and weak.

These people almost always operate through large single-minded groups that punish any dissension in the ranks, usually with gatekeepers that moderate the motivations of the hive.

The mob itself is a weapon, its only purpose beyond the comfort of its adherents is to destroy those people that do not hold the same beliefs or values as the controllers. There is no defensive purpose to the mob; it is an assassin’s tool, it is a nuclear bomb. And, as we have seen in every modern dictatorship from the Bolsheviks in Russia to the Fascists in Germany to the communists in Mao’s China, the totalitarian mob is capable of murdering more people than any nuclear weapon in existence, all in the name of “the greater good of the greater number.”

False Piety In Place Of Self Worth

All tyrants believe themselves to be righteous in their cause, even when they know that their actions are morally abhorrent. I have seen this dynamic on bold display during the covid mandates and the vaccine passports initiatives. Consider for a moment that 99.7% of the population is under no legitimate threat from the covid virus; they will not die from it, and in the vast majority of cases they will recover quickly from it. Yet the covid cult consistently argues that people who refuse the mandates, the lockdowns and the vaccines are putting others at risk, which is why we need to be “forced” to submit.

Most of them know according to the data that covid is not a threat, but the narrative gives them an opportunity to apply power through “moral judgment”, and so they lie, and they continue to lie about the data until they think the lie will be accepted as reality. This is a common aspect of most cults and of fundamentalist religions that have gone astray – The habit of adherents to value lies over facts and evidence not because they are trying to protect their faith, but because it affords them the chance to feel pious and superior to those they are determined to harm.

Those who disagree are labeled heretics, the lowest of the low, the unwashed terrorists. The anti-mandate crowd is thus stripped of its humanity in this way and is painted as demonic. The people who want to remain free become monsters, and the totalitarian monsters become heroes out to save the world. As author Robert Anton Wilson once said:

“The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly.”

The Love Of A Cage

I feel as though I understand this mindset to an extent, but it never fails to shock me the way in which people who scratch and scrape for power over others also seem to love being slaves to the system. I’m not so sure that it is ironic, as authoritarianism does fulfill some of its promises of “security” as long as the people involved are willing to trade away any impulses of liberty. If you do as you’re told at all times and serve the system without fail, then there is a good chance you will be able to hold onto the meager necessities of survival. You will live a life, though probably not a happy one.

For those that go above and beyond and cast aside all personal principle in order to further the goals of the system, they might even enjoy a modicum of wealth beyond their peers. You see, in a despotic society, the people who are most without honor are the people that are most rewarded. They don’t need merit, or accomplishment, or skills, or even brains; all they have to do it sell their souls and do whatever it takes to catch the eye of the oligarchy. They don’t have to be good at anything, all they have to do is be evil, and for some people that’s easy.

In this way the system becomes a comfortable blanket that otherwise useless deviants can be swaddled in. They wrap themselves in it and luxuriate in its warmth. They are not concerned with freedom because freedom feels cold to them. Freedom can be isolating and the existence of choice is terrifying. When all your choices are made for you there is never any doubt or internal stress. All that is required is that you wake up each day and obey.

For weak and ignorant people, subservience is a gift instead of a curse. They believe that a cage is meant to be gilded, not escaped from, and anyone that seeks escape must be crazy or dangerous. If free people exist then the slaves are forced to question their own condition and their own compliance, so everyone must be enslaved to remove any and all doubt from society. The hive mind is placed above all else.

The Defiant And Free

The little tyrants that infiltrate humanity probably look at liberty advocates as some kind of alien creatures from far beyond the bounds of their universe. They just can’t fathom how it is possible for someone to defy the system, to stand against the mob or the collective, even when they are outnumbered or when the risk is so high. They assume that it is a form of madness or a lack of intelligence; for how could anyone smart think they have a chance of fighting back against the dictatorship?

Liberty people are individualists by nature, but we also care about the freedoms of others. There is a common propaganda narrative that claims that individualists are “selfish”, but this is not the case at all. It is not enough for us alone to escape slavery, we will not stand by and watch others be forced into bondage either. We are willing to risk our lives not just to save ourselves but to save future generations from autocracy.

As the vaccine passports and mandates continue to escalate the totalitarians will find themselves even more bewildered, because each new mechanism of control will result in even greater impetus for rebellion, and frankly at this point it is going to be us, or them. They will not stop their pursuit of dominion and we will not comply, so we are at an impasse. Our two tribes cannot coexist within the same society, maybe not even the same planet.

The truth is that if voluntarism was a valued ideal then this whole fight could be avoided. If the collectivist cult was willing to accept the notion that they can choose to live in a highly micromanaged environment while others can choose to live independently, then there would be no crisis. We could easily go our separate ways. But this is not how totalitarians think: To them, all people are chattel, we are property to be staked down and reeducated until we see the light. And if we don’t see the light, we are to be done away with and erased.

This is why they are utterly to blame for the war that is coming. They cannot stop themselves from grasping for our throats and our minds. They are addicted to supremacy. They are living in a fever dream and the only drug that cools their veins is total oppression of everyone around them. I see what is coming next and it is not pretty for either side, but it will be especially gruesome for the collectivists because they cannot imagine a scenario in which they lose. They are so certain of their preeminence and the safety of their self imposed prisons that they will see failure as a phantom, a ghost that cannot touch them. It would only take a handful of minor defeats to bring them down, but this requires freedom advocates become more organized than they are.

The bottom line is this: Tyrannical systems are planned by elitists groups and governments and it is they that benefit most from the destruction of public freedoms. It is indeed a conspiracy, and the pandemic lockdowns and forced vaccine response are no exception. However, tyrannical systems could not be executed without the help of a larger psychopathic contingent of the population, and these people congregate together to make terrible things happen. It’s as if they hear a silent dog whistle as totalitarianism rises, or they smell the blood of innocent victims in the air.

Call them leftists, call them communists, call them collectivists, call them whatever you want; but know that the globalists are not our only concern. There is a wall of self absorbed and power hungry peons in the way, and they want whatever scraps they can get from the big boy’s table. They are not oblivious; they have not been tricked into doing the things they do. They are a sad and pathetic bunch but they are still dangerous in their ambitions, and they will continue to slither out of the woodwork as the covid agenda progresses.

Source: Alt-Market