The Right to Be Left Alone

by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tenth Amendment Center
September 7, 2022

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t create the right; it limits government interference with it. Last week, President Joe Biden misquoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia suggesting that Justice Scalia believed that the Bill of Rights creates rights. As Justice Scalia wrote, referring to the right to keep and bear arms but reflecting his view on the origins of all personal liberty, the Bill of Rights secures rights, it doesn’t create them; it secures them from the government.

Those who drafted the Bill of Rights recognized that human rights are pre-political. They precede the existence of the government. They come from our humanity, and, in the case of privacy, they are reinforced by our ownership or legal occupancy of property.

The idea that rights come from our humanity is called Natural Law theory, which was first articulated by Aristotle in 360 B.C. The natural law teaches that there are aspects of human existence and thus areas of human behavior that are not subject to the government. Aristotle’s views would later be refined by Cicero, codified by Aquinas, explained by John Locke, and woven into Anglo-American jurisprudence by British jurists and American revolutionaries and constitutional framers.

Thus, our rights to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, to worship or not, to associate or not, to defend ourselves from crazies and tyrants, to own property, and to be left alone are all hard-wired into our human natures by God, the uncaused cause. Nature is the means through which God passes along His gifts to us. We come about by a biological act of nature, every step of which was ordained by God. His greatest gift to us is life, and He tied that gift to free will. Just as He is perfectly free, so are we.

In exercising our free wills, we employ rights. Rights are claims against the whole world. They don’t require approval of a government or neighbors or colleagues. The same rights exist in everyone no matter their place of birth, and each person exercises them as she or he sees fit. The government should only come into the picture when someone violates another’s natural rights. So, if someone builds a house in your backyard, you can knock it down and expel the builders or you can ask the government to do so.

Suppose the builders haven’t consented to the existence of the government? That does not absolve them. Though government is only moral and legal in a society in which all persons have consented to it — this is Thomas Jefferson’s “consent of the governed” argument in the Declaration of Independence — the only exception to actual consent is the use of government to remedy a violation of natural rights.

Professor Murray Rothbard examined all this under his non-aggression principle (NAP): Initiating or threatening force or deception against a person or his rights is always morally illicit. This applies to all aggression, even — and especially — from the government. The folks building a house in your backyard have either used force or deception to get there. Both violate your natural rights and the NAP.

Now, back to the Fourth Amendment and privacy. In a famous dissent in 1928, which two generations later became the law of the land, the late Justice Louis Brandeis argued that government surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and thus, per the express language of the amendment, cannot be conducted by the government without a warrant issued by a judge. He famously called privacy the right most valued by civilized persons and described it as “the right to be let alone.”

Today, this is the most violated of personal rights; not by judges signing search warrants for surveillance, but by government officials — local, state and federal — ignoring and evading the natural right to privacy and pretending that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to them. The linchpin of the amendment is the judicial determination of the existence of probable cause — meaning that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed, and that there is evidence of that crime in the place to be searched and in the things to be seized.

Today, the feds, and this has been picked up and mimicked by local and state police, have told themselves that so long as they are not looking for evidence of crimes, they needn’t follow the Fourth Amendment.

Today, the government rarely bothers to obtain a search warrant for surveillance because it is cumbersome to do so and because it is so easy to surveil folks on a massive scale without one.

Today, the National Security Administration — America’s 60,000-person strong domestic spying apparatus — captures every keystroke on every desktop and mobile device, and every conversation on every landline and mobile device, and all data transmitted into, out of or within the United States.

Moreover, you’d be hard-pressed to find a geographic area that is not covered by police using hardware that tracks the movement and use of mobile phones. When Edward Snowden passed on to journalists the facts of massive warrantless spying in the Bush and Obama administrations, he had the journalists put their mobile devices where his was — in his refrigerator, as anywhere else would have alerted his former colleagues of their collective whereabouts.

The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually just to watch and follow us. Who authorized this? Why do we tolerate a society where we have hired a government to secure our rights and instead it engages in aggression against them?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Connect with Tenth Amendment Center

cover image credit: StockSnap 

‘We Farmers Need to Stand Together’: Feds Take Aim at Pennsylvania Organic Farmer

Despite being raided by armed U.S. Marshals and facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, Amos Miller explained that farmers need to stand strong.

by Jeremy Loffredo, Rebel News
August 22, 2022



Recently, Miller’s Organic Farm in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania was raided by armed federal agents. They demanded the farm cease operations and are economically crippling the business with over $300,000 in fines.

The government is arguing that the farm isn’t adhering to federal regulatory requirements for food.

The water buffalo, the cattle, and even the camels are living and being processed in the way, as Miller argues, that God intended.

All of the animals on the farm eat fully organic diets, munching only on the wild plants, flowers, and the bugs in their pasture.

Veteran journalist, Michael Yoder, is a long-time customer of Amos Miller’s farm and has been closely covering the story for a local newspaper.

“I think they want to use Amos as an example,” Yoder said.

He explained that the government wants to make sure other farmers don’t attempt to replicate what Miller’s Farm succeeded in doing.

“Miller is selling his meat and dairy directly to the consumer, without the government acting as the middleman. The government doesn’t have as much control over this type of operation,” Yoder explained.

Amos Miller explained to me that because his farm doesn’t use chemical fertilizers, herbicides or patented seeds which are chiefly manufactured by industry giants with strong ties to the government, they’re using the power of the government to shut him down.

“Corporate America is taking over and putting people in our government…they have the government on their side and they’re making it harder for farmers to be farmers,” said Amos Miller.

Miller is legally arguing that because he’s selling to what he calls a “private food club” and not the open market, certain rules and regulations of the federal government don’t apply to him.

The customers are buying meat and dairy from his farm explicitly because his food isn’t processed and manufactured at giant industrial facilities and instead is grown, fed, and processed right here on the land.

“Some come from Florida, California, North Carolina, basically all over the country because they are seeking nutrient-dense foods like raw meat and raw buffalo milk…and they trust us for keeping our animals out on pastures and they can actually see the color in the fat of the beef and the distinct color of the milk…this color comes from the nutrient density of the animals feeding grass,” Miller explained to Rebel News.

Amos, despite being raided by armed U.S. Marshals and facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, explained that farmers need to stand strong.

“We farmers need to stand together and stand strong and we can’t just fall for the government’s rules and regulations,” he added.

[www.LeaveThemAlone.com petition]

Connect with Miller’s Organic Farm (see legal update)

Connect with Rebel News

See also:



cover image is a composition of screenshots from videos see above

The Only ‘National Security’ Necessary Is the Elimination of the ‘National Security State’?

by Gary D. Barnett
August 13, 2022

I’m afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.”

~ Jim Garrison

“National Security” is just the excuse for every form imaginable of tyranny, totalitarianism, privacy destruction, abuse of freedoms, aggression, terror, and war. Every time I hear this deceptive and scurrilous term, I cringe knowing that lies, deceit, and horror are on the horizon. It is based completely on false fear; fear planted in the minds of the people in order to force (goad) them to run to government and the state for protection from fabricated enemies. It is the state’s go to argument when additional control is sought, and it has worked nearly every time it has been tried. It is currently the mainstay of this fascist state called America, and it is still effective. The term ‘national security’ is nothing more than sheer propaganda based on unwarranted fearmongering.

One has to wonder, given that this country has never been aggressively attacked on its home soil by any foreign aggressor state, how the term ‘national security’ ever became the default reasoning for any and every aggressive war waged by this government against countries around the world. It is not just war against other innocent countries that has been waged, aggression in the name of national security has been levied against the American population almost continually, whether in the case of desired war, disasters, ‘pandemics,’ bogus ‘climate change’ risks, state and federal emergencies, and any number of other deceptive means of control.

Before the letters start rolling in claiming that the sinking of the Lusitania, the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, and the 9/11 inside job were acts of pure aggression by outsiders, please refrain from such nonsense. They all, and many more, were set up and staged, and led to major wars of aggression by the U.S. against multiple foreign countries that had nothing to do with attacking America. In the process, freedom was destroyed. This has been written about by very many scholars for decades, and plenty of proof has been forthcoming. As I have stated over and over again, the United States has aggressively attacked many other countries, as well as Americans, and has prosecuted wars of aggression for 93% (an understatement in my estimation) of its entire history against those who never attacked or were a threat to this country; all under the pretext of ‘national security.’

In that effort, the vast U.S. national security state has been built on the blood and property of every American citizen, and has grown into a bureaucratic behemoth unimagined in earlier times. U.S. military spending matches the rest of the world combined, and dwarfs every country on earth by a huge margin. One would think that this insanity would guarantee that the U.S. had the most powerful military, and the highest sophistication of military weaponry, but that is likely not accurate by any measure, as many criminal corporations, politicians, foreign heads of state, and contractors are enriched due to this ludicrous amount of spending, and waste and fraud are basically incalculable. Of course, this is all by design, as those controlling the government and the political heads, are always paid off and protected by their dependent pawns in government.

The total national security state budget for early 2019 was over $1.25 trillion, and it has grown exponentially since that time. Allotted military spending alone has increased by over a quarter of a trillion dollars in just the last three years. Just in the past few days, IRS spending increased by $80 billion in order to hire 87,000 new agents; 70,000 of them armed and willing to use deadly force against American citizens. Is this for ‘national security,’ or meant to control any who speak out against government? Obviously, it has nothing to do with collecting taxes, as this country through its atrocious central banks prints all the money it wants at will. A new militarized IRS can be nothing more than a heinous and murderous arm of the controlling class, and used to keep the sheep in line, and stifle truthtellers and dissent by brute force of arms.

Private self defense is always necessary in this world we live in, but national defense through a state-controlled military and ‘national security state’ system, is always meant to be used to dominate the masses by extreme tyrannical measures under the guise of protecting the hapless and helpless citizenry. It is never for the purpose of actual defense, as all government is based on brutal and forcible offensive control of its subjects. As long as the people of this country continue to voluntarily allow such a powerful state to exist, all will be relegated to the position of guaranteed slavery. In that light, is it any wonder what has happened since early 2020, and how can any thinking individual not understand that this extreme tyranny at the hands of the state was not only planned long in advance, but was completely and purposely exposed beforehand? The warnings were evident, but very few listened or paid any attention to the signs given, and have sat idle in a pool of indifference, as the downfall of this country has taken shape.

If one considers all the money and resources taken by and for the benefit of the state itself, little is left for any other purpose. The state simply sucks up all the production of its subjects through taxation and central bank money printing, and in the process, inherent inflation abounds. This is accomplished through theft, extreme deception, and propaganda, and destroys the psyche of the individual, leaving only a collective mass of non-thinking commoners, lost in a fog of ignorance.

The government consumes most all the energy of its population in one way or another. Bureaucracies abound, and the enforcement arm of the government is now at very extreme levels, as police, state and federal militaries, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the IRS, and hundreds of other enforcement and restrictive regulatory agencies abound. Virtually everything, every movement, every communication, every action by individuals is in one way or another the reasoning used for policing the people. Government and the state apparatus care nothing for its citizens, but revel in the ability to control them. This is the essence of the state, and why if freedom is desired, the state must be abolished.

If the so-called ‘national security’ arm of the state can be eliminated or made impotent, the power of government to monitor and control the masses will be severely curtailed, allowing for more liberty and less restriction. It is the vital first step, but in order for this heinous security state to be castrated, we as individuals must cease to rely on government promises of protection, stand on our own as individuals en masse, and destroy the entire notion of a ‘national security state.’

It has been said, and I agree; as goes the U.S., so goes the world. If nothing is done to stop this assault on Americans and the rest of the world, be prepared for more war; likely major or world war with nuclear armed nations. Be prepared for more tyranny and more slaughter. This will all be by design, will help eliminate much of mankind as is sought by the state, all while the ruling elites sit back in comfort and watch, as the civilian populations are used as fodder for the agenda of world government and a world ‘security state.’

Freedom and legitimate national security are one and the same, while the so-called state and its false promise of national security spells aggression, restriction and regulation, fascist control, murder, and slavery. In order to regain freedom, the elimination of government and its national security state must be achieved.

“The words ‘national’ and ‘security’ are like precursors for a binary chemical weapon: not overly dangerous by themselves, but capable of completely shutting down the brain and nervous system when used in combination.”

~ John Alejandro King a.k.a. The Covert Comic

Reference links:

The breakdown of the $1.25 trillion dollar (Plus) National Security State Budget

Behind the sinking of the Lusitania and other false flags

The truth about Pearl Harbor

9/11 Truth: Lessons Learned

The U.S. has been at war 93% of its history (1776-2015) and all 7 years since!

90,000 additional IRS agents/70,000 of them armed

Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com
Copyright © 2022 LewRockwell.com

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

cover image credit: hucky / pixabay

Government Itself Is Immoral

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
August 13, 2022

Hopefully by now you’ve had a chance to listen to or watch my interview with Keith Knight of Don’t Tread on Anyone about his new book, The Voluntaryist Handbook.

Even more hopefully, you’ve read or ordered your copy of that book. If not, here’s another chance: it’s available as a free pdf on Odysee or available to purchase HERE.

When you do read the book, you’ll see that Knight has chosen to publish an excerpt from my February 29, 2020, newsletter editorial, “5 Important Lessons Absolutely No One Will Learn From Iowa.” I’m glad he did include that excerpt in his book because in some ways I buried the lede—an important and informative rant about the true nature of government and the morality of anarchy—down far enough in that article that most people probably didn’t read it. Those who did likely forgot it. And the vast majority of people probably never knew it existed.

So, let’s correct that problem today. Here I re-present to you that section of the editorial on “Government Itself is Immoral.” Enjoy.

Government Itself is Immoral

The state is not a benevolent force, despite what the most brainwashed of statists believe. It is not even a neutral tool that can be used for good or ill, as those who consider themselves pragmatists believe. It is violence. It is force. It is aggression. It is people believing that what is wrong for any individual to do is perfectly OK if an agent of the state does it.

If I steal, it is theft. If the state steals, it is taxation. If I kill, it is murder. If the state kills, it is warfare. If I force someone to work for me involuntarily, it is slavery. If the state does it, it is conscription. If I confine someone against their will, it is kidnapping. If the state does it, it is incarceration. Nothing has changed but the label.

What binds us to the state is the belief that there is a different morality for anything that has been sanctified through the political process. “Oh, 50%+1 of the population voted for forced vaccinations? Then I guess we have to comply.” If you scoff at that sentence, how about if the vote were 100%-1? Would that change the morality of resistance? How about if forced vaccinations were mandated by the constitution? Then would you be compelled to submit?

Does the ballot box transform the unethical into the ethical? Of course not. But I’ll tell you what it does do: It makes everyone who casts their ballot a part of the process that legitimizes the murder and violence committed by agents of the state.

No, I am not an efficiency manager for the state. I do not want to help it do its job of inflicting aggression and violence on peaceful people. I want the state to perish, not through violence or bloodshed, but by removing the mystical superstition from the minds of the general public that makes them believe that “government” is anything other than a gang of thugs with a fancy title.

This is the point that—in my experience as a communicator of voluntaryist ideas—I start butting up against a brick wall of incomprehension when talking to the normies in the crowd. They start having mental breakdowns, frothing at the mouth that “votes need to happen.”

As if voting, elections, positions of responsibility and other things that exist under statism could not exist under voluntary associations. As if voluntary association itself were such an arcane and bewildering concept that no one could possibly wrap their head around it (let alone, heaven forfend, read a book or two to see if some of their questions on the subject have already been answered).

No, much easier to go back to the comforting political wrestling match. “Red vs. Blue? Now that I can get behind!”

That’s a travesty, really. Because the truth is that this is not a complicated message. It’s actually remarkably simple, and remarkably hopeful. The truth is that . . .

There is Only One Vote That Matters

You’d think that a column like this would be all doom and gloom.

“Oh sure, James,” say the statists in the crowd, twirling their handlebar moustaches and fingering the “I Voted” sticker proudly displayed on their chest, “but what’s your solution? Sitting around and not voting is not going to change anything!”

Now I’m tempted to say, “Why ask for one solution when I’ve provided dozens?”

But, more seriously, I would say: You’re right.

No, really. You’re right. Sitting around and not voting is not going to change anything. Yes, by all means, let’s vote! . . .

. . .But (and you knew there was a “but” coming) I’m not talking about voting in some phony baloney (s)election to anoint some political puppet as President of this geographical location. I’m talking about the only vote that matters.

Hmmm . . . if only I had a way to explain this to the normies.

Oh, wait! I do.

[. . .]For the rest of us, there is the realization that the political system itself is just another form of enslavement. An enslavement that is all the more insidious, because it asks us to buy into it. All we have to do is push a button or pull a lever or touch a screen once every four years and we are now absolved from our moral responsibility.

Ironically, this realization is in itself liberating and puts the world into focus with crystal clarity. We are not cogs in some machine called “society” to be dictated to by some nebulous entity we have been taught to call “the government” or “the authorities.” We are free individuals freely interacting with those around us, bound by the moral injunction not to initiate force against others or take things from others against their will. We are responsible for our actions and their consequences, both positive and negative. We are responsible for what we do or don’t do to help those in our community, and to make this world better or leave it to rot. There is no political messiah that will descend from the heavens to tell us what to do or to protect us from the bad men. All we have is our self and our choices.

We vote every day, not in some meaningless election, but in whom we choose to associate with, what we choose to spend our money on, what we choose to invest our time and energy doing. This is the essence of freedom.

For us, it is painful to watch our brothers and sisters getting swept up in the election-cycle hype. We watch the sad spectacle not with a sense of scorn or derision, but with sadness for those who have not yet woken up to the reality of their mental enslavement. That sadness, however, is tempered by hope: hope that one day, those poor voters who are trudging off to that booth to pull that lever will realize that all they are really doing is voting for which slavemaster they will allow to put the chains around their neck.

Beautiful. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Too bad the people who really need to hear this message stopped reading this article when they realized it wasn’t really about the Iowa caucuses.

Connect with & support the work of James Corbett

“Be Willing to Use Deadly Force”: IRS Sparks Uproar Over Job Posting

by Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge
August 12, 2022

Only two things in life are certain – death and taxes, and the IRS can take care of both.

As the agency prepares to add 87,000 new positions over 10 years, pending the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act that will give the agency $80 billion (half of which will be earmarked to help crack down on tax evasion), an online job posting for “Criminal Investigation Special Agents” has sparked outrage over a “key requirement” that applicants be “legally allowed to carry a firearm.”

“Major duties” of the job include “Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary,” and “Be willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments.”

The IRS is hiring new special agents!

Requirements include working min “50 hours per week, which may include irregular hours, and be on-call 24/7, including holidays and weekends” and “Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary.”https://t.co/uvwbrAkIit pic.twitter.com/z0aVX6uoMr

— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) August 10, 2022

While Democrats say the IRS’s enhanced collections will raise an additional $124 billion in federal revenue from tax cheats over the next decade, Republicans warn that an army of IRS agents will do nothing but harass small business owners and lower-income workers. According to an analysis by House Republicans, Americans earning less than 75,000 per year will receive 60% of the additional tax audits.

The analysis, which is a conservative estimate based upon recent audit rates and tax filing data, shows that individuals with an annual income of $75,000 or less would be subject to 710,863 additional IRS audits, while those making more than $1 million would receive 52,295 more audits under the bill.

Overall, the IRS would conduct more than 1.2 million more annual audits of Americans’ tax returns, according to the analysis. Another 236,685 of the estimated additional audits would target individuals with an annual income between $75,000 and $200,000.

Democrats insist Americans making less than $400,000 will not be targeted by agents hired due to the spending bill. -NY Post

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, however, insists that “audit rates” won’t increase relative to recent years.

In a related piece of legislation reported by the Epoch Times, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) introduced a bill last month which would bar the IRS from acquiring ammunition. Known as the “Disarm the IRS Act,” the bill (pdf) stipulates that the IRS is “prohibited from acquiring ammunition” and “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Reps. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), and Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) are co-sponsors of the measure, according to his office.

It came after Gaetz, in interviews with Fox News and other outlets, expressed concern after he discovered that the IRS purchased more than $700,000 in ammunition over a span of several days days. The congressman suggested that it’s part of a broader White House plan to disarm Americans.

“Here’s the Biden plan: Disarm Americans, open the border, empty the prisons–but rest assured, they’ll still collect your taxes, and they need $725,000 worth of ammunition, apparently, to get the job done,” he told Fox News last week.

The bill, he said, would put a “total moratorium on the IRS buying ammo. When we used to talk about the IRS being weaponized, we were talking about political discrimination, not actual weapons for the IRS.”

“Undeniably, part of the strategy is that with one hand, the Biden regime is doing everything they can to suppress access to ammunition for regular Americans, while with the other hand, they are scooping up all the ammo that they can possibly find,” Gaetz alleged.

5 Million Rounds

According to a report released by the Government Accountability Office in 2018, the IRS has been stockpiling ammunition and weapons for years. As of 2018, the agency had 4,487 firearms and 5,062,006 rounds of ammunition in its inventory, the report said.

A 2018 report from Forbes noted that the IRS buys guns and ammunition for its Criminal Investigation Division. Agents in that division are the only employees in the IRS that carry firearms, according to its website.

Connect with ZeroHedge

cover image credit: TheDigitalWay / pixabay

Frederick Douglass, Lincoln and the Fight to Save the Soul of America

by Matthew Ehret, Matt Ehret’s Insights
July 5, 2022

It is an unfortunate fact that too few among today’s citizens of all races have any spiritual or intellectual connection to the principled nature of America’s constitutional origins as the world’s first republic founded upon “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

There is little sense in the hearts of too many citizens that words like “The General Welfare” are anything more than ink on parchment devoid of meaning, and the ideals of freedom are little more than empty promises reserved for a small few.

In this RTF lecture, Cynthia Chung sheds light at the deeper historical roots of American slavery shaped by British imperialism, as part of a world economy, and the battle against it stretching back to 1630.

Frederick Douglass, a former slave who would become an advisor to Lincoln, will be used as our guide through the mangled history of the Civil War. His soul and insight into the nature of both evil and goodness alike made his life’s work, writings and devotion to liberty of all races an immortal source of inspiration and wisdom for all races and for all times, especially in times of great crisis, such as now, when soul searching is needed more than ever.



Connect with Matt Ehret’s Insights

This July 4th We Should All Declare Our Independence From the New Normal

by Kit Knightly, OffGuardian
July 4, 2022

Today is July 4th, Independence Day. And, in the world of the New Normal, maybe that’s something we should all celebrate.

The United States of America has become a corrupt Imperial juggernaut, chewing up the world and spitting out bones. We have all seen warmongers and tyrants prop up the corpses of Jefferson and Washington and claim to be their descendants whilst spitting on their legacy.

This makes it easy for us to forget that the idea of America was once something different, & that idea still exists in  the wording of the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence. Just as the teachings of Jesus are not marred by every holy warrior who claims to conquer in God’s name,  so the sentiments expressed by the founding documents of the United States bear none of the blood so dishonestly shed in theirs.

And in  a world of New Normal tyranny these gain newfound relevance.

Here is the preface to the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson and presented before the Congress of the United States, July 4th 1776:

All men created equal, and all have the unalienable right to be free, and to choose those who govern them.

In a world still dominated by hereditary monarchies, these are revolutionary sentiments. And they hold true today, even as the same forces that threatened those rights in 1776 coalesce against them on a global scale.

Tyranny.

That’s what it is. What it was. What it always will be. Tyranny seeking control over people who should be free. Be it the tyranny of the British Empire or the Great Reset.  Names change but the spirit remains the same.

The founding fathers  may have been crawling out of feudalism, but we are being guided back into it, and it’s the job of those of us who realise this to try and wake up our fellow men, to counter that part of every person disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable.

Then, as now, a major obstacle to liberating people was their own inertia, their own fear of the unknown, their own unwillingness to assert their rights or stand their ground.

We have all seen this as Covid-world has progressed. From masks to social distancing to lockdown, people have adapted to a slew of sufferable evils rather than right themselves.

If you consider the comparison a stretch, consider these examples of “abuses” taken from the declaration…

• [The King has] rendered the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. 
• [imposed] Taxes on us without our Consent 
• Deprived us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: 
• abolished our most valuable Laws, and altered fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: 
• Has excited domestic insurrections amongst us 
• sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people

…sound familiar? And if the abuses are the same, then isn’t the solution?

We should mark these words. As true today as was when they were written. Maybe more so.

This July 4th, think back on the long train of abuses we have all suffered – and still suffer.

Consider how they all pursue invariably the same Object and evince a design to have us all live under absolute Despotism.

Don’t we all have the right and duty to throw them off and be free again?

Connect with OffGuardian

cover image credit: RoonzNL / pixabay

America’s Early Civil Rights Case You Probably Weren’t Taught 

by Truthstream Media
July 4, 2022



Available at Truthstream Media BitChute and YouTube channels.

Connect with Truthstream Media

No Deal: When the British Offered Amnesty in Exchange for Gun Control

by TJ Martinelli, Tenth Amendment Center
July 1, 2022

Two months after the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British offered amnesty to all who would lay down their arms. Unsurprisingly, the Patriots didn’t respond too kindly to the deal.

While the “shot heard ‘round the world” is well-known for kicking off the War for Independence on April 19, 1775, what followed soon afterward receives far less attention. The incident provides a textbook example of why you shouldn’t trust gun grabbers.

Although “Taxation without representation” is a common phrase to describe the colonists’ most well-known grievance against British rule, an attempted gun confiscation by General Gage and his troops occupying Boston following the Boston Tea Party actually led to direct conflict between the Redcoats and the colonists.

Indeed, the British had already banned the importation of ammunition and firearms.

Following the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the British Redcoats sent to seize those arms returned to Boston while minutemen harassed them along the way. The city was then besieged by colonial militias that had arrived upon hearing of the confrontation by minutemen and British regulars.

Shortly after the siege began, Gage ordered all residents to turn in their firearms “temporarily.” After nearly 2,700 were turned in, the guns were never returned to them, and those promised with safe passage out of the city were prohibited from leaving.

Two months after Lexington and Concord, Gage declared the state of Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion. On June 12, 1775, he offered a general amnesty to all who would lay down their arms. The only two men exempted from pardon were Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Gage said their “offenses are of too flagitious a nature to admit of any other consideration than that of condign punishment.”

In his pardon letter Gage revealed, unintentionally, how America’s armed populace made it possible for them to resist British gun grabbing efforts:

“A number of armed persons, to the amount of many thousands assembled on the 19th of April last and from behind walls, and lurking holes, attacked a detachment of the King’s troops, who…unprepared for vengeance, and willing to decline it, made use of their arms only in their own defense. Since that period, the rebels, deriving confidence from impunity, have added insult to outrage; have repeatedly fired upon the King’s ships and subjects, with cannon and small arms, have possessed the roads, and other communications by which the town of Boston was supplied with provisions; and with a preposterous parade of military arrangement, they affect to hold the army besieged; while part of their body make daily and indiscriminate invasions upon private property, and with a wantonness of cruelty every incident to lawless tumult, carry degradation and distress wherever they turn their steps…”

The Second Continental Congress responded less than a month later with a “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms” written by Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson.

The declaration lambasts Gage for his attacks on the conduct of colonists under military occupation:

“The General, further emulating his Ministerial masters, by a Proclamation, bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these Colonies, proceeds to ‘declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors; to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial.’ His troops have butchered our countrymen; have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.” [Emphasis added]

The declaration also makes it clear that, though the siege was still ongoing, word of Gage’s gun confiscation measures had gotten out, and left an indelible impression on Americans whom Gage now demanded turn in their arms as well.

“The inhabitants of Boston, being confined within that Town by the General, their Governour, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own Magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms; but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governour ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the Town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.”

The declaration then asserts the right of Americans to continue resisting Gage and other enforcers of British rule, through use of arms:

“In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it; for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.” [Emphasis added]

It’s not terribly difficult to understand the thinking behind the Declaration. Gage had demanded people surrender their arms before, then went back on his word once they had done so. Why would anyone, especially those besieging him and his troops, trust him not to do so again when their means of defending themselves were removed?

Never trusting gun grabbers is a lesson modern Americans would do well to heed.

Connect with Tenth Amendment Center

cover image based on creative commons work of cgcolman / pixabay

Red Flagged Nation: Gun Confiscation Laws Put a Target on the Back of Every American

by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
June 14, 2022

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand

What we do not need is yet another pretext by which government officials can violate the Fourth Amendment at will under the guise of public health and safety.

Indeed, at a time when red flag gun laws (which authorize government officials to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others) are gaining traction as a legislative means by which to allow police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, it wouldn’t take much for police to be given the green light to enter a home without a warrant in order to seize lawfully-possessed firearms based on concerns that the guns might pose a danger.

Frankly, a person wouldn’t even need to own a gun to be subjected to such a home invasion.

SWAT teams have crashed through doors on lesser pretexts based on false information, mistaken identities and wrong addresses.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws allowing the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats. If Congress succeeds in passing the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order, which would nationalize red flag laws, that number will grow.

As The Washington Post reports, these red flag gun laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”

In the wake of yet another round of mass shootings, these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.

Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.

Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.

With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”

While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

We’ve been down this road before.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.

It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and carried out a no-knock raid on the household.

According to the county report, the no-knock raid was justified “due to Lemp being ‘anti-government,’ ‘anti-police,’ currently in possession of body armor, and an active member of the Three Percenters,” a far-right paramilitary group that discussed government resistance.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

You will be tracked by the government’s pre-crime, surveillance network wherever you go.

Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.

The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

Combine red flag laws with the government’s surveillance networks and its plan to establish an agency that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home, and you’ll understand why some might view gun control legislation with trepidation.

No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war on COVID-19: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands.

No matter how well-intentioned, red flag gun laws will put a target on the back of every American whether or not they own a weapon.

Connect with The Rutherford Institute

cover image credit: RayMediaGroup

Pandemico, Movie of The Mind

by Jon Rappoport, Jon Rappoport’s Blog
June 14, 2022

This movie has been produced in many ways, in many minds.

In all cases, the theme is the same: DO NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE OUT IN THE OPEN.

Instead obey all restrictions. SHUT IT DOWN.

Believe in the dangers you’re told to believe in.

In the final analysis, this movie was a box office hit because most people gave in. Their fears may have hooked into different parts of the COVID narrative, but the deciding factor WAS fear.

A nation, a world paralyzed by fear.

And yes, lurking in the background (or in some countries, in the foreground) was the fact that the State had cops and guns and detainment facilities.

I’ve spent many hours detailing that, at one time, the citizenry would have risen up, en masse, and rebelled against the State. They would have shrugged off pandemic declarations. They would have risked everything to keep LIVING THEIR LIVES OUT IN THE OPEN.

Because at one time, freedom meant more.

The individual meant more.

People making up their own minds meant more.

Predatory groups organized to cut themselves in on a piece of the government pie meant less.

All these groups, from BLM to Climate Change, demand less freedom. That is their unspoken bottom line. And their justifications for this demand are bogus and fabricated.

They’re basically FRIENDS OF THE STATE.

Readers who have been with me for a long time know that, in 1988, I started warning people that the medical cartel was the most dangerous cartel in the world. It was seeking medical dictatorship.

I knew that in 1988, because I was meeting radical natural health advocates—tough, smart, resilient people. THEY had been warning about medical dictatorship for the previous 20, 30 years.

When I saw what my research on a phantom virus called HIV was proving, I knew civilization was in for some very rough times. All sorts of medical fantasies would be used to destroy freedom.

As Ben Franklin made clear, people WERE willing to trade that freedom for a false sense of security.

The past two years have proved it in spades.

But they’ve also proved something else. There is a limit to what people will take.

So I write this piece to say the restrictions could be coming again.

And if they do, we don’t need another two years to realize what the game really is.

We have to say NO from the get-go. We have to put fear aside and risk everything for freedom.

It wouldn’t be the first time people did, you know.

Face it, we’re all suffering from a false sense of security. Fortunately, we don’t have to succumb. We can be the individuals we dream of being, against whatever the State launches against us.

There are beasts among us. It turns out that many of them have no faces. They are the reincarnation of men and women who sat at desks and signed warrants for the death camps.

Gambling that life without freedom can still be a good life is a disastrous bet.

In the founding documents of America—the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution—the idea of freedom was there. Individual freedom with responsibility.

Before the ink was dry, the attacks on freedom commenced. Freedom has been dented, battered, smashed, and yes, betrayed, from all quarters. But it still stands and shines.

Evil creatures want to bury it for good. Now.

Their only fear is we won’t let them.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on creative commons work of OpenClipart-Vectors

The Great Resist: Uniting Against the Empire

by Winter Oak, The Acorn
May 26, 2022

One of the most extraordinary achievements of the so-called Great Reset has been to create a massive new wave of worldwide resistance to its overall programme!

While Schwab et al may well have hoped that this movement would be halted by the sudden switch of emphasis from “pandemic” to war, the long-term effect looks more like broadening and solidifying resistance to a monstrous system whose many heads are now very obviously all connected to the same slimey body.

Italy, for instance, is witnessing a certain convergence, under the Great Resist banner, of opposition to vaccine passports, the EU and NATO.

Lazio councillor Davide Barillari is well known for his opposition to the “Green Pass” and associated injections.

He is also a leading opponent of the American military presence in Italy – there are dozens of US bases there, some secret, hosting 13,000 troops.

The Ukraine conflict has stoked opposition to this de facto post-WW2 occupation of Italy, with various campaigns and protests springing up.

At the end of April, Barillari published on his website an incendiary third-party text entitled “Enough lies! Italy must get out of NATO!”.

The anti-system convergence has also been noticeable at protests like that in Genoa, where people marched for “peace and freedom”.

The same phenomenon is apparent in Germany, another place with a heavy US military presence.

People have been taking to the streets across the country calling for “peace, freedom and self-determination”: in Reutlingen, Osnabrück, Keulen, Bautzen, Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Pforzheim-Haidach, Ulm, Nuremberg…

And in Ireland, photo-journalist Robert Pierzynski has been recording a series of freedom demonstrations, such as this one in Galway on May 22.

Outside Europe there have been protests in New York, Ottawa, Melbourne and Johannesburg, amongst many other places.

As our recent online poll unsurprisingly revealed, the vast majority of human beings have no desire to become slaves of the ruling mafia in a technocratic transhumanist world state!

Connect with The Acorn

Ron Paul: The Tremendous Importance of the 2nd Amendment

by Ron Paul, Ron Paul Institute
May 25, 2022

The 1st and 2nd Amendments have always been under attack, and they always will be.

That should give you a good indication as to how important they both are.

Every individual is free to do good, or to do ill.

Everyone has a choice to lie or commit criminal acts of violence.

Thus, the freedom to speak the truth (1st Amendment) and to defend oneself against criminality (2nd Amendment) are paramount.

[Below you will find two key excerpts from Ron Paul Liberty Report, followed by the full episode.]

Excerpts:





Full Episode:

Ron Paul Institute Odysee channel

James Corbett with Richard Cox: How Do I Defend Voluntarism? — On the Essence of Anarchy

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
May 24, 2022

Richard Cox of DeepStateConsciousness.com and author of The Essence of Anarchy joins me today to help answer a question about anarchy: How can we defend voluntarism in the face of arguments about the positive benefits of state regulation?



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:

DeepStateConsciousness.com

The Essence of Anarchy

Peltzman on Automobile Safety Regulation

Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” – FLNWO #35

Contradictions in Left Anti-Imperialism

Connect with James Corbett

cover image credit: difrats / pixabay

No Federal Solution

by Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath, Nature of Healing
May 23, 2022

There is no federal solution.

For anyone who thinks the federal government is created to solve your problems, be they financial or health-related, marital or parental, think again! People have grown complacent when federal dictates, mandates, or Acts are acceptable as the Rule of Law to be followed without question where you live.

In his article, There is No Federal Solution, author Lawrence Vance sets the broken record straight on the differences in purpose between state government and federal government:

Biden then surprisingly said that “there is no federal solution” to the COVID-19 pandemic and declared that it “gets solved at the state level,” before he boarded a helicopter and departed for his home state of Delaware.

The federal government wants you to believe that an entity, such as itself, can send a check in the mail and draft the Save America Act to create peace, prosperity, and health for all.  For those who fell for the last Act, there is another Act coming, unless you can tell an Act from CoroNOvirus Reality. First know that the federal government is set up only to regulate commerce across state lines. Alternatively, it is State governments that regulate what happens to people within their state boundaries.

Federal Overreach

Through federal Acts, the federal government steers people into a confused herd called “The Public,” and uses terms such as “Public Health,” to control and regulate people as commodities.

In reality, there is no such thing as “Public Health.” Public Health does not exist outside of individual health. You cannot wear a life jacket to keep others afloat. So to consent to “Public Health mandates” is to give up bodily autonomy in exchange for “Public Rights” (i.e., Children’s rights, Gay rights, Parent rights, Women’s rights) granted by the State. State Rights can be modified, suspended, and revoked. Therefore, they are not Rights at all. Rights come from the Creator. They are inborn. See how the state of California revoked all vaccine-related exemptions.

Beware of ALL Federal Acts, old and new, naughty and NICE. If there is a federal Act, there are also multiple loopholes called exemptions that hold “the public” to the grindstone, while allowing whole industries to ignore the Act to do as they please. By the looks of it, federal Acts appear to do the opposite of what they claim to do. In other words, “Its all an Act, folks.”

From the first Act, passed in 1784, to the latest draft government Act, ALL Acts appear to be an extension of The CIRCUS Act. Yet, more than 30,000 statutes have been enacted since 1789. From the people’s perspective, success rates are dismal thanks to exceptions to every Act. A few examples include:

The CLEAN AIR Act of 1970 with exemptions, and The CLEAR SKIES Act of 2019 – serves to create dirty skies with exemptions for oil refineries and power plants and the most toxic bunker fuel operations.

The CLEAN WATER Act of 1972 and its exemptions that serve to pollute the waters.

The US PATRIOT Act of 2001 and US Patriot and Reauthorization Act of 2005 “to unite and strengthen America,” with exemptions to banking agencies which serve to divide and weaken America.

The QUARANTINE Acts OF 1710, and 1720, The QUARANTINE Act of 1951 – originally applied to commercial vessels for the separation of infected people, which became the Public Health Act of 1896 in Ireland, The Public Health Act of 1936 in Britain, The Public Health Service Act of 1944 in America, to The CANADA QUARANTINE ACT of 2005 – to quarantine all people, healthy and sick.

The PREP Act of 2005, allows government to bypass Rights and Freedom. The DHHS Amended Version authorizes an increased workforce to administer COVID (experimental) vaccines. And The PREP Act 2022 – limits liability for COVID countermeasures.

Has the federal government, through these Acts, and hundreds more, cleaned up the air, if air pollution is on the rise? Have the feds purified the water, curtailed terrorism, or flattened the curve of diseases? Anyone can scan the headlines on any day to find the answer.

In his article, Lawrence Vance shares founding father, James Madison,’s essay on the functions of state and federal governments: Federalist Essay No. 45 –

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.

The Federalist No. 46;

The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.

It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former.

Americans have neglected their duties to ensure that federal powers remain in check. As a result, federal government has assumed and subsumed powers it was never delegated. The United States was established as a federal system of government where the states, through the Constitution, granted a limited number of powers to a central government — not the other way around.

A Real Solution

If reading any federal Act, use it as an educational tool. Does the Act do the opposite of its intended purpose? Are these Acts distractions for other crimes, international crimes against humanity? Do you need to be saved by your government?

Do you need to be saved from your government?

As a first step to forming a real solution, it is important to understand the federal language of legalease, which is written, by design, to confuse. By taking the Public out of “Public Health,” we can begin to wake up to the truth about the governmental system, and the truth of who we are as humans. We can then begin the process to know how to see through the federal Acts to reclaim responsibility on an individual level in our own states where we live.

See Related Articles:

• The Quarantine Act On The World Stage
• The Not-So-NICE Act
• Taking the Public Out of Public Health
• The Ruse of Exemptions: When Government Calls the Shots
• Transcending The Hegelian Dialectic

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath

cover image credit:  geralt

Dr. Vandana Shiva’s Message for Mother Earth Day, April 22, 2022 — The Earth Is Alive!

by Dr. Vandana Shiva , Navdanya International
April 20, 2022

Terra Madre, Gaia, Pachamama, Vasundhara… The Living Earth is a self-organised, self-regulating living system. She is autopoeitic, writing the poetry of life, creating the symphony of life, through the harmony of every participating living organism, from the microbes to the mammals.

From the molecule, to the cell, to the organism, to ecosystems, and the planet, life is based on non-separation, harmony and quantum coherence. Self-organised resonance with other beings who are self-organised.

“Life, in the ideal, is a domain that captures and stores energy and mobilises its quantum coherently in perfectly coupled cycles that generate no entropy… In a quantum coherent universe, all beings are both localised as particle/solid objects and delocalised as quantum wave functions spread ultimately throughout the universe. Hence all beings are mutually entangled and mutually constitutive. Thus harming others effectively harms ourselves, and the best way to benefit oneself may be to benefit others”.
– Mae Wan Ho^[1]

The Living Earth has evolved the biodiversity of our living planet, from viruses and biomes, to ecosystems, and species for over 4 billion years. Gaia weaves the web of life, the threads and relationships that connect the biodiversity of her Earth Family– Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam. Through her biodiversity and biosphere the Living Earth has self regulated her climate, cooling temperatures down from the 290 degree hot planet without life, to 13 degrees. Through the processes of life, the Earth reduced the 98% carbon dioxide rich atmosphere with 4000 ppm carbon dioxide, to 0. 03% at 270 ppm.^[2]

Mother Earth evolved her sophisticated “carbon capture and sequestration” technology of photosynthesis which allows plants and microbes to capture the sunlight and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and transform it into oxygen, our breath. Oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere and the earth was transformed from the original heat-trapping CO2 rich atmosphere to the reduced CO2 atmosphere through the oxidising process of plants and living organisms. This allowed temperatures to be regulated at levels that support human and other biological life on earth.

Through her biodiversity and biosphere she creates, maintains and sustains, regenerates and renews her Infrastructure of Life including the Climate System. Mother Earth is inviting us to participate in her biosphere of microbes and plants, animals in co-creating the harmony that is the symphony of life.

We are a strand in the Web of Life.

We are Children of the Earth, Not her Masters and Owners.

We are members of One Earth Family.

200,000 years ago, the living Earth created the conditions for our species to evolve, sustain ourselves and provide for our basic needs of food, clothing and shelter as members of the biosphere.

We are alive because the Earth is Alive. Learning to live as part of the biosphere as indigenous people, women, small peasants have done is our work for the Earth, for the human future.

Mother Earth is Living and Has Rights.

“Mother Earth is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom we share a common destiny and to whom we must relate in ways that benefit Mother Earth”.^[3]

Diversity is nature’s organising principle, the basis of emergence, evolution, and resilience. Diversity in forms and expressions, flows and relations are how nature creates value and strength. Nature does not create monocultures and uniformity. Nature does not create fences and walls of division and separation, of ownership and private property.

We are a living, conscious strand in the pulsating web of life. We are all members of One Earth Family, interconnected through life. We are part of the Earth, and not separate from her. We are children of Mother Earth, not her masters and owners. We are among the youngest siblings in the Earth family and have much to learn from our elders, the microbes, and plants.

Nature’s gifts are for the sustenance of all beings in the Earth Family, not just for humans. All beings have a right to the Earth’s Gifts of sustenance. We are not a privileged species who can take others’ share and drive other species to extinction, or deprive our fellow human beings of food and water.

Nature’s Economy and the ecological processes of Regeneration that sustain life, is a Commons of Life.

The Earth’s biodiversity and soil, land, and water are not “human inventions”, they are not the “private property” of a few billionaires and their corporations. They are the commons, the infrastructure of life, not industrial “raw material” to be extracted for profits, or financial assets to be traded.

Every organism, from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal is part of the web of life. All living beings are sentient beings and have intrinsic value and worth. They are not objects to be owned and manipulated. Their value does not come from the market and cannot be reduced to money.

Earth-centred paradigms and worldviews do not put humans at the centre. They do not put the dis-economy of extractivism at the centre. They put life and the living processes that support life at the centre. They put the currencies of life at the centre.

Giving back to the Earth for regeneration, and sharing her gifts among others is at the heart of being members of one Earth family.

Life is a Circular Regenerative Flow. Living is participating in the cycles of life. Caring and Sharing is the Regenerative Economy – Oikonomia, or the Art of Living 

Nature’s Economy is the economy of life, nourishing all in permanent renewal and regeneration.

Participating in nature’s Cycles of Renewal and Regeneration based on the living currencies and flows of energy, food, water, air, life is Oikonomia, the Art of Living.

Nature does not work in linear extractive flows of one way taking. Mother  Earth works in complex, multiple Living Circular Economies based on ecological cycles of renewal, recycling and the law of return, the law of giving. Living circular economies create economies of permanence through regeneration and renewal. The Earth’s gifts do not get exhausted. Seed becomes plants, plants give seeds. Food is the currency of the nutrition cycle, nourishing all beings in the web of life. Water is the currency in the hydrological cycle, quenching the thirst of the soil, the plants, the animals, the atmosphere.

Nature’s Economy is an autopoietic, negative entropy economy, unlike mechanical, industrial systems which are allopoetic, based on external inputs of energy and resources and create wasted energy as entropy.

Nature’s cycles are zero waste and zero pollution systems, unlike the waste and pollution creating industrial systems driven by external energy.

Care for the Earth and her biodiversity is the Real Economy in which we participate, providing for the needs of others in our Earth Family who provide for us.

Cooperation, Mutuality, Synergy are the principles of Nature’s Economy, not competition and extractivism. Scarcity is a construct that is used to grab people’s lands and resources. The construct of scarcity and greed are the basis of conflicts and wars. Peace flows when all beings cooperate in mutuality and Gift Giving to create abundance and sustenance for all, making conservation and regeneration the basis of living economies and livelihoods.

That is why we pray, “May the peace of the earth, the air, the atmosphere, the waters, the plants, the trees … May that peace be with you”.

Cocreating nonviolently with Mother Earth is weaving peace, and providing for the basic needs of food and water, life and livelihoods of the last person. As Gandhi said: “The Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, not for a few people’s greed.” 

We have a duty to protect the Earth‘s living systems and the infrastructure of life that provides us clean air, clean water and clean food. All beings have the right to the gifts of the Earth. All beings have a right to be alive, and to their share of ecological space. No person, no matter how rich they have become through extractivism, has the right to appropriate the share of others in participation in Nature’s Economy, the Economy of Life.

Living is participating in the processes of life.

Living is Commoning. Living is Reclaiming the commons of life and resisting the new enclosures through the financialisation of nature.

“The Currency of Life is Life, not Money” 

Mother Earth connects us to her life and the Earth Family through flows of living currencies of energy and breath, water and nourishment.

Currency means flow. It is the flow of life and love through the web of life in nature and society which sustains us as one. As I have often repeated: “The currency of life is life, not money”. Food is the currency of life. Water is the currency of life. Breath is the currency of life. Living energy is the currency of life. Care is the currency of life. The diverse currencies of life grow the infrastructure of life so all lives thrive.

The ecological emergency is a consequence of the economy of Greed, of extractivism to make money, and making money the measure of value, and even the measure of being human. It is the basis of inhumanity, of violence and wars against the Earth and against people, in the name of grabbing resources for the market.

Colonial commerce was based on commodification and commercialisation of nature, leaving nothing for nature and local communities. Colonisers grew richer. Nature and colonised people became poorer.

The disease is now being offered as the cure. Markets and money are being offered as the solution to the ecological catastrophes they have caused. Economic growth, which is merely a measure of how much was extracted from nature and society to convert into money, capital, finances, is being offered as a solution to the ecological crises money-making and extractivism has led to.

The laws of Gaia are the basis of life on earth. They precede production, they precede trade, and they precede the market. The market depends on Gaia. Gaia does not depend on the market. Both the earth and society come first. They are sovereign and autonomous. They cannot be commoditised, and reduced to the market.

In a short 500 years of colonialism, the Robber Barons reduced Terra Madre, Mother Earth to Terra Nullius, dead, Empty Earth, property to be owned, raw material to be exploited. Earth centred communities living in peace with the Earth as part of the Earth were declared “primitive”. Oikonomia, the Art of Living was violently transformed into Chrematistics, the Art of Money Making.

They made the currencies of life disappear and replaced it with money and finance.

In 100 years of the Age of Oil, the Robber Barons displaced the living carbon of biodiversity with the counterfeit energy from fossilised dead carbon, disrupting the self regulation of Earth Systems, giving us pollution, wars and climate catastrophe.

Climate Change, the Extinction Emergency, the economic catastrophes and wars are rooted in greed and wars against the Earth and her Peoples. They are rooted in control of life by controlling the flow of seed going from farmer to farmer, the flow of water in a river,  the flow of food to nourish all beings in the food web, the flow of money reflecting embodiment of real goods and resources, the flow of freedom and democracy, of knowledge and information. Controlling the flow is controlling life and freedom. This is how money is made, and power accumulated in the hands of a few.

Now the Robber Barons who gave us oil want to create new markets of carbon, new property in nature’s ecological services,  by reducing Biodiversity and Nature into financial assets to be owned and traded^[4].

In 2021, Rockefeller and the New York Stock Exchange launched Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG)^[5] whose mission focuses on “pioneering a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital”^[6]. A new colonialism, a new ownership, a new enclosure of the commons is being worked out by the Robber Barons who do not merely want to own nature, but also her ecological services. The assets include “Biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential”^[7].

The Robber Barons of today, the philanthrocapitalists, the Blackrocks and Vanguards, are trying to own and privatise all of nature and our lives. They are mutating into life lords to whom we will have to pay rents to breathe, eat, drink. What nature provides for free as a Gift will now be a commodity we “buy” at high cost and through digital social credits in the new economy which builds on the old colonisation.

The money machine is trying to own the last seed, the last drop of water, the last river, extinguish the last forest and last farm, the last insect and blade of grass. Creating fictitious currencies, and fictitious finance, nature is being reduced to a “financial asset”, to be miraculously multiplied to $4000 trillion.

The 2008 financial crisis was the result of the financial Robber Barons magically expanding the $90 trillion economy of real goods and services like homes and food into a fictitious $512 trillion financial economy. The financial economy grew at the cost of millions who were unhoused and unfed as a result. The more the real world is turned into a financial asset, the more homelessness and hunger grows.

Wall Street and the financial asset companies are now seeing a $4000 trillion  fictitious economy of finance by extracting profits from “Nature’s assets”, or the goods and services that the Earth produces. This commodification is an enclosure of the commons of life. It is an attempt to own the last river, the last forest and the last acre of land. It is a recipe to displace and dispossess  the real custodians of nature, the indigenous people and small farmers leaving them without access to land, forests and water and their Earth-centred cultures and livelihoods. Hunger, poverty, disposability, and dispossession will grow. This is a violation of Nature’s Economy, Rights of Mother Earth, Rights of all beings and Human Rights.

Creating new algorithms to multiply finances and increase financial resources cannot regenerate the life lost in nature through ecological destruction. You can convert nature into cash through extractivism. But you cannot turn cash into nature.

An African peasant captured the ontological and ecological difference between money and life with a simple metaphor:

“You cannot turn a calf into a cow by plastering it with mud”^[8]

Financialisation of Mother Nature, reducing her to an “asset” and commodity for sale continues the ontological blindness to how Mother Earth creates and sustains life through her auto-poetic currencies and life flows.

Money is a mere means of exchange of real goods and services  produced through real work. Money mutated into the mysterious construct of “capital”, which could create wealth by denying the creativity of nature, women, farmers, workers, could enclose the commons and own the commons as private property. “Capital” then mutated into “investment”. Investment mutated, through multiple constructions into “returns on investment”, where those who do no real work but control wealth created by exploitation of nature and people accumulate more wealth, and use the wealth to further exploit nature and society. The ecological crisis grows. Poverty, misery, exclusion grows.

Financialisation of Nature is the latest step in the mutation of “invest” from giving care to profits and money making.

The original meaning of “invest” was to make something beautiful, to clothe. A mere ten years after the creation of the East India Company by 1610 the meaning of investment changed from being diverse ways of “clothing “ and “surrounding”  to “use money to produce profit” in connection with corporate colonial trade.

It was John Locke who extended it to “circulation of money” to suit the needs of private property, money-centred structures being built by colonial commerce. And the delusion that money is the currency of life has allowed money-making and money-makers to be rewarded and even worshipped, while our sense of interconnectedness is extinguished, and with it our potential for compassion.

For them ‘Invest in the planet” means extract the last drop of life from the Earth Systems, extract the last freedom from humans and other species to be sustained by the earth, her flows, her currencies.

We need to return to the original meaning of “invest”, as clothing, and making beauty. We need to clothe the Earth with biodiversity of trees on our farms and forests, biodiversity of crops in our fields and gardens. We need to intensify biodiversity, to intensify photosynthesis, to intensify nature’s flows of life. We need to plant seeds and care for the living soil so the seed, soil and sun can intensify the flow of their living energies, healing broken cycles. We need to invest Love, Care and Compassion  to Regenerate the Earth and stop the wars against the Earth and her peoples.

Peace, sustainability and justice call for an end to wars against the Earth in our minds, our lives.

The Colonial Age has enslaved our minds and broken our relationship with the Earth. The Fossil Fuel Age has fossilised our minds and hearts, making us helpless cogs in the oil machine, the money machine, cogs the machine is ready to substitute with robots and AI.

Mother Earth is waking us up to break free of the anthropocentric arrogance that makes rich and powerful humans blind to nature’s life, creativity, technologies, economy and allows them to deny us our rightful share and place as Earth Beings in Mother Earth’s Economy of Life to ensure life and well being, food and water for all.

As money and finance becomes more removed from nature’s economy and the real economies of sustenance that people create, as finance multiplies mysteriously, gets concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires, their Asset Management Funds, and the corporations they own, it is time to remember the prophecy of the Cree Native Americans.

“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money. ”

Seeding Our Common Future with Mother Earth

We are biological beings, ecological beings, earth beings, inter beings, spiritual beings. We are one Earth Family. Seeds are not machines. Plants are not machines. Animals are not machines. We are not machines. Our minds are not machines. We are conscious, intelligent caring beings with a potential to imagine and cultivate a future of peace and non violence, of abundance and well being.

Life is self-organised complexity and intelligence in constant evolution, interaction, change and emergence. From the seed I have learnt the power of autopoiesis, organised from within. Biodiversity of Seeds and Plants have been my teacher of abundance and freedom, of cooperation and mutual giving.

Seed, uncontaminated seed, Bija, Seme, Semilla- is the source of life, of regeneration and abundance. Seed renews and multiples. Seed Regenerates. On its own. Forever and ever and ever… Seed embodies the continuity of evolution.

From the Seed we can learn self-organisation, co-creation, regeneration.  We can return to Earth to grow life in diversity and participate in the flow of life to provide for our needs. At a time when the Robber Barons have plans to own all of nature, all of the Earth, and force us to buy our needs, we need to follow the example of my sisters in Chipko who reminded us that the forests were not timber mines, they were sources of soil, water, and oxygen. They declared they would hug the trees to protect them and not let them be cut.

On Mother Earth Day and every day we live and breathe, whoever we are, where we are, let us hug Mother Earth in gratitude for the breath, food,  water, life she gives and declare our deep love for life. 

Mother Earth is Not for Sale 

When I started the movement for Seed Freedom for saving seeds I travelled the country to create awareness about the Intellectual Property laws of Gatt/WTO through which corporations wanted to own seed as property. The tribals of Chattisgarh who evolved 200,000 varieties of rice told me how seed is a commons which has to be regenerated through sharing. Rice is called Akshat, the unbroken, the timeless, the breath of life. They asked me to return and join them for the festival of Akti, Akshaya Tritiya, a festival for celebrating the unbroken cycle of life, not as observers, but as participants in the cycle of regeneration and care. In a prayer that is said at Akshaya Tritiya, Mother Earth gives us instruction that the purpose of our lives is love and compassion for all beings.

“Relating to all living beings through love and compassion is the purpose of life”

‘मित्रस्याहं चक्षुसा सर्वाणि भूतानि समीक्षे‘- (यजुर्वेद- 36/18)

सभी जीवों ( विविध जीवों) के प्रति सहृदयता का परिचय देना ही जीवन का लक्षण है।

David Korten awakens us to the potential we have to participate in the, “joyful exhilaration that comes from fulfilling our responsibility to share in the care of life”^[9]

References

^[1] A late and dear friend and a geneticist who worked on a quantum theory of biology.

Hunt, Tam. (2013). The rainbow and the worm: Establishing a new physics of life. Communicative & integrative biology. 6. e23149. 10.4161/cib.23149.

^[2] Prentice, IC, Farquhar, GD, Fasham, MJR, Goulden, ML, Heimann, M, Jaramillo, VJ, Kheshgi, HS, Le Quere, C, Scholes, RJ & Wallace, DWR 2001, The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. in JT Houghton, Y Ding, DJ Griggs, M Noguer, PJ van der Linden, X Dai, K Maskell & CA Johnson (eds), Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

^[3] The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (‘The Declaration’) was proclaimed on 22 April 2010 (international Mother Earth Day) by the approximately 35,000 participants in the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. https://www.navdanya.org/earth-university/universal-declaration-of-the-rights-of-mother-earth

^[4] Harty, Declan. ‘NYSE Is Pushing into the Market of Natural Assets’. Fortune, 14 Sept. 2021, https://fortune.com/2021/09/14/nyse-natural-asset-company-ieg-esg-investment-vehicle/

^[5] ‘IEG’. IEG, https://www.intrinsicexchange.com

^[6] ‘Solution’. IEG, https://www.intrinsicexchange.com/solution

^[7] Webb, Withney. ‘Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class’. Unlimited Hangout, 13 Oct. 2021, https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/investigative-reports/wall-streets-takeover-of-nature-advances-with-launch-of-new-asset-class/

^[8] Timberlake J., Africa in Crisis: The Causes and Cures of Environmental Bankruptcy, Paperback; London: Earthscan, 1985; ISBN-13: 978-0905347578

^[9] Korten D. Ecological Civilization: From Emergency to Emergence. 26 May 2021, https://davidkorten.org/ecological-civilization-from-emergency-to-emergence/

Connect with Navdanya International

cover image credit: ELG21 / pixabay

How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution

by TJ Martinelli, Tenth Amendment Center
originally published on August 12, 2015

When people think of the causes of the American War for Independence, they think of slogans like “no taxation without representation” or cause célèbre like the Boston Tea Party.

In reality, however, what finally forced the colonials into a shooting war with the British Army in April 1775 was not taxes or even warrant-less searches of homes and their occupation by soldiers, but one of many attempts by the British to disarm Americans as part of an overall gun control program, according to David B. Kopel.

Furthermore, had the American colonies lost their war for independence, the British government intended to strip them of all their guns and place them under the thumb of a permanent standing army.

In his paper titled “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution,” Kopel claims that various gun control policies by the British following the Boston Tea Party, including a ban on firearm and gunpowder importation, tells us not only the purpose of the Second Amendment, but its relevance within the context of today’s gun control debate.

“The ideology underlying all forms of American resistance to British usurpations and infringements was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights,” Kopel writes. “From the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The philosophy was not novel, but was directly derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke.”

Kopel writes that two important things underlined the American response to the British policies. One was the practical concept of self-defense, which British disarmament measures was making more difficult. The other, and more relevant concept, was that “Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government.”

Following the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, in which the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships carrying East India Company cargo and dumped forty-six tons of tea ships of tea to prevent its landing, the British government introduced a series of retaliatory measures known as the Intolerable Acts. Among the actions was the closure of Boston’s port, effectively cutting off all trade.

However, Kopel writes, “it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them (the Intolerable Acts) that primed many colonists for armed resistance.”

An example of this is a South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate (bold emphasis added).

“When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.”

The British Army had already been occupying American cities like Boston since 1768, where the notorious Boston Massacre took place in 1770. Following the passage of the intolerable Acts, the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the provincial government in the state, and General Thomas Gage was appointed royal governor, all which inflamed tensions and prompted backlash from Americans who saw it as the Crown attempted to force their colonies into submission.

Tensions were so great, in fact, that the shooting might have started much earlier than Lexington and Concord. In one incident, General Gage sent Redcoats to squash an “illegal” town meeting in Salem, only to retreat when, according to one of Gage’s aides, three thousand armed Americans arrived.

It was clear to the British that gun control measures would be necessary if they were to maintain their rule. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston, while there were thousands of armed men in Boston and more in the surrounding area.

One solution, Kopel writes, was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. In September 1774, several hundred Redcoats raided a Charlestown powder house – where militias and merchants stored their gunpowder due to its volatile nature – and seized all but the powder belonging to the colonial government.

“Gage was within his legal rights to seize it,” Kopel concludes. “But the seizure still incensed the public.”

Known as the Powder Alarm, this also nearly started the Revolution when rumors spread wildly that the Redcoats had started shooting. In response, 20,000 militiamen were mobilized that same day and marched on Boston – they later turned around once they learned the truth.

“If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that seizure as an act of war, and the militia would fight,” he writes. “And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.”

Following the Powder Alarm, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled at the Worcester Common, where the Worcester Convention ordered the resignations of all militia officers who had received their commissions from the royal governor. The officers promptly resigned, and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention, independent of the British administration.

Governor Gage then tried another approach – warrantless searches of people for arms and ammunition without any provocation. The policy drew fierce criticism from the colonists. In fact, the Boston Gazette wrote that of all General Gage‘s offenses, it was this one that outraged people the most.

In October 1774 the Provincial Congress convened, with John Hancock acting as its president. The Congress adopted a resolution that condemned the military occupation of Boston and called on private citizens to arm themselves and engage in military drills. The Provincial Congress also appointed a Committee of Safety, giving it the power to call up the militia. This meant that the militia of Massachusetts “no longer answered to the British government,” Kopel writes. “It was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.”

Not surprisingly, British officials in England were eager to see outright gun confiscation in order to effectively suppress any resistance to their rule. Lord Dartmouth, the royal Secretary of State for America, articulated this sentiment in a letter to Governor Gage.

“Amongst other things which have occurred on the present occasion as likely to prevent the fatal consequence of having recourse to the sword, that of disarming the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island, has been suggested. Whether such a Measure was ever practicable, or whether it can be attempted in the present state of things you must be the best judge; but it certainly is a Measure of such a nature as ought not to be adopted without almost a certainty of success, and therefore I only throw it out for your consideration.”

Gage warned that the only way to carry it out would be to use violence (bold emphasis added):

“Your Lordship‘s Idea of disarming certain Provinces would doubtless be consistent with Prudence and Safety, but it neither is nor has been practicable without having Recourse to Force, and being Masters of the Country.”

The gun confiscation proposal didn’t remain secret for long, as Gage‘s letter read in the British House of Commons and then publicized in America. Two days after Dartmouth’s letter was sent, King George III ordered the blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America, save those with governments permits. No permit, Kopel writes, was ever granted, and the ban would remain in effect until after the War of Independence ended and the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.

Having banned the import on all guns and ammunition, the British moved next to seize that which remained in colonial hands. In anticipation of such a seizure at Fort William and Mary in December 1774, four hundred New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort.

Eventually, Kopel writes “Americans no longer recognized the royal governors as the legitimate commanders-in-chief of the militia. So without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors.”

It was such a militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord against Gage’s Redcoats in April 1775. Following the battle, the colonials lay siege to Boston. The British response in other colonies was a swift move to confiscate or destroy firearms. In Virginia, they seized twenty barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and removed the firing mechanisms in the guns, making them impossible to shoot.

Meanwhile, in Boston, General Gage carried out his own gun confiscation policy against the remaining Bostonians, but having learned his lesson from Lexington and Concord, he tried a more furtive approach by offering them the opportunity to leave town if they gave up their arms. Within days, Kopel writes, 2,674 guns were handed over to the British. Gage then promptly turned back on his promise and initially refused to allow anyone to leave. Only food shortages led him to permit more emigration from the city.

Although there is room for speculation as to what would have happened had the American colonies lost the War of Independence, historical documents make some things very clear. When a British victory seemed likely in 1777, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan titled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” Intended to prevent any further rebellions in America, the plan called on the establishment of the Church of England in all the colonies, along with a hereditary aristocracy.

But the most ominous measure it would have enacted would have been a permanent standing army, along with the following (emphasis added):

The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, [and] the Arms of all the People should be taken away . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . .”

Many gun control policies in America today follow the British blueprint. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed suitable for “sporting” purposes by federal regulators. Certain cities openly declare their gun fees are intended not to prevent the wrong people from owning guns, but to discourage all private citizens from owning them.

“To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era,” Kopel writes, “the late twentieth century claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right and not an individual right might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, or their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began.”

Yet, Kopel believes “the most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament,” something that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms, many times at gunpoint. A federal district judge properly issued an order finding the gun confiscation to be illegal.

“Gun ownership simpliciter ought never be a pretext for government violence,” Kopel concludes. “The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the twenty-first century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.”

It is easy to see, then, why modern gun control advocates are the spiritual successors of the British government our forefathers opposed, for while gun grabbers call for restrictions on the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, they are all but silent on the dangers of having standing army in America or the blatant militarization of police departments.

Connect with Tenth Amendment Center

cover image is in the public domain: sourced from  Wikimedia Commons

The Ruse of Exemptions: When Government Calls The Shots

by Rosanne Lindsay, Nature of Healing
April 10, 2022

Exemptions are privileges. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
Rights are not gifts from government.
– Nature of Healing

The Ruse of Benefits & Privileges

Government laws exist to grant “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES” to citizens who agree to be governed. Benefits and privileges do not usurp birthrights, rights that are inborn or inherent. Thus, birthrights supersede laws, mandates, and exemptions.

A government exemption is an “opt out.” By asking permission of government to opt out from any government-imposed health mandates, you agree to bypass birthrights.

Under exemptions, you are requesting permission from government to make a choice that you already possess. Remember, bodily autonomy is a BIRTHRIGHT. You come into this world alone. You leave this world alone,  without government approval. Therefore, an exemption or an Exemption Act, is a form of entrapment known as Color of Law.

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. Since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents and governors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders (E.O.s) under Color of Law. Even though it might be argued that ALL federal Acts fall under the Color of Law, the chances of adjudicating an equitable solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus in a lab. The CDC still admits there is no gold standard for the isolation of any virus.

So it is by the will of the people that allows government to usurp its authority and ensure the end of freedom of choice for all. In the near future, in order to attain an education, or maintain a job, to enter a hospital or clinic, to shop or travel, in order to live within any community, or function on any practical level within society, people will be made to get government shots.

The Ruse of Exemption

Have you been told to get a medical or religious exemption by your employer? Think again.

Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of the community who sign onto them. Why?

Because here is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions since businesses have no legal duty of care from imposing mandates in the first place, based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.

The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk states that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed to exist in the community.

An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. A legal duty is a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that impose mandates must have an insurance policy. Without one, no court will take jurisdiction. A plaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.

In addition, laws cannot conflict with each other. So, for instance, when mandates, statutes, Acts, or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then there is a violation of the legal duty of care.

What about Constitutional protections? New policies appear to obsolete the Constitution by empowering state and local officials to issue vaccine mandates. This begs the questions, 1) Is the Constitution null and void? and 2) was the Constitution merely a contract written and signed by a small group of wealthy men to protect themselves and their interests?

The Ruse of “Public Health”

Federal (statutory) Acts attempt to protect “the public health” with “statutory rights.”  Beware: A “statutory right” is an oxymoron, similar to public health, safe vaccine, and honest thief.  It is meant to confuse.

All federal Acts steer “the public” into a herd by the language of legalease. In reality, there is no such thing as “Public Health.” Public Health does not exist outside of individual health. You cannot wear a life jacket to keep others afloat. So to consent to “Public Health mandates” is to give up bodily autonomy in exchange for Public Rights (i.e., Children’s rights, Gay rights, Parent rights, Women’s rights) granted by the State. State Rights can be modified, suspended, and revoked. See how California revoked all vaccine-related exemptions. By taking the Public out of Public Health, we begin to reclaim responsibility for choice and freedom.

The success of any Act depends from which perspective you view its success. From the first Act, passed in 1784, to the latest draft government Acts, ALL Acts appear to be an extension of The CIRCUS Act. From the people’s perspective, success rates are dismal thanks to exemptions and exceptions to exemptions in every Act. A few examples include:

The CLEAN AIR Act of 1970 with exemptions, and The CLEAR SKIES Act of 2019 – serves to create dirty skies with exemptions for oil refineries and power plants and the most toxic bunker fuel operations.

The CLEAN WATER Act of 1972  and its exemptions that serve to pollute the waters.

The US PATRIOT Act of 2001 and US Patriot and Reauthorization Act of 2005 “to unite and strengthen America,” with exemptions to banking agencies which serve to divide and weaken America.

The QUARANTINE Acts OF 1710, and 1720, The QUARANTINE Act of 1951 – originally applied to commercial vessels for the separation of infected people, which became the Public Health Act of 1896 in Ireland, The Public Health Act of 1936 in Britain, The Public Health Service Act of 1944 in America, to The CANADA QUARANTINE ACT of 2005 – to quarantine all people, healthy and sick.

The PREP Act of 2005, allows government to bypass Rights and Freedom. The DHHS Amended Version authorizes an increased workforce to administer COVID (experimental) vaccines. And The PREP Act 2022 – limits liability for COVID countermeasures.

See the article Transcending The Hegelian Dialectic for more information.

Note also, that any discussion of science for “public health” purposes is a purposeful distraction away from inherent rights. Do not be distracted by the vaccine debate or by the Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed study that will never be formally approved by government. The science debate is merely a ruse to eliminate freedom.

Contagions and The American With Disabilities Act

John Jay Singleton, of TheZunga, helps people to exercise their RIGHTS to bodily autonomy under the ADA. TheZunga.com endeavors to extract people caught in the government web of exemptions under COVID19 policies. Singleton writes:

Having a contagious disease is defined as having a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Rehabilitation Act, under the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act, precludes employers from imposing any accommodations upon employees unless they meet the criteria for establishing that the employee is a direct threat following an individualized assessment (diagnosis). Employers are prohibited by law from requiring any medical examination in this process as it is an accommodation for which the employer must advise the employee that he has the right to accept or refuse

Singleton contends that the ADA, a federal law, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyone from any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.

To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. If you’re regarded as having a disability its because the government announced a public health disaster, so the legal duties come into play with the ADA. And the legal duty of care is on anyone trying to force these measure on you. John Jay Singleton

In summary, exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupon deny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the government taketh away, on a whim.

No Consent

Governments have inverted inherent rights by statutes, policies, Acts, E.O.s and exemptions. In doing so, they have bound freedom, itself, to a contract. All government Acts apply to government entities and persons; not to men and women. Men and women are not subject to Acts, because they are not subjects.

Exemption or no exemptions, the power of NO always applies, as long as you can voice it. One way to say No Thank You is through a Conditional Acceptance, a lawful response to any offer to contract. Can they sign a statement agreeing to your conditions to their offer? If not, there is no contract and you remain in honor. See more at Youarelaw.org.

All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is, if you consent to the offer. However, if offered an experimental product, make sure you are provided with Informed Consent (45 CFR § 46.116) before you consent, because you become a subject taking part in a clinical study.

When it comes to any mandate, it is important to appreciate that all exemptions (medical, religious, or philosophical/personal belief), are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge, and thus sacrifice or forfeit your natural BIRTHRIGHTS to an external authority.

For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcing one to submit even if policies require compliance. When it comes to commerce, everything is an offer to contract. When it comes to Acts, All the world is a stage.

Shakespeare titled his play, As You Like It, as if to say, you always have a choice. There is no law that compels anyone to do anything related to mandated restrictions, whether COVID-related or not. The freedom to choose is non-negotiable. You always have options just like you have opinions. However, in this era, freedom must be defended and claimed as a BIRTHRIGHT.

Do you trust a government calling the shots under the ruse of exemptions? Now is the time to seize your courage, to wake up, to rise up and to find your will to act for yourself. As always, freedom lives in you!

Updated from May 21, 2019.

Related Articles

• Freedom Exists Under Natural Law
• The Ruse of Children’s Rights
• Taking the Public Out of Public Health
• Vaccine Debate: Ruse to Eliminate Freedom
• U.S. Constitution Expired. California Exemptions Revoked. Natural Law Stands.

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath

cover image credit: SantiagoGonzález_ad / pixabay

See also:

The Not-So-NICE ACT

The Not-So-NICE ACT

by Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath, Nature of Healing
April 7, 2022

A catchy title, The NICE Act, (HR 5816), is a federal Act recently introduced in Congress under the appearance of a Health Freedom Bill.

Look closer. The NICE Act is not what it appears to be. It attempts to do something it is not designed to do. Then again, the rule of law always has exceptions. In this case, it is important to be aware that federal Acts regulate commerce, not people. Note, when federal Acts attempt to regulate people, money is always involved.

Follow the money.

The NAUGHTY but NICE Act?

Where there is government overreach, The NICE Act (HR 5816) becomes The Naughty Act. Let us break it down into 8 proofs:

A BILL…

“To prohibit the federal Government, or State or local government or other entity receiving federal funding, from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated, including federal agencies from requiring its employees to take any vaccination, without the citizen being fully advised in writing of all known potential risks from the vaccine and consultation with a physician followed by the voluntary informed consent of the citizen, and for other purposes.”

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “National Informed Consent Exemption (NICE) Act.”

1.‍ This bill directly affects any entity, or person, receiving federal money.

1. 1. The federal Government, and persons receiving federal funding, are prohibited from requiring any citizen to be vaccinated or tested for an infectious disease without due process of law. Citizens have the fundamental right to decline vaccination for an infectious disease without penalty.

Aha! The beginning of the money trail. This Act attempts to regulate an individual’s choice for healing. Whether a citizen chooses vaccination or not speaks to consent, not Informed Consent. This is a consent bill masquerading as an Informed Consent bill. However, whatever this bill claims to be, the freedom to choose is a Right, far removed from federal commerce and its regulations. How people heal is protected by States and State Constitutions, and should not be redefined by federal Acts that attempt to legislate choice.

2. Informed Consent is Not Consent

Informed Consent already exists in a current law, codified at 45 CFR § 46.116 – General requirements for informed consent. It exists to protect a patient’s right to receive information, including risks, before accepting or declining a medical procedure. No one is required to submit to any procedures without informed consent. Again, informed consent is not to be confused with Consent, meaning the ability for someone to accept or to decline an offer, such a vaccination. This bears repeating.

Informed consent occurs when there is agreement to an interaction or action rendered with knowledge of relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives. Informed consent often comes up in the contexts of legal ethics, medical treatment, and waiver of constitutional rights. – Legal Information Institute.

It is important to know that a government-granted exemption is a privilege, not a right. The ability to decline a medical procedure, including vaccination, is, and always has been, a Right. Rights are inborn, granted by the Creator. Rights do not come from government. Governments are established to protect the rights of men and women. See ‘The Declaration of Independence.’

No government has the power to legislate a right, even when naming it as “an exemption,” unless the people sign on, with their signatures.

3. Medical freedom is much broader than vaccines, alone.

This medical freedom bill is limited in scope, focusing on freedom from vaccine mandates only, as if vaccination is a gold standard with few exceptions. What about freedom from coercion, drugging, medical testing, medical tracking, medical chipping, and all forms of medical tyranny inside and outside of “public health emergencies?”

4. Under the NICE Act, citizens would agree that this human right (the right to decline a vaccine) does not apply when:

(3) Federal, State, and local emergencies where the governing authority has first formally applied to the President of the United States of America for a NICE exception, and provided that the President in his discretion formally authorizes the requested exception based on the following criteria proven by the governing authority: (i) compliance with the procedure in section 5(b) would be materially impractical, (ii) the requested NICE exception would not materially interfere with National Security, and (iii) short-term and long-term side effects from the vaccination, including serious injuries and deaths, have been proven to occur in less than 1 in 200,000 individuals.

Did you notice that this bill includes exceptions for the exemption? Would a perceived threat to national security invalidate the NICE exemption? What authority determines the level of security threat that would trigger this revocation? Would government be able to deploy a mass vaccine rollout in public schools, as has happened in the past? The language of this bill attempts to swap a privilege for a privilege, with exemptions for an exemption, but remember, human rights ALWAYS apply.

5. Any medical procedures, drugs, or vaccines are always optional, yet the NICE Act makes the assumption that there is always an exception.

The NICE Act (HR5816) reads:

(b) Vaccination shall henceforth be optional to citizens, except as provided in section 5, for their participation in society, including but not limited to education, travel, employment, government service, housing, social welfare programs, access to courts, and medical care.

6. Americans currently have guardianship laws and power of attorney, yet this Act would not apply to:

(1) lawfully incarcerated and institutionalized individuals lacking the right or ability to meaningfully provide informed consent or informed refusal;

7. The authors of this Act say this law would also not apply to the following:

(2) courts of law issuing individualized court orders specific to one individual, provided the court order applies strict scrutiny following a hearing affording due process of law to the individual affected;

Still, governments have no authority to vaccinate anyone against his will. Even though governments do coerce, they cannot mandate a vaccination.

8. This bill creates victims and subjects of the court system if violations occur under the Act.

(a) Any person who has been the victim of a violation of this Act may bring a civil action for damages against any responsible party.

Legally, a “PERSON” means an individual, a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, association, trust, unincorporated organization, or other legal entity or organization, or a Government Body. Alternatively, if you are not a PERSON, subject to this Act, then you are neither a victim of the Act, nor a subject of the federal judicial system.

Law Basics 101

The United States Congress was established for the purpose of making and enacting laws that protect the rights and freedoms of people. However, people existed before the government existed. Therefore, the rights of people supersede government laws, Acts, statutes, and dictates. Since the

origin of rights and freedom comes from birth, they are known as birth RIGHTS.

Government laws exist as “BENEFITS and PRIVILEGES.” However, since the inception of the United States in 1776, both presidents and governors have been bypassing the laws through illegal Executive Orders (E.O.s) under Color of Law. Even though it might be argued that federal Acts fall under the Color of Law, the chances of finding a solution through the court system is about as likely as isolating the Coronavirus. The CDC still admits there is no gold standard for the isolation of any virus.

Government-granted exemptions for government-imposed health mandates are strategically designed to fail by entrapping those members of the community who sign onto them. Firstly, there is no legal defense or enforcement for religious or medical exemptions because businesses have no legal duty of care from imposing mandates based on the The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.

The Doctrine of Assumption of Risk states that no business is liable to protect others from a risk that’s widely known or believed to exist in the community.

Secondly, laws cannot conflict with each other. So when mandates or Executive Orders conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), then there is a violation of the legal duty of care. A legal duty is a legal obligation, the breach of which can result in liability. Businesses that impose mandates must have an insurance policy.

John Jay Singleton, of Zunga, says, Federal law, the ADA, requires businesses to aid and encourage those with disabilities in the exercise and enjoyment of their rights. This means that not only can a business owner not impose such measures on anyone, he must actively protect everyone from any violation of this law, at least by not imposing them.

To exercise and enjoy your rights doesn’t mean you have to have a disability. It means you’re regarded as having a disability. If you’re regarded as having a disability its because the government announced a public health disaster, so the legal duties come into play with the ADA. And the legal duty of care is on anyone trying to force these measure on you. John Jay Singleton

An exemption means there has to be a legal duty of care. If there is no legal duty, there is no exemption. So no court will take jurisdiction. A plaintiff in court will never win. This is another reason you do not have to beg for a right you already possess.

Exemptions bind people to an arbitrary, and a constantly changing, list of demands. These demands supersede basic freedoms, and thereupon deny people of their inalienable, God/life given rights to self-determination of their bodies. As the government giveth, so, too, can the government taketh away, on a whim.

It is important to appreciate that all vaccine-related exemptions, whether, medical, religious, moral/philosophical/personal belief, naughty or NICE, are fundamentally illegal, because they transpose an inherent human RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, on the presumption that you acknowledge, and thus sacrifice, or forfeit, your natural born rights and ‘freedom to choose’ to an external authority.

Not So NICE

Do supporters of this bill suddenly trust a government calling the shots under the ruse of exemptions? Do they support a government morphing into a One World Government?

What if declining to participate in Acts preserves your authenticity and your rights?

All Acts attempt do one thing: to allow the government to legislate choice and freedom, that is …if you consent to the offer. But were you provided Informed Consent?

For instance, there is no American authority for compulsory vaccination, in the sense of forcing one to submit. When it comes to the government, everything is an offer to contract. When it comes to Acts, All the world is a stage.

Science vs. Rights. Why They Must Remain Separate

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath

cover image credit: PDPics / pixabay

Where There Is Risk There Must Be Choice?

by Leslie Manookian, Heretic with Leslie Manookian
April 8, 2022

Where there is a risk there must be a choice?

Sorry but no. No. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

I am so frustrated by all the well-meaning activists and their signs emblazoned with that message.

What I do with my body has nothing to do with the degree of risk involved. What I do with my body is strictly my choice, period. This is not negotiable. I am a sovereign human being with natural rights no person or government may infringe.

And I would die defending those rights.

No, I’m not being sensational. I simply refuse to live as a slave and do not want that future for my husband, my son, or all the other people on the planet enduring this dystopian present.

This is a line I will not, and we must not, concede.

Have we forgotten what our founders declared in the Declaration of Independence? Those prescient, revolutionary masterminds proclaimed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis mine.]

Have we forgotten why they wrote those words and what they truly mean?

Those who came before us wrote these words because they endured firsthand the hardship, suffering, indignity, and torment attendant to a system of government devoid of basic human rights and self-determination. They wrote them as they understood that our rights derive from something larger than any human being or human source – not from government, a person, or any manmade construct.

We possess natural rights due to the very fact of being born human. Our rights come from the source of all things and therefore cannot be removed.

This notion is unique to the United States. No other country’s founding documents proclaim such a fundamental and profound concept as this, an ideal millions of Americans hold dear, even sacred.

Our founders understood all too well the primacy of the individual and the fundamental rights which accompany each individual.

They grasped that if I yield the power and authority over my body to another who can force me to undergo a medical procedure as long as it’s deemed safe, then I am not free and may be compelled to submit to all manner of bodily intrusions.

That many politicians, thought leaders, and even judges defend a utilitarian ethos does not make it moral, ethical, or constitutional.

It is never right to harm one individual in service to the greater good and violating one individual’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy cannot be construed as anything other than harm.

As enlightenment philosopher John Locke explained so well, a society consists of individuals and cannot take precedence over the individual without sacrificing itself. Indeed, the individual is everything. If the greater good takes priority over the individual, we are a faceless mass.

If the greater good rules, may I be forced to eat only food deemed healthy and appropriate by the government? Does that mean I may eat no red meat, no butter and eggs, no raw foods – all foods I consider nutrient-dense health foods but which government has wrongly denigrated for decades?

May I be forced to eat bugs and synthetic meat, GMO salmon, corn, or soy? Before you laugh, search it up for yourself – lately, articles about the wonders of bug-eating abound. Restaurants serving ants, locusts, mealworms, and more are popping up nationwide.

What if I have allergic reactions or sensitivities to foods? Who decides how severe my reaction must be? What if my research on GMOs concludes they are harmful? Must I submit simply because some bureaucrat or potentially vested individual says so?

Can the amount of sugar I eat be restricted? Sugar undermines the immune system after all, so wouldn’t that benefit the greater good? What about potato chips, alcohol, cookies, crackers, and chips, all of which undermine my health and vitality, and therefore that of my community?

May I be coerced to donate blood to help my neighbor in need? What about one of my kidneys? May I be forced to take antidepressants to boost my mood or ADHD meds so I am more productive? May I be required to have brain and other implants installed in my body to monitor my moods and bodily functions and assure compliance with my medical treatment? May I be obliged to carry a baby for a woman who desperately wants to be a mother but can’t bear her own children?

Where do I the individual end and where does my community begin? If I as an individual can be harmed in service to the greater good, is my society a moral and ethical community?

With respect to what is deemed safe, who decides this? Have we completely forgotten history and all the mistakes science and scientists have made ranging from Vioxx to thalidomide and opioids?

Science is not absolute – it shifts and advances constantly. We once believed it was wise to x-ray pregnant women’s pelvises, we once believed handwashing was nonsense, we once believed mercury was a useful medicine. Ignoring these lessons of history is pure folly.

Who decides what is healthy or what research is valid? Why should someone I don’t know, who knows nothing about me, who is not me, who may have ulterior profit, political, or social motives, have ANY voice in how I keep myself well, how I care for myself when ill, or how I use my body?

When did we all vote and decide that the good of the community trumps the value of the individual? Western civilization, the US in particular, was built on the foundational principle of individual rights and freedoms. The Nazis reminded us that utilitarianism, the misguided belief that individuals may be sacrificed in service to the many, is evil. How did we so profoundly lose our way in 75 years?

The greater good is a glorified slide into a dark and endless black hole. A black hole I cannot and will not abide.

My body and my choices in relation to my body are not conditional on anything. Period.

Connect with Leslie Manookian

cover image credit: mcredifine / pixabay

Anarchy = Natural Law

This, ultimately, is what anarchists mean by freedom.

by Paul Cudenec
sourced from NevermoreMedia
originally published July 18, 2013

Below is an excerpt from The Anarchist Revelation. It’s taken from the chapter called Anarchy is Life. Pictured here, from left, are anarchist thinkers Peter Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Gustav Landauer and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

For an anarchist, the tender green shoot of each new-born child, the precious potential of each wonderfully unique and beautiful human being, is blocked, crushed, destroyed by the steel toe-capped boots of capitalism.

Emma Goldman says that the health of society could be measured by a person’s “individuality and the extent to which it is free to have its being, to grow and expand unhindered by invasive and coercive authority”, and Gustav Landauer writes that “anarchism’s lone objective is to end the fight of men against men and to unite humanity so that each individual can unfold his natural potential without obstruction”.

This, ultimately, is what anarchists mean by freedom. The freedom to be what we are meant to be, to become what we were born and destined by nature to become, if our ontogeny had not been thwarted and distorted.

Left to our own devices, freed from the control of the slave-masters, we individuals would co-operate and combine in the way that we were intended to, in the same way as our fellow creatures, plants, insects, fungi and microbes.

This is the basis of Peter Kropotkin’s classic argument for a society free of state, the harmonious natural order of which humans – and their relations with each other – form part: “The mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that it has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history”.

As Michael Bakunin says: “Nature, notwithstanding the inexhaustible wealth and variety of beings of which it is constituted, does not by any means present chaos, but instead a magnificently organized world wherein every part is logically correlated to all the other parts”.

Natural laws – these are the basis of the anarchist vision of a proper society and the reason why we reject the man-made variety as imposters and destroyers of all that is good and true and real.

Bakunin, that fiery messiah of disobedience, explains how these natural laws are of a kind he has no hesitation in bowing to: “Yes, we are unconditionally the slaves of these laws. But in such slavery there is no humiliation, or rather it is not slavery at all. For slavery presupposes the existence of an external master, a legislator standing above those whom he commands, while those laws are not extrinsic in relation to us: they are inherent in us, they constitute our nature, our whole being, physically, intellectually and morally. And it is only through those laws that we live, breathe, act, think and will. Without them we would be nothing, we simply would not exist”.

Natural laws are the interwoven and infinitely complex limbs of a living community, a vital entity that is the only form of “authority” that anarchists can respect, with the difference between a governmental society and an anarchic society being, as George Woodcock says, “the difference between a structure and an organism”.

Rejecting the pitiful idea that we come into this world devoid of purpose and principle, helplessly amoral blank sheets of living paper on which the state, in its wisdom, must write down the rules by which it demands we should live, anarchists know that inherent laws have already laid down a sense of justice in our souls.

“An integral part of the collective existence, man feels his dignity at the same time in himself and in others, and thus carries in his heart the principle of a morality superior to himself,” writes Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

“This principle does not come to him from outside; it is secreted within him, it is immanent. It constitutes his essence, the essence of society itself. It is the true form of the human spirit, a form which takes shape and grows towards perfection only by the relationship that every day gives birth to social life. Justice, in other words, exists in us like love, like notions of beauty, of utility, of truth, like all our powers and faculties”.

It is precisely because we already know true justice – in our blood, in our bones, in our guts, in our dreams – that anarchists are so revolted by the sick parody that is served up to us by the bigwigs of the state. Our innate sense of right and wrong is mortally offended and the pressure of a true justice re-pressed, of a natural authority denied, of inherent laws smothered, builds up in our spirits – individually and en masse, consciously and unconsciously – and becomes the force behind the need for revolution.

This force becomes a living entity itself – not the passive, patient entity that would animate human societies in times when all was going as it should, but an active, dynamic entity that has formed itself with the one purpose of breaking through the obstruction to life that it finds blocking nature’s path.

For Landauer, this revolutionary entity becomes a source of cohesion, purpose and love – “a spiritual pool” – for a humanity stranded in a desolate and despotic age: “It is in revolution’s fire, in its enthusiasm, its brotherhood, its aggressiveness that the image and the feeling of positive unification awakens; a unification that comes through a connecting quality: love as force”.

Connect with Nevermore Media

cover image credit: InspiredImages / pixabay

Rutherford Institute Issues Special Report on Second Anniversary of COVID-19: The Right to Be Let Alone in the Face of the Government’s Power Grabs

by The Rutherford Institute
March 24, 2022

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Coinciding with the second anniversary of the COVID-19 outbreak, The Rutherford Institute has issued an in-depth, follow-up report on the impact of the nation’s response to the pandemic on civil liberties.

The 2022 report, “The Right to Be Let Alone: How to Safeguard Your Freedoms in the Face of the Government’s COVID-19 Power Grabs,” posits that the government’s response to the pandemic has become a massively intrusive, coercive and authoritarian assault on the right of individual sovereignty over one’s life, self and private property. As such, concludes John W. Whitehead, these COVID-19 mandates have become the new battleground in the government’s tug-of-war over bodily autonomy and individual sovereignty.

“Right now, COVID-19 vaccines are the magic ticket for gaining access to the “privileges” of communal life,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Having already conditioned the population to the idea that being part of society is a privilege and not a right, such access could easily be predicated on social credit scores, the worthiness of one’s political views, or the extent to which one is willing to comply with the government’s dictates, no matter what they might be.”

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, to be a pandemic, resulting in the most widespread and disruptive public health emergency in our lifetime. Since that time, political leaders from the president to governors to mayors have subscribed to a broad range of actions aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19, some of which have been draconian and unprecedented. On the one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 outbreak, The Rutherford Institute issued an in-depth reporting, “Civil Liberties in the Age of COVID-19,” to address the delicate balance that must be struck between security and civil liberties, the hazards of government overreach, and the long-term ramifications of an “emergency state” in which the government is increasingly empowered to declare a state of emergency and impose lockdowns, mandates and restrictions in order to address a broadening range of concerns that prioritize the government’s wide-ranging and varying institutional concerns over the individual rights of the citizenry. Coinciding with the second anniversary of the pandemic, The Rutherford Institute has issued “The Right to Be Let Alone: How to Safeguard Your Freedoms in the Face of the Government’s COVID-19 Power Grabs,” which examines the far-reaching ramifications of how the pandemic has impacted the legal, moral and political debate over who gets to decide what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. As the report warns, “This merely pushes us one step further down that road towards a total control society in which the government in collusion with Corporate America gets to decide who is ‘worthy’ of being allowed to take part in society.”

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

DOWNLOAD PDF:

Connect with The Rutherford Institute

cover image based on creative commons work of KELLEPICS

Are Petitions and Protests The Answer?

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 2, 2022

Given recent events in Canada and the gathering convoys in New Zealand and the US and elsewhere around the world, it’s a good time to ask: are petitions and protests and lawsuits the answer to our problems.

Long story short: they’re not the answer, but they can serve a practical purpose on the way toward the real answer. Short story long?

Watch this video.



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:
Corbett Report Radio 177 – Why James (Probably) Won’t Sign Your Petition

Clean Water Oregon history

Fluoride Campaign Reports Huge Cash Haul, Unusual Spending

Portland Defeats Fluoride

Culture Jamming with Extinction Rebellion – #PropagandaWatch

Anonymous hackers pick up litter in Tokyo protest.

How To Rebuttal Mask Exempt Discrimination: Threaten Litigation

Connect with Corbett Report

Freedom Exists Outside Society

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 22, 2022

Sanity: “Freedom exists within the individual. It doesn’t exist anywhere else. Freedom means choice. An individual either takes it or surrenders it.”

Mind control: “We all live inside the government. The first fact of existence is, we live inside SOMETHING.”

That is a lie.

As the worldwide freedom protests against COVID restrictions expand, I’m reminding people of a few basic truths—after decades of press and government brainwashing.

Freedom, of course, is a natural fact, beyond the need for government permission.

It exists outside the TERRITORY of government.

No, we don’t live inside the government.

The truth is even more extreme. Freedom exists outside of society.

Society is not an entity that encircles and surrounds freedom.

Society is an organization. Freedom isn’t organized.

Heinous slogans like, “We’re all in this together,” are meant to redefine society, and give the impression that we naturally exist INSIDE it.

We don’t.

“We’re all in this together” is a tribal maxim. Even there, it’s a con, because the tribal leaders use it to enforce loyalty and submission.

When you know that, you know a great deal about freedom protests and government pushback.

The government is saying, “You ALREADY EXIST within OUR territory. To protect you and keep you safe, we’re restricting you. Naturally, you’ll comply. If you don’t, you’re a criminal. If you persist in your non-compliance, you’re a terrorist. You’re an insurrectionist.”

That’s a fantasy cooked up by the government. Ultimately, on the physical level, it’s enforced by government personnel with weapons. That’s how it becomes real.

The major everyday strategy the government uses is the proposition, “Everybody lives and works and thinks inside society, and society is regulated by the government. Society is the primary fact every person is born with.”

That’s a lie.

Every person is born with the knowledge that he is here and alive—an individual. THAT is primary.

Regardless of what he needs and requires to survive, those needs do not define him. They come second, not first.

Of course, some potato head will take this as an “anti-family” statement. It isn’t. But the love within a family has no meaning unless it’s understood that each family member is an individual.

A person can live in freedom without limit—but the basic law of an open society is: he is responsible (for his actions), and he can’t lessen the freedom of another. Granted. However, that legal restriction doesn’t define what freedom is. It modifies it. It comes second, not first.

Mind control puts everything backwards. What comes first is placed second, and vice versa.

The individual, who is free, exists outside society and government, and always has. He enters society, but he doesn’t start out inside it. He enters and exits.

Once that is clear, everything changes.

This is more than the issue of who physically owns space…

This is, who THINKS of space as open and who thinks of space as closed.

The space of government and the space of society are not the space of freedom.

EVERY CRIMINAL KNOWS THIS.

But the criminal violates the basic law of society by diminishing the freedom of others.

When the rest of the population is so cowed and brainwashed that it doesn’t even know what the criminal knows, we’re cooked.

The crazed government of Canada is in a panic because the people are waking up to the fact that freedom exists outside the government, and the truckers have suddenly become a potent force that performs instant surgery on mind control and lops it off.

Space: the final frontier. And it’s open, not closed. It’s not inside the government or society. It’s outside.

A reasonable society is a society where real debate can take place.

An open society is asymmetrical and unresolved. It isn’t perfect. It doesn’t strive for perfection, and it doesn’t strive for unity. Unity is a con.

When an individual ENTERS the space of an unfree society, he declares the ability to act without limit, with responsibility, on the sole condition that he doesn’t diminish the freedom of another. The individual fights for that right.

But freedom itself is not enclosed within society or government. That is a fiction promoted by those men who would own government and society and force unity on all of us. The unity of compliance.

Freedom, in its essence, is non-material. It exists within the individual. It is choice. The individual either exercises it or surrenders it.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: Lukas_Rychvalsky / pixabay

Vax Nation: Freedom Over Fear

by Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
February 21, 2022



The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and the right to peacefully gather with fellow citizens to communicate political dissent to the government. In 2022, thousands of Canadians travelled to the federal capital of Ottawa to peacefully communicate their suffering and disagreement with government lockdowns, Covid restrictions and vaccination mandates which have devastated their lives, their children’s lives, their mental health, and their businesses. Canadians across the country have come together to peacefully protest, united in their calls for a return to a free Canada. Their peaceful protest has inspired similar convoys and protests in countries around the world.

—-
• Watch Part One | Vax Nation: Show Me Your Papers
https://rumble.com/vs4cua-vax-nation-show-me-your-papers.html

• Watch Part Two | Vax Nation: Trust “The Science”
https://rumble.com/vsocri-vax-nation-trust-the-science.html

• Watch Part Three | Vax Nation: Pandemic Of The Vaccinated
https://rumble.com/vueukm-vax-nation-the-pandemic-of-the-vaccinated.html

Connect with Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

Free Private Cities and the Hanseatic League

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
November 15, 2021

Rahim Taghizadegan is an Austrian economist, author, and president of the Free Private Cities project.

I had the pleasure of listening to him give a talk here in South Africa recently, so I invited him onto my podcast.

In our conversation, he explains

• why city states are a great idea for overall liberty and prosperity;

• how city states have enjoyed a successful history for many centuries;

• why more people should know about the Hanseatic League;

• and why European countries are going to soon end up like African countries.

In some ways, the Hanseatic concept strikes me as being superior to secession because it is primarily based around pragmatism such as trade and common interests, while secession relies on political negotiations and geographical borders.

Put differently, community confederations are organic and can begin immediately in almost any political system, and can expand regardless of geographical borders.

In the modern era, nation states have effectively swallowed all city states other than, perhaps, Monaco and Singapore and the Vatican City.

I would love to see a collapse of nation states and a growth of city states.

Aristotle would approve.



Connect with Jerm Warfare

Riccardo Bosi, Leader of Australia One – Declaration of Sovereignty: “This Will Not End Until We Decide It Ends. We Must Make Governing This Country Impossible. We Must Bring It to a Standstill.”

by Riccardo Bosi, Australia One
October 25, 2021



Video available at AustraliaOne Rumble channel.

Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light:

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Riccardo Bose, national leader of Australia One. Today is Monday the 25th of October, 2021.

And today I was required to appear before the magistrates court of South Australia on a charge for refusing to comply with the directions for you to wear a mask — which happened on the 10th of April when I visited Adelaide. I arrived at Adelaide airport without a mask and I was charged $1000 for the pleasure.

Today was the magistrate’s hearing. It was done by telephone since I am in Sydney. The magistrate asked me what I wanted to do. I told him that I would be reading a prepared statement. It would be recorded and then I would hang up.

I started reading the statement — which you will hear shortly and has been distributed.

At a couple of points during the statement the magistrate attempted to speak but I continued making my statemen, and eventually he hung up. I continued reading this statement until its conclusion.

So, thank you very much for your time. Please enjoy. Note that the first couple of seconds weren’t recorded, so you’ll come in shortly after I actually began. We’ll see you at the end.

I seek no determination of guilt nor innocence from you.

I seek nothing from you because you have nothing to bestow upon me.

I acknowledge no claim to any authority you might make.

You have no standing.

You are at worst a traitor and at best an imbecile — the truth of which will be determined in due course when you’ll experience the law from the other side of the bar table at the hands of the people.

But you will not be alone. Your learned friends, even from the highest places, will also be obliged to answer for their words and their deeds.

None shall escape judgment and the guilty shall not escape punishment. We know not yet whether you have sworn secret oaths. We know not yet whether you have committed other crimes. But soon we will know all these things and more.

Because there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be made known and brought to light. Nothing.

But it matters little whether or not you are guilty in law because, at the very least, you have, by your craven obsequiousness, facilitated the brutal destruction of countless innocent people.

There’s no defense against this moral charge that will stand. Your blind and soulless obedience to your masters — who have visited upon the Australian people the most egregious perversions of decency and depravity — disqualifies you from any further role in the governance of this nation.

You and the entire profession of the law have forfeited any rights to my esteem, my deference and my obedience. I will not submit myself to any man or woman, nor any class of man or woman, who by their action and inaction have eschewed plain decency and good sense, and instead, contributed to the most barbaric and purely evil betrayal of the people of the world.

By what authority do I speak these words? By the authority that I’m a sovereign being.

My life is my life.

My liberty is my liberty.

My property is my property.

And so long as I do not do injury to another’s life, liberty and property, none may interfere with mine.

I am my own authority.

And you will submit to me just as you will submit to other millions of sovereign Australians. We are the only source of local authority in this land.

Now before I dismiss you, there is one final issue to be addressed. Only six days remain for you to join with the people against the tyranny of which you are a part.

If you do not, may God have mercy on your soul in the next life, because we, the people, will have no mercy on the guilty in this one.

Consider this carefully.

Now, for the time being at least, I’m done with you, should be gone.

But I noticed that the magistrate departed. He hung up halfway through. Makes no difference.

Ladies and gentleman, this is what must be done to bring our country to a halt.

This will not end until we decide it ends.

We must make governing this country impossible. We must bring it to a standstill.

We will not risk life and limb, but we will stop the powers that be from exercising any control over this nation.

The reckoning is coming, but you must make it happen.

You must stand together.

You must bring the country to a halt.

This is Riccardo Bosi, national leader of Australia One. Thank you for your time.

Connect with Australia One

The Big Lie – How to Enslave the World

by Academy of Ideas
September 30, 2021



The following is a transcript of this video.

“And the lie has, in fact, led us so far away from a normal society that you cannot even orient yourself any longer; in its dense, gray fog not even one pillar can be seen.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Lying has always been used for political purposes. Lies cover up corruption, past mistakes and hidden motives, and they are an essential ingredient in political campaigning. Sometimes, however, political lies take on a much more sinister form. The lies become all-encompassing, embrace all aspects of life and infect every corner of society. This occurrence is a sign that totalitarianism may be rising. For as the political philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, totalitarianism, at its essence, is an attempt at “transforming reality into fiction”. It is the attempt of corrupt and pathological state actors to impose a fictional account of the world onto the entire population. In Nazi Germany it was the idea of a superior race and an unclean people that formed the big lie, in the Soviet Union it was the belief that state communism could work and that all could be made equal. And from this big lie trickled down a stream of endless little lies. Referring to Communist Russia, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote:

“In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf

Describing Czechoslovakia under Soviet rule, Vaclav Havel similarly explained:

“…life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies…Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics.”

Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

When a political system rests upon a bed of lies, what can be done to turn the tide back towards truth and freedom? In this video, drawing from the insights of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel, we are going to explore this question.

The day before he was exiled from the Soviet Union, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn published a short essay titled Live Not By Lies, and in it he wrote:

“We are approaching the brink; already a universal spiritual demise is upon us; a physical one is about to flare up and engulf us and our children, while we continue to smile sheepishly and babble: “But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength.”…But we can do—everything!—even if we comfort and lie to ourselves that this is not so. It is not “they” who are guilty of everything, but we ourselves, only we!”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies

When a state turns totalitarian the individuals who live in these societies are not merely its victims. All the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century rose to power amidst thunderous applause as many citizens openly called for the brutal control that defines this form of rule. Without mass support and compliance the great minority in the ruling class would be but paper tigers. The responsibility for the oppression, suffering, and loss of life that comes in the wake of totalitarianism, therefore, cannot be placed exclusively on politicians and bureaucrats. A large portion of responsibility must be placed on the citizens who support this form of rule, or else do nothing to resist. Vaclav Havel explains in his book The Power of the Powerless:

“There is obviously something in human beings which responds to this [totalitarian] system…Human beings are compelled to live within a lie, but they can be compelled to do so only because they are in fact capable of living in this way. Therefore not only does the system alienate humanity, but at the same time alienated humanity supports this system as its own involuntary masterplan, as a degenerate image of its own degeneration, as a record of people’s own failure as individuals.”

Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

If the fuel for the growth of totalitarianism is weak and fearful individuals, then a cure is a personal revolution that takes place in hearts and minds and leads to an awakening of self-responsibility, courage and strength.

“The best resistance to totalitarianism is simply to drive it out of our own souls, our own circumstances, our own land, to drive it out of contemporary humankind.”

Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s writings played a major role in toppling the Communist Soviet Empire, and he advised we engage in such a personal revolution by transforming our life in a way which targets the most vulnerable part of the totalitarian system – the lies upon which it is built. In Live Not by Lies, Solzhenitsyn explains:

“And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies

Vaclav Havel was a dissident in communist Czechoslovakia and he later became president, and he echoed Solzhenitsyn’s sentiment that the most effective key to liberation from totalitarian rule is to commit to a nonparticipation in lies. Havel called this commitment “living within the truth”.

“If the main pillar of the [totalitarian] system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth. This is why [the truth] must be suppressed more severely than anything else.”

Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

To engage in a nonparticipation in lies, or in Havel’s terminology, to “live within the truth”, is to stop parroting the lies of the state and to refrain from acting in ways which conform to state propaganda. It is to resolve to live as freely and authentically as possible, to boldly express our individuality and spontaneity.

“…spontaneity with its incalculability, is the greatest of all obstacles to total domination over man.”

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

It is to follow our conscience and place morality above unjust laws, to fearlessly pursue personal and communal values, and to give voice to our thoughts undeterred by ridicule. To live within the truth is to act in ways which promote a cultural reawakening, thus serving as a counterforce to the totalitarian system’s coercive march towards cultural stagnation, suffering, and death.

“Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies!”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies

In communist Czechoslovakia, the Velvet Revolution, or non-violent fall of totalitarianism, according to Havel, depended not so much upon political reform, but upon the existence of growing numbers of:

“…individuals who were willing to live within the truth, even when things were at their worst. . .They could equally have been poets, painters, musicians, or simply ordinary citizens who were able to maintain their human dignity…One thing, however, seems clear: the attempt at political reform was not the cause of society’s reawakening, but rather the final outcome of that reawakening.”

Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

As an example of how living within the truth can revitalize a society, Havel recounts the story of a rock band, The Plastic People of the Universe. In communist Czechoslovakia musicians were required to register with authorities and were banned from creating music deemed too provocative or threatening to the political system. The Plastic People of the Universe refused to toe the line and following a concert in 1976 they were arrested, and the ensuing trial gained enormous public interest. The state media branded the band members as drug addicts, mentally ill, extremists and traitors to the country. However, many of the citizens had grown tired of living within a lie and they supported the young musicians, and as Havel notes, in many respects the trial marked the beginning of the end of the totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia. Havel writes:

“[The Plastic People of the Universe] were unknown young people who wanted no more than to be able to live within the truth, to play the music they enjoyed. . .and to live freely in dignity and partnership…They had been given every opportunity to adapt to the status quo, to accept the principles of living within a lie and thus to enjoy life undisturbed by the authorities. Yet they decided on a different course…In some ways the trial was the final straw…People…came to realize that not standing up for the freedom of others…meant surrendering one’s own freedom.”

Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

Along with demonstrating the real-world impact that can result from the actions of ordinary individuals who live within the truth, that a young rock band sparked a movement that toppled the totalitarian system in Czechoslovakia unveils an important but underappreciated characteristic of this type of political system: despite appearances, it is by its nature weak, brittle, and in need of constant infusions of fear and lies in order to prevent it from collapsing. This weakness is why totalitarian regimes constantly slander and persecute anyone, even harmless musicians, who engage in even a modest attempt to live within the truth. For truth is the primary enemy of totalitarianism as it erodes the foundation of lies upon which it is built. Havel explains:

“…the crust presented by the life of lies is made of strange stuff. As long as it seals off hermetically the entire society, it appears to be made of stone. But the moment someone breaks through in one place, when one person cries out, ‘The emperor is naked!’ – when a single person breaks the rules of the [totalitarian] game, thus exposing it as a game – everything suddenly appears in another light and the whole crust seems then to be made of a tissue on the point of tearing and disintegrating uncontrollably.”

Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless

The brittleness of the totalitarian system is also why it is so important for as many people as possible to stop being servants to state lies. For just as our failure as individuals fuels the totalitarian system, so too it is a renewed courage of individuals to live within the truth which weakens and eventually destroys it. Totalitarian systems condition their citizens to believe that the individual is powerless to effectuate social and political change; but history has repeatedly shown otherwise, and as Solzhenitsyn notes:

“One man who stopped lying could bring down a tyranny.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

What we choose to say and how we decide to act influences not just the state of our character, but the state of society. We make our own epoch. And when living in the midst of totalitarian rule, the fundamental choice to make is whether we are going to stand on the side of the truth and freedom, or on the side of lies and malevolent authority. For those who choose the latter, whether out of fear, apathy, or merely to take the path of least resistance, Solzhenitsyn had to the following to say:

“Let him not brag of his progressive views, boast of his status as an academician or a recognized artist, a distinguished citizen or general. Let him say to himself plainly: I am cattle, I am a coward, I seek only warmth and to eat my fill.”

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Live Not By Lies

Connect with Academy of Ideas

cover image credit: darksouls1 / pixabay

Biden’s New MANDATE! Will You COMPLY?

by JP Sears, AwakenWithJP
September 10, 2021

Biden’s New MANDATE! Will You COMPLY? The Biden administration issued a new order for everybody to get the shot who works in a business with more than 100 employees. This is for everyone’s safety and is based on the latest science. Obviously. Will you comply?

 



Original video is available at AwakenWithJP YouTube channel.

[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

Connect with JP Sears

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: 愚木混株CDD20 / pixabay

Vax or Jail? The Dilemma Facing Some Americans

The cases in Ohio are especially troubling because they involve defendants whose bodily autonomy is being violated not only once, but twice by their government.

by Hannah Fox, Foundation for Economic Education
August 16, 2021

Brandon Rutherford was recently presented with a dilemma in an Ohio courtroom: get vaccinated or face incarceration.

The 21-year-old was sentenced to two years probation for fentanyl possession by Judge Christopher Wagner of Hamilton County, Ohio on August 4, but his sentence came with a twist: he was ordered to get a COVID vaccine as a condition of his probation.

Should Rutherford fail to comply, he could be sent to jail for up to 18 months.

“I’m just a judge, not a doctor, but I think the vaccine’s a lot safer than fentanyl, which is what you had in your pocket,” Wagner told Rutherford.

Wagner gave Rutherford 60 days to get vaxxed and said, “You’re going to maintain employment. You’re not going to be around a firearm. I’m going to order you, within the next two months, to get a vaccine and show that to the probation office.”

The judge only knew Rutherford’s vaccination status in the first place because he questioned him when he arrived in court wearing a mask—a rule Wagner put in place for any unvaccinated people in his courtroom.

Rutherford was outraged by the mandate.

“Because I don’t take a shot they can send me to jail? I don’t agree with that,” he said. “I’m just trying to do what I can to get off this as quickly as possible, like finding a job and everything else. But that little thing (COVID vaccine) can set me back.”

The judge’s order created a stir, prompting Wagner to issue a response.

“Judges make decisions regularly regarding a defendant’s physical and mental health, such as ordering drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment,” he wrote in a statement. He also said it was his responsibility to “rehabilitate the defendant and protect the community.”

Wagner is not the only Ohio judge to take such actions. He joined judges in Franklin and Cuyahoga counties who made similar demands.

Bodily Autonomy

As Rutherford’s case vividly demonstrates, in the wake of COVID-19, the world is grappling with the question of how much control an individual should have over their own body.

Bodily integrity, also commonly referred to as bodily autonomy, is a longstanding principle of human rights and individual liberty. In recent years, discussion on this topic has centered around the #MeToo movement regarding sexual harassment and abuse in many of our institutions. It is obvious that violating another person’s body is inherently wrong; no one questions this premise when discussing matters of sexual violence.

Yet, for too many those clear-cut lines become blurred with other issues, especially when the conversation turns to medical bodily autonomy. And history shows there is a long, troubling tradition in the US of violating the bodily integrity of Americans, particularly the marginalized and disadvantaged.

As an example, a Tennessee judge and sheriff launched a forced-sterilization program for inmates around 2017. They allowed people in jail to shorten their sentences by 30 days if they agreed to the medical procedures. They were, thankfully, sued over this and the program was overturned on constitutional grounds. The attorney who obtained justice in this case, Daniel Horwitz, said at the time, “Inmate sterilization is despicable, it is morally indefensible, and it is illegal.”

Forced sterilization among inmates isn’t the only medical crime against bodily autonomy in our past either. In 1932, the Tuskegee Experiment was launched and ran for decades. The United States Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted the study, during which they lied to the 600 black male participants about their syphilis status and told them they were receiving free healthcare. In reality, they were given placebos, ineffective treatments, and denied penicillin—even as it became widely available as a treatment for syphilis. The particular case elevated the issue of informed consent in medical procedures and highlighted how far the country still had to go in respecting inalienable rights, including “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,” as articulated in the US Constitution.

Globally, human rights advocates have fought a long and uphill battle to assert these basic principles of bodily autonomy and informed consent in society.

In 1948, the United Nations passed its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3 of this Declaration states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

The timing of this Declaration is key as it came at the heels of World War II, a period during which arguably the greatest violations of human rights in modern history were committed, including forced scientific and medical experimentation on human beings on a mass scale. The subsequent Nuremberg Trials—held between 1945 and 1949—resulted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, a set of 10 standards that confronted questions of medical experimentation on humans. The Nuremberg Code established a new global standard for ethical medical behavior. Within its requirements? Voluntary informed consent of the human subject.

Then, in 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declared in its Article 7: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”

Forced medical procedures are an especially monstrous violation of the fundamental right of bodily integrity and autonomy. This lesson was hard-learned through the course of the 20th Century. But it seems to have been unlearned amid the panic over COVID-19.

The cases in Ohio are especially troubling because they involve defendants whose bodily autonomy is being violated not only once, but twice by their government.

Our justice system routinely puts bodies in cages over what the owners of those bodies choose to put in them—whether an actual crime results from that consumption or not. That’s thanks in large part to the immoral and unjust War on Drugs, as well as the wide range of non-violent offenses we currently criminalize in our country. Now, on top of arresting the defendants for choosing to put a substance in their bodies, we have judges threatening further incarceration to coerce those same people into putting a different substance in their bodies.

In both instances, this is an egregious violation of an individual’s bodily autonomy. But many progressives who regularly express outrage over mass incarceration and the War on Drugs are noticeably either silent on vaccine mandates or advocating for them.

Prescient Philosophers

The economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) had a lot to say about governments interfering in what individuals choose to consume. In his book Human Action he wrote the following:

“Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.”

This is applicable to the War on Drugs, which was gaining steam around the time of Mises’ death, but it is also relevant to the current pandemic policy. Whether or not it is prudent for a person to get vaccinated for their own health is not the correct question. It is not the government’s duty to protect individuals against their own folly. Mises went on to write:

“A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.”

Why indeed.

As is the case most of the time, when liberty advocates object to a public policy that big-government advocates believe to be “common sense,” we are not doing so simply over the immediate implications but rather because we know where such policies can lead. If the government can force me to get a vaccine for my own good, what else can it force me to do? The proverbial can of worms is open, the legal precedent set, and any student of history knows it only goes downhill from there. Mises continued:

“These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.”

Strong words, but earned ones. And highly relevant today, as governments are rapidly progressing from “we must mandate public health measures” to “we must censor and persecute those who defy and speak out against our public health measures.”

Those who advocate for the government’s ability to deprive humans of their freedom on the basis of consumption in effect promote a wide array of injustices and human rights violations. There is simply no gray area here.

Human Action wasn’t the only place Mises appears to be writing from the grave for our modern times. In his work, Liberalism he says the following:

“We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated. He becomes a slave of the community, bound to obey the dictates of the majority.”

Think how this applies to the increasingly intolerant conformity culture we see mounting in the age of COVID. He continues:

“It is hardly necessary to expatiate on the ways in which such powers could be abused by malevolent persons in authority. The wielding, of powers of this kind even by men imbued with the best of intentions must needs reduce the world to a graveyard of the spirit. All mankind’s progress has been achieved as a result of the initiative of a small minority that began to deviate from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all.”

It is interesting that those who fancy themselves “progressives” are pushing for the world to come to an abrupt stop and for all individuals to bend their will to the national narrative they have chosen in this time.

Finally, from Mises:

“Let no one object that the struggle against morphinism and the struggle against ‘evil’ literature are two quite different things….The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibition as soon as something does not please them, and their readiness to submit to such prohibitions even when what is prohibited is quite agreeable to them shows how deeply ingrained the spirit of servility still remains within them. It will require many long years of self-education until the subject can turn himself into the citizen. A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.”

His writings are so spot-on and prescient, it’s almost eerie.

We do not have to like or condone another person’s actions. We don’t have to associate with them. But we must endure other humans acting and living as they see fit without going full Karen and calling the cops. When you argue for government force to violate an individual’s bodily autonomy in any manner, you stand on the side of gross injustice and human rights violations—just ask Brandon Rutherford who now faces jail time over his decisions about what he will or will not put in his body.

“I’m not taking the vaccine,” Rutherford told CNN. And he ought to have every right to make that decision.

Connect with Foundation for Economic Education

cover image credit: screenshot, Fox News

The Dumbed Down Lack of Understanding About Anarchy

by Gary D. Barnett
August 13, 2021

It is very frustrating that so many have accepted the modern and bastardized ‘definition’ of anarchy. Most have been wrongly convinced that anarchy means chaos, lawlessness, looting, rioting, property destruction, and assault. Nothing could be more absurd.

Language is of great importance to any society that seeks or desires to be free. The misuse of language and its meaning is not only rampant in this day and age, it is totally ludicrous, and since the intellect of Americans has for decades and even centuries declined, the corruption of language and meanings has become a way for the state to manipulate the thought of the masses so that certain agendas can be perpetuated. It is a dumbing down of society by deception and stealth through broad-based propaganda.

One simply has to go to the root of words; the original meanings that do not change, but are purposely and arbitrarily altered by government and media in order to advance a particular way of thinking, or in this case, not thinking. The word “anarchy” is rooted in the base of the English language that is Latin and Greek. It means “without rule,” or “without rulers.” In other words, it means self-rule of individuals, whether individuals act collectively or not. It does not mean lawlessness, murder, and chaos in the streets, as is promoted by the state today so that those against the evil government can be falsely accused of being criminal.

I almost hesitate calling myself an anarchist at times because of the gross misunderstanding of that term by so many, but that is exactly what I am. I am not a Republican or Democrat; I am not right wing, left wing, or a member of any political party in any shape, form, or fashion, including Libertarian. I simply do not respect any governing system based on force; therefore I respect no rule over the individual other than natural law.

I am bringing this up because in nearly every conversation, nearly every interview, and nearly every correspondence, my position as an anarchist is completely misunderstood by most, and I am attacked for it, even though most have no idea whatsoever what anarchy is, and why it is so important. It is not a political ‘system,’ it is not meant to be a national or state organized governing plan, nor could it be, and I or any other honest believer of individual freedom wants to force anarchy on any other, or expect all to adhere to that view. The beauty of anarchy is individual self-rule, which negates any top-down, tyrannical, or totalitarian structure whatsoever. Therefore, it is a protection for liberty, never a cause for the loss of liberty.

I felt obligated today to once again answer a reader’s misinformed position about anarchy, so I thought I would explain the true meaning of real anarchy, so as to clarify the term. Part of the initial response to me I have posted below, along with my reply. It is obvious that this responder has no idea of the real meaning of anarchy, and that it is not meant to be a national or state governmental structure.

“One can certainly choose to live outside of civilization, but since civilization cannot exist without a rule of law, it is impossible for stateless law (governance without government) to spring to life ex nihilo, devolution from subordinated states being the most logical and globally impactful means (especially if they were American states) of devolving in the actionable manner that I described.  

Or do you honestly believe that in complete defiance of (post hunter-gatherer / New World) history, a free, antifragile society can in fact spring to life ex nihilo?“

My answer:

“Once again, you misunderstand my position completely, and fail to grasp the fact that I am very intelligent and fully understand the concepts of government. You also fail to grasp that I am a realist, and know how this system works, how it survives, and that no utopia or lawless society is magically forthcoming. I have never taken or promoted such idiocy.

I am an anarchist in my philosophical approach and belief, and expect no other to accept or act the way I might, as anarchy has absolutely nothing to do with reverting to lawlessness, divine intervention, or chaos; it has only to do with self-rule of the individual. I have never once claimed that anarchy is some form of government that requires a national or state participation, as anarchy is simply living without rule, and could never be a mass political system. Real secession, mass secession, would require that small units or communities would spring up, and people would necessarily be attracted to different ways of doing things as individuals voluntarily, and without coercion or force. The only way to gain a decent free society, is to break away from rule, not natural laws, and it would have to be a peaceful transition to be legitimate. 

I do not expect any such thing to happen due to the absolute ignorance and dependent nature of the human species, (especially Americans) and the broad-based natural inclination of the herd to be led, but it could happen in small units and areas given no evident tyranny by a corrupt governing system like the one that is present here, and around the world today.

People are anarchists every single day of their lives, or they could never survive at all. All have to make individual decisions, and act and react on their own without guidance from above in order to function. I would just like to see more of it.

As to having no concern as to how things can or should happen or improve, that is asinine, as total non-aggression, natural respect for that premise, and peaceful co-existence are necessary in order for any proper anarchical structure, regardless of size. As I said, devolution can be useful if its aim is to not stop at simply replacing a national government with state government. Since my position is that all government is evil, partial devolution would simply result in a new system that would still be bent on a continuous gain of power, as is the goal of all political systems, all politicians, and all government at every level.

Groups, herds, mobs, collectives have no ability to think critically, or at all, or survive without top-down rule, and therefore are worthless in any effort to actually gain real freedom.”

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

cover image credit: Free-Photos / pixabay

Equality in Slavery

by Ron Paul, The Ron Paul Institute
August 9, 2021

The Senate Armed Services Committee approved last month a National Defense Authorization Act that includes a requirement that women register with Selective Service on their 18th birthday. If the bill becomes law with this provision included and a military draft is reinstated, women will be forced to join the military, and America will have equality in slavery.

Proponents of drafting women argue that since women can now serve in combat it makes sense to make the draft “gender neutral.”

Some conservatives have made moral arguments against drafting women, saying that women should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to serve in the military. It is certainly true that it is immoral to force women into military service, but that is because it is wrong to force anyone into military service.

Forcing young people, regardless of their sex, to fight, kill, and even die in war is the worst violation of individual liberty a government can commit. Those who support the military draft implicitly reject the Declaration of Independence. How can someone support forced military service and still claim to believe all individuals are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

While commonly thought of as a “left-wing” position, opposition to the draft has historically united Americans across the political spectrum. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater both opposed the draft while running for president. Russell Kirk, the scholar who helped popularize the term “conservative,” opposed conscription.

Some progressives oppose a military draft but support other forms of mandatory national service. These progressives fail to understand that forcing someone to serve the welfare state is just as immoral as forcing someone to serve the warfare state.

Some conservatives join progressives in supporting mandatory national service. These conservatives claim that mandatory national service provides young people a way to “pay back” the debt they owe society. But these are moral obligations owed to families, churches, and communities, not legal obligations owed to, and properly enforceable by, the government.

Libertarians are consistent opponents of all forms of mandatory service. This is because libertarians apply the prohibitions against violence, theft, and fraud to governments as well as private citizens. So, if it is wrong for your neighbors to force your children to mow the neighbors’ lawn, it is wrong for government to force your children to serve in the military or perform any other type of “national service.”

The nonaggression principle is why libertarians oppose taxation, nationalized healthcare and education, and military crusades in the name of “democracy” or “human rights.” It is also why libertarians oppose laws telling people how to raise their children, limiting access to “extremist” websites, telling business owners who can and cannot use what bathrooms on their property, or prohibiting someone from gambling online, smoking marijuana, or drinking raw milk.

Some libertarians urge their liberty movement compatriots to not talk about the nonaggression principle. These “pragmatists” think the focus should be on making the “practical” case for liberty. But those who embrace liberty because it “works” better than statism will make “exceptions” if they think an authoritarian idea like mandatory national service is a more practical way of achieving their political, economic, or social goals. Only those committed to the moral case for liberty can be counted on to defend all liberty at all times.

Connect with Ron Paul

cover image credit: combined images from StarGladeVintage & Defence-Imagery / pixabay

The Great Forces Within the Individual

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
July 20, 2021

From my notes for The Underground: “Whatever the core problem of The Individual might be, DATA is not the answer. A system is not the answer. Neutral sanitized language is not the answer. These modern affectations eat away at the electric forces of the soul…”

THE POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BEYOND ANY MODERN DESCRIPTION…

This is not a power that never existed before. This is not new for the individual. This is what has been sidelined and lost and forgotten and buried miles below the surface.

I’m talking about towering creative power, not “doily power” or “Easter egg decorating power.”

In Jonathan Swift’s novel, Gulliver’s Travels, Gulliver is captured by a tiny race of Lilliputians. In modern society, Gulliver voluntarily shrinks himself down to the size of a Lilliputian.

Contrary to the weak flaccid and madhouse principles of modern psychology, ACTUAL psychology would deal with two towering impulses within the individual:

Creation and destruction. The impulse to create and the impulse to destroy.

Modern civilization has the hidden goal of wiping out both of these impulses; instead, substituting top-down control. CONTROL.

The individual today is viewed by The Manipulators as a social construct, to be profiled, grouped, poked, tested, subjected to stimuli like a dog in a lab, re-engineered.

Indeed, many abject individuals see themselves as cogs in a social apparatus, and approve of the arrangement.

The preeminently successful hundred-year-plus program for embedding control is medical. I have exposed the details of the program for the past 40 years. You could sum it up as toxification and pacification and technological chaining of the body and brain.

CONTROL is the elite solution to the twin impulses of creating and destroying. Wipe them both out. Bury them. “They resist organization. They’re wild cards. They cut through all the rules and regulations of society.”

If you want pictures of creation and destruction in action, above the level of ordinary civilization, look to the stories co-opted by religions; the battles among the ancient Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the Norse gods, and so on. This is creative and destructive power unleashed, on a grand scale, and at some point it became unacceptable. Instead…

Modern civilization developed. Modern society. Modern culture. Modern behavior. Modern organization.

Submission. Freedom granted by governments as “liberty,” meaning limited freedom within the context and constraints enacted by “the people’s representatives.” A whole host of fictions arose. “Worship the god we tell you to worship.” “Believe only in power that exists ELSEWHERE.”

Consciousness is a placid lake, some theorists claim. Lie on your back, float in the collective infinite. As if THIS would erase the twin towers of creation and destruction in the individual psyche. Pathetic.

Two things are now happening across the whole world. The expansion of top-down brutal control, and the emergence of the destructive impulse coming to the fore like a common currency.

The creative impulse is buried so deep in most individuals, they wouldn’t recognize it if you put it on a plate and served it for supper. They wouldn’t know what you were talking about. They certainly wouldn’t understand that a creative renaissance was absolutely necessary to offset what is happening in the world now.

If you referred them to giants like Michelangelo or Da Vinci or Beethoven or Mahler or Melville or Whitman or Goya or Stravinsky or Charlie Parker, they would think you were reciting the names of creatures from another planet. They might suspect you were trying to tear down God from his throne (the very God organized religions tell you is the True One).

Here is a clue. The most successful entertainment organization in the world, Disney/Marvel, has been producing one epic after another featuring mythological characters come to life as super-heroes and villains engaging in planetary and galactic battles of creation-and-destruction; millions of people watch these special-effect tales on screens, mesmerized and energized by the scale of the conflicts (very much like the Olympic gods at war with one another).

It’s no accident that humans crave these movies. They reflect (however cartoonishly) what is going on in the human psyche; the impulses of creation and destruction. The movies unearth what has been buried.

Under hundreds of layers of conditioning, the real psychology of the individual has everything to do with how these two towering impulses are dealt with BY the individual himself.

“Oh no, I’m not involved with those…impulses. I’m a card-carrying member of society. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m small, I’m trying to fit in, unless I’m against fitting in, in which case I’m dedicated to rejecting the proposal to install a traffic light at the corner of Main and Broadway…”

SMALLNESS is the overriding proposition. Every problem and solution has to be defined and worked out within a shrunken strangulating context.

Therefore, you can see all sorts of grotesquely played-out melodramas that unconsciously give vent to creative-destructive- impulse leaks from the individual.

The bloviating businessman who peddles cheap crap for a living parades around as if he were a living pillar of charity in his community, while he turns the screws on his employees by paying them a bare living wage and, privately, delights in their misfortune. Small stage play of creation and destruction.

Ditto for the grifter-politician who swears dedication to the groups he’s creating for the betterment of his people, knowing these causes will lead to further impoverishment and crime and, ultimately, submission and surrender. Create and destroy.

I could name and describe hundreds of small accommodations and expressions which attempt to mediate between the creating and destroying impulses within the individual.

Their smallness is just a cover for the Niagara-forces these impulses actually embody.

“If I shrink myself down, my impulses will shrink, too.”

It doesn’t work that way.

The impulses never shrink.

This is the problem. The titanic trying to become tiny.

Creation and destruction make up an existential situation within the individual and his psyche. How will he approach the situation? Not with easy answers, I can assure you. Not with a quick 10-minute fix—the favorite remedy-style of the modern age. Not with a pill. Not with grass-fed beef. Not with a medical mask. Not with a fear of germs. Not with meditation. Not with a group. Not with algorithms. Not with computers. Not with a brain-machine interface or nanoparticles or organized human anthills of the 21st century. Not with churches.

With CONTROL taking center stage in new forms, and on the march, the first great undertaking is the recognition that CREATIVE POWER has always existed within the individual. And that power needs expression. On a scale that reflects its magnitude.

Impossible?

Fortunately, in the work of artists I mentioned above, and in the work of many others of the same size, there are worlds to explore. These artists are not dead. Their work isn’t dead…

You want to know the beginning?
You’re sitting on top of a grassy mountain
And you know you could build a city in the valley
You could destroy a city in the valley
You could do both
You know it…like a boiling pepper in the mind, like an ice cube in the liver, like a steamroller, a traitor on trial, a saint in a cave, a god with his sword, a tiger pacing in his cage
You’re going to approach these two forces inside you
You’re going to walk around them and through them and sniff titanic waves and sink to the bottom of lost ships and come up out of the foam
You’re not going to run away into a little box and read the law for the next thousand years and join the society of obedient babbling idiots wearing thin lips
You’re going to burn away the strangulating false fronts
You’re going to know you can invent a city or destroy one
You’re going to come to grips with that
You’re not going to automatically jump ahead and say you’re a citizen of the realm
You’re not going to say there is nothing you want to destroy
You’re not going to remain two-dimensional for the next thousand years

Coming to grips with, and seeing the impulse to destroy within yourself is completely different from giving vent to, and enacting that impulse. The people who go around destroying are not coming to grips with anything.

On the other hand, imagine an innovative architect who is designing buildings no one has ever seen before. In his sketches, in his plans, he creates and destroys. He looks at his work in progress, and he decisively obliterates whole sections that don’t fit his vision and his instincts. He creates new wings of a building in his drawings and wipes some of them out. By the alive process of creating and destroying he arrives at what he wants to make real in the world.

I’ve known many aspiring artists who stall at the gate and never get off the ground, because they’re afraid that, if they put words on the page or shapes on the canvas, those words and shapes will have to remain there forever. To put it another way, they can’t conceive of destroying what they create. They believe “destruction is bad.” So they never create anything.

I’ve known painters who look at what they’ve put on the canvas for days and months; they keep looking; they’re not satisfied; but they’re afraid to wipe out a whole section. They’re afraid because they don’t realize they can create endlessly. They don’t realize that destroying half of a painting will lead to a new painting.

Civilization and society have always tried to define the limits of the creative process, as in: REDUCTION. Boil it down. Make it less. Make it smaller. Hem it in. Summarize it. Claim the individual creator should, first and foremost, be a citizen. A creature inside the system. This is a sick joke. And every artist of reality has rejected the joke with a mere dismissive glance.

The prescribed default position of the modern individual is: “I neither create nor destroy; I’m neutral; I adjust; whatever real power is, it resides outside myself; there is no larger context in which I can conceive of ACTION; if I feel deficient, I join a group.”

And people wonder why they have problems they can’t quite put their finger on. They wonder why their energies seem to be diminishing.

Consider the case of Nikola Tesla. The popularized story has it that he could see, in his imagination, all the complex moving parts of the energy devices he was inventing before he even made a preliminary sketch, much less a working prototype. It was all there in his mind. Magic. Genius.

I guarantee that was the not the whole story. Whether in his mind, on paper, or in prototype, he created and destroyed many models, before he arrived at one he believed would work to unleash and harness awesome amounts of force and energy.

He didn’t have an iota of worry about destroying what was unworkable. He wasn’t looking for a compromise or a shoddy but sellable piece of goods. He was focused on the far shore. Nothing less than the redirecting and transforming of Nature’s Flow.

And with each progressive step, there were spontaneous unexplainable insights that allowed him to move forward. His vision was Promethean. He wasn’t “neutral” or “objectively scientific” like some mechanical-minded little lab researcher trying to squeeze out a tiny extension of what was already known in order to publish a paper and secure a job.

The irony is, if Tesla had produced a working prototype that tapped into the Earth’s power and brought energy to every person on the planet, how many people would have said, “I want to operate and EXPRESS the great forces I have, as Tesla did,” versus…

“Thank you, Nikola, for the free energy. Now I can receive these gifts and sit back and enjoy them…I don’t have to look inside myself and see what is there…”

“I’m a Gulliver who is opting to be a Lilliputian.”

“Does anybody have a drug I can use to forget what I really am? A drug like Alice took to shrink down, outside the little door to Wonderland?”

Yes. It’s called modern civilization. You can go through the Clockwork Orange door. The DARPA mind control door. The medical-drug and vaccine door. The street drug door. The education system door. The media door. The good behavior gold star on the blackboard door…

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: Angelo_Giordano / pixabay

Atilis Gym in New Jersey: On Their Stand Against Government Tyranny — Full Interview from Planet Lockdown Documentary

“We’ve been fined $15,497.76 per day for every day that we’ve been in operation. That was originally started for being open when we were told not to. And now it is currently being levied against us because we won’t mandate masks.

We’ve had our doors illegally locked. We’ve had our doors boarded up. We had to camp outside the facility for 40 days. We’ve been arrested in the middle of the night. You name it, we’ve kind of been through it.

We got our business license taken as well. And right now we have seven new criminal citations, which are criminal contempt of court in the fourth degree…

They came out here with the local PD. They came out here with the county sheriffs and the county prosecutor’s office as well. We were arrested by the county sheriffs…

So what they wanted to do was lock our doors again. They had already done that once and we vow that they never would do it again. So what we did is, we took the doors off the hinges and we kept the gym open for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — just sort of running it like that. Because if there’s no doors then you can’t lock them.

So after a while they came and arrested us and removed us from the building so that they could build a barricade. They built a barricade and they put plywood up on doors, right here behind us, and couple days later we called the media and told them that there would be a show today and we kicked the doors in…

People talk about having courage to stand up in the face of the government tyranny. For us it was, we didn’t have courage to start. It was something that was born from necessity. And something that we thought was our moral obligation to stand up because what was happening to — not only us but the people that we love and people that we don’t even know but know are good, honest, hardworking Americans — was intolerable…

For us, it was necessity. We stood up because we had to. The courage came afterwards when we realized how important of a fight it truly was, and how far these people would go to keep us shut down, keep us afraid, keep us dependent upon them. To us everything is at stake…

The hardest thing to realize and I think for a lot of people to come to terms with is that these people are not your friends. They do not have your best interests in mind. So it’s not a matter of people being elected who are just making mistakes and putting forth bad policy but have a good heart. The people in power right now are intentionally doing these things. They’re intentionally lying to you. They’re intentionally scaring you with the aim to make you dependent upon them…

When you come to terms with that, fighting and fighting back, and standing up for what you believe and becomes a lot easier because you realize this isn’t a mistake and that the only person that’s going to come to save you is you.

There will be no president elected that’s going to bail you out. Nobody is going to change this except individuals.” 

~ Ian Smith, Atilis Gym co-owner

Atilis Gym New Jersey | Full Interview | Planet Lockdown 

by Planet Lockdown
June 30, 2021



Video available at Planet Lockdown Rumble, Odysee and BitChute channels.

Two hard working men from New Jersey, Ian Smith and Frank Trumbetti, saved up, bought a failing gym and turned it around into a success. They enjoyed 9 months of business until they were told to shut down due to Covid-19. After two months and no coherent plan from the government, they formulated their own safety protocol and opened up. This interview with them tells their story of fortitude, courage and fighting for the American Dream.

Watch more full interviews from Planet Lockdown:
https://planetlockdownfilm.com/full-interviews/

Donate to the project.
https://planetlockdownfilm.com/donate/

Connect with Planet Lockdown

The Myth of Freedom: Does it Really Exist?

by Gary D. Barnett
July 3, 2021

“We don’t make the decisions, just does what we’re told where and when we’re told. We lives by rules made somewhere else by sons a bitches don’t know nothin’ about this place.” ~ Annie Proulx, The Shipping News

Ah, freedom; the thing most seemingly sought, but very rarely (never) attained.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said that “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” This statement epitomizes the American collective at large, as they have not only falsely believed themselves to be free, but the freest of all time in the history of man. Most still believe this nonsense today, even in the midst of this most evil plotted totalitarian takeover of all time. The people in this country are celebrating what is mistakenly called “Independence Day” at this very moment; after 2 1/2 centuries of losing every possible freedom that ever existed.

The human animal has for many thousands of years not only bowed to ‘leaders’ or masters, and sought recognition of local or national prominence, but has actively pursued his own enslavement either by allowing despotic rule, or voluntarily choosing others to rule over him. In this country, the people were ruled by a far away king, but decided to revolt to throw off that rule in favor of another. Instead of freedom or another monarchy, they chose mob rule headed up by a master class that sat above them, made all laws, enforced all laws, and had control of all legislation and courts. This was actually a much worse system, and one riper for corruption than the one they replaced. The difference was only that most agreed to this new system voluntarily, and as time passed, they continued to support the tyranny by ‘voting’ to keep it in place, all the time falsely believing they were in control.

To this very day, Americans continue to boisterously celebrate their non-existent freedom, and revel in braggadocios fashion by claiming to be exceptional and the freest on earth. If von Goethe was correct, and I think he was, then in reality, Americans must be the exact opposite of what they mistakenly believe, and are the most enslaved on earth. The irony of course, is that the majority would never believe they are enslaved, and this will only help to secure their place in permanent serfdom.

Virtually every aspect of life in America is controlled, regulated, taxed, restricted, or mandated; from kids selling lemonade at a neighborhood stand, to repairing, improving, or building one’s own home. All movement and any ability to do so is fully controlled, and most every venture from the very simplest to the most complex is dependent on licensing by corrupt and unqualified government officials. This is nothing more than a permission slip that has to be paid for through extortion, and is used for the theft of private assets and control of every single function of life, and is enforced by the armed goons of the state.

The selected government claims its power due to a portion of this pathetic population voting for which evil and criminal politician is to have the final say in everyday functions, whether from the local dog catcher to the national president, and all the slime between. Freedom rests entirely with the individual, and if any supreme authority over the individual whatsoever is present, then freedom is not. This has never been understood by the American public.

Just consider this past year alone; one year in the entire history of the “United States.” A fraudulent ‘virus pandemic’ was claimed without any proof whatsoever. Lockdowns and quarantines were ordered. Self-imprisonment was the result, and most all small businesses were ordered to close, leaving all their employees and themselves without any way to sustain life. Travel was heavily restricted or eliminated, food supplies were decimated, and economic destruction was purposely advanced. Hospitals were closed, patients were murdered by the state, medical procedures were cancelled, and families were not allowed to see loved ones. Government staged looting, riots, and the armed assault of innocents was allowed and left unprosecuted, building and businesses were burned, and forced bankruptcies were rampant. The largest wealth transfer to the richest among us took place, as hundreds of millions were harmed in favor of their masters. Police brutality against innocent citizens became common, and all were told it was mandatory to wear deadly masks. Trillions upon trillions of dollars were printed for so-called relief, but the people got a miniscule pittance while the government and its criminal partners and Wall Street took the rest, increasing their wealth by trillions. The mass murder of the population by deadly ‘vaccination,’ all at the hands of government, has begun in earnest, and the state is planning on injecting every child with this poison by next year. Threats of utility blackouts, water restrictions, food shortages, health and medical disruption, and more lockdowns are evident.

This is only a partial list of what has happened in just the last 16 months, all perpetrated by government and a weak and apathetic public that still believes it is free. Only a fool could believe such insanity.

Maybe if the people actually understood that they are nothing more than slaves, and that freedom is non-existent in this country, they would finally rebel and take their freedom instead of waiting for it to be given to them by their masters. Those that ask or petition for freedom will never know it; only the individual is free. All freedom has to be taken, and it has to be protected by any means necessary. If government exists, freedom does not.

Independence does not exist in America, so instead of celebrating as the dictatorial government is promoting, rise up and take your independence instead of hoping and pretending you are free when you are not. Throw off the chains that bind you, refuse to comply with any order, disobey every government mandate, and disallow all government authority. The only way to be free is to act free, and that requires individual strength, courage, responsibility, and a willingness to stand against the state at all cost.

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” ~ Albert Camus

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com

cover image credit: ntandosmash / pixabay

Interviewing the Dead Albert Einstein About Free Will

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
June 22, 2021

Note: I’m publishing this piece as an introduction to the scientific tyranny which has overtaken us: the premise that we are machines, and we can be decoded and transformed by genetics.

This is a lie on every possible level.

For many people, their first taste of this insanity is the COVID vaccine—a genetic treatment. However, that treatment comes out of the conviction that life is “mechanism.”

For 35 years, I’ve been waging war against this conviction. I continue to do so—not because I have some quirky mystical alternative, but because FREEDOM VERSUS THE MACHINE is the Big One, the big battlefield under the surface of our civilization.

I’m talking about today, tomorrow, the next hundred, the next five hundred years.

OK, here we go—a piece of fiction to make the truth known:

It was a strange journey into the astral realm to find Albert Einstein.

I slipped through gated communities heavily guarded by troops protecting dead Presidents. I skirted alleys where wannabe demons claiming they were Satan’s reps were selling potions made from powdered skulls of English kings. I ran through mannequin mansions where trainings for future shoppers were in progress. Apparently, some souls come to Earth to be born as aggressive entitled consumers. Who knew?

Finally, in a little valley, I spotted a cabin, and there on the porch, sitting in a rocker, smoking a pipe and reading The Bourne Ultimatum, was Dr. Einstein.

He was wearing an old sports jacket with leather patches on the elbows, jeans, and furry slippers.

I wanted to talk with the great man because I’d read a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview with him. He’d said:

“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will…Practically, I am, nevertheless, compelled to act as if freedom of the will existed. If I wish to live in a civilized community, I must act as if man is a responsible being.”

Dr, Einstein went inside and brought out two bottles of cold beer and we began our conversation:

Q: Sir, would you say that the underlying nature of physical reality is atomic?

A: If you’re asking me whether atoms and smaller particles exist everywhere in the universe, then of course, yes.

Q: And are you satisfied that, wherever they are found, they are the same? They exhibit a uniformity?

A: Surely, yes.

Q: Regardless of location.

A: Correct.

Q: So, for example, if we consider the make-up of the brain, those atoms are no different in kind from atoms wherever in the universe they are found.

A: That’s true. The brain is composed entirely of these tiny particles. And the particles, everywhere in the universe, without exception, flow and interact and collide without any exertion of free will. It’s an unending stream of cause and effect.

Q: And when you think to yourself, “I’ll get breakfast now,” what is that?

A: The thought?

Q: Yes.

A: Ultimately, it is the outcome of particles in motion.

Q: You were compelled to have that thought.

A: As odd as that may seem, yes. Of course, we tell ourselves stories to present ourselves with a different version of reality, but those stories are social or cultural constructs.

Q: And those “stories” we tell ourselves—they aren’t freely chosen rationalizations, either. We have no choice about that.

A: Well, yes. That’s right.

Q: So there is nothing in the human brain that allows us the possibility of free will.

A: Nothing at all.

Q: And as we are sitting here right now, sir, looking at each other, sitting and talking, this whole conversation is spooling out in the way that it must. Every word. Neither you nor I is really choosing what we say.

A: I may not like it, but yes, it’s deterministic destiny. The particles flow.

Q: When you pause to consider a question I ask you…even that act of considering is mandated by the motion of atomic and sub-atomic particles. What appears to be you deciding how to give me an answer…that is a delusion.

A: The act of considering? Why, yes, that, too, would have to be determined. It’s not free. There really is no choice involved.

Q: And the outcome of this conversation, whatever points we may or may not agree upon, and the issues we may settle here, about this subject of free will versus determinism…they don’t matter at all, because, when you boil it down, the entire conversation was determined by our thoughts, which are nothing more than atomic and sub-atomic particles in motion—and that motion flows according to laws, none of which have anything to do with human choice.

A: The entire flow of reality, so to speak, proceeds according to determined sets of laws. Yes.

Q: And we are in that flow.

A: Most certainly we are.

Q: The earnestness with which we might try to settle this issue, our feelings, our thoughts, our striving—that is irrelevant. It’s window dressing. This conversation actually cannot go in different possible directions. It can only go in one direction.

A: That would ultimately have to be so.

Q: Now, are atoms and their components, and any other tiny particles in the universe…are any of them conscious?

A: Of course not. The particles themselves are not conscious.

Q: Some scientists speculate they are.

A: Some people speculate that the moon can be sliced and served on a plate with fruit.

Q: What do you think “conscious” means?

A: It means we participate in life. We take action. We converse. We gain knowledge.

Q: Any of the so-called faculties we possess—are they ultimately anything more than particles in motion?

A: Well, no, they aren’t. Because everything is particles in motion. What else could be happening in this universe? Nothing.

Q: All right. I’d like to consider the word “understanding.”

A: It’s a given. It’s real.

Q: How so?

A: The proof that it’s real, if you will, is that we are having this conversation. It makes sense to us.

Q: Yes, but how can there be understanding if everything is particles in motion? Do the particles possess understanding?

A: No they don’t.

Q: To change the focus just a bit, how can what you and I are saying have any meaning?

A: Words mean things.

Q: Again, I have to point out that, in a universe with no free will, we only have particles in motion. That’s all. That’s all we are. So where does “meaning” come from?

A: “We understand language” is a true proposition.

Q: You’re sure.

A: Of course.

Q: Then I suggest you’ve tangled yourself in a contradiction. In the universe you depict, there would be no room for understanding. Or meaning. There would be nowhere for it to come from. Unless particles understand. Do they?

A: No.

Q: Then where do “understanding” and “meaning” come from?

A: [Silence.]

Q: Furthermore, sir, if we accept your depiction of a universe of particles, then there is no basis for this conversation at all. We don’t understand each other. How could we?

A: But we do understand each other.

Q: And therefore, your philosophic materialism (no free will, only particles in motion) must have a flaw.

A: What flaw?

Q: Our existence contains more than particles in motion.

A: More? What would that be?

Q: Would you grant that whatever it is, it is non-material?

A: It would have to be, but…

Q: Then, driving further along this line, there is something non-material which is present, which allows us to understand each other, which allows us to comprehend meaning. We are conscious. Puppets are not conscious. As we sit here talking, I understand you. Do you understand me?

A: Of course.

Q: Then that understanding is coming from something other than particles in motion. Without this non-material quality, you and I would be gibbering in the dark.

A: You’re saying that, if all the particles in the universe, including those that make up the brain, possess no consciousness, no understanding, no comprehension of meaning, no freedom, then how can they give birth to understanding and freedom. There must be another factor, and it would have to be non-material.

Q: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. And I think you have to admit your view of determinism and particles in motion—that picture of the universe—leads to several absurdities.

A: Well…perhaps I’m forced to consider it. Otherwise, we can’t sit here and understand each other.

Q: You and I do understand each other.

A: I hadn’t thought it through this way before, but if there is nothing inherent in particles that gives rise to understanding and meaning, then everything is gibberish. Except it isn’t gibberish. Yes, I seem to see a contradiction. Interesting.

Q: And if these non-material factors—understanding and meaning—exist, then other non-material factors can exist.

A: For example, freedom. I suppose so.

Q: And the drive to eliminate freedom in the world…is more than just the attempt to substitute one automatic reflex for another.

A: That would be…yes, that would be so.

Q: Scientists would be absolutely furious about the idea that, despite all their maneuvering, the most essential aspects of human life are beyond the scope of what they, the scientists, are “in charge of.”

A: It would be a naked challenge to the power of science.

Einstein puffed on his pipe and looked out over the valley. He took a sip of his beer. After a minute, he said, “Let me see if I can summarize this, because it’s really rather startling. The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.”

He nodded.

“In that case,” he said, “there is…oddly enough, a completely different sphere or territory. It’s non-material. Therefore, it can’t be measured. Therefore, it has no beginning or end. If it did, it would be a material continuum and we could measure it.”

He pointed to the valley.

“That has energy. But what does it give me? Does it allow me to be conscious? Does it allow me to be free, to understand meaning? No.”

Then he laughed. He looked at me.

“I’m dead,” he said, “aren’t I? I didn’t realize it until this very moment.”

I shook my head. “No. I would say you WERE dead until this moment.”

He grinned. “Yes!” he said. “That’s a good one. I WAS dead.”

He stood up.

“Enough of this beer,” he said. “I have some schnapps inside. Let me get it. Let’s drink the good stuff! After all, I’m apparently Forever. And so are you. And so are we all.”

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: jcoope12 / pixabay

An Essential Journey – My Experience of International Travel in Covid Times

by Joanna Sharp, OffGuardian
June 19, 2021

I had not planned to travel abroad this year, especially after the UK government’s announcement in early 2021 that foreign holidays were forbidden. Even heading towards the airport with an intent to go on a foreign holiday could result in a £5000 fine or imprisonment! Surreal.

Where we live in London under a flight path to Heathrow, we notice that although there are fewer flights, they have not ceased completely. So how do people travel? It’s not something I have thought about.

One day at the end of April I receive a message that my elderly father’s condition is critical. Within an hour I am looking at flights back home in Eastern Europe and checking the UK government travel ‘advice’ webpages.

I say ‘advice’ but that word belongs to the past. Today, ‘command’ might be more appropriate. According to the government, only “essential” international travel is permitted for named valid reasons; ‘medical and compassionate’ is the category which applies to me.

I wonder whose compassion this is a reference to: mine, for wanting to be with my sick father, or the government’s for including this as a possibility. Reassured that I can go, it is now a question of buying the plane tickets, checking in and packing, right? Not quite.

Wading Through the Red Tape

Since holiday travel has effectively been banned, the government created intricate webpages full of information on what is and what is not allowed, where citizens cannot travel, and if they must, what documents they need to prepare. So complicated travel advice alone has become that the webpage now includes a step by step flowchart with endless links within each step to be followed.

Getting through this information would take at least a day. It’s like a cross between a maze and a vortex. I soon understand that I cannot buy my tickets until I have uploaded the right Covid related paperwork onto the airline website!

First, I need to fill a Declaration for International Travel (since the 17th May it is no longer required) which asks for personal details including my date of birth, passport number, home address and destination.

The key question is the reason for international travel – and in the actual online questions, the phrase is: ‘What is your excuse for travel?’ My excuse? What kind of language is that? Am I asking a teacher to let me leave the classroom? Am I asked to explain why I haven’t done my homework?

That really shocks me, although I have already noticed my own reaction to the very idea that I need permission to leave the country, as if I was back in Eastern Europe before 1989…I read the following declaration and tick the right box out of the given options.

I hereby declare that my reason for being outside my home to travel internationally is for:

– Work
– Volunteering
– Education
– Medical or compassionate reasons
– Funeral
– Ending a temporary visit (non-UK resident)
– Allowing access to parents with children who do not live in the same country
– Other reasonable excuse – please specify

Next, I am required to sign to ‘certify that the information I have provided is true. I understand that if I provide false or misleading information, I may be issued with a fixed penalty notice and/or a direction to return home or be arrested’.

So, by signing this, and I have no choice not to if I want to get my ticket, I have given the UK authorities permission to arrest or fine me should my excuse to travel turn out to be incorrect. What if my father is not that ill, then what?

But of course, that is not enough. I now need to provide evidence of my father’s illness. How do you do that when the whole of the world is still in lockdown; imagine having to get a doctor’s note on demand. I am still just trying to get a ticket.

I want to travel tomorrow morning, my sister-in-law tells me, Dad is given a couple of days. I ask my brother to send me an email confirming the family crisis, he does that within an hour. He is also trying to copy the notes from my father’s last doctor’s visit and the most recent diagnosis.

Then, still before I buy a return ticket, I need to get a kit of two Covid tests which I will need to take upon return to UK. Another link takes me on to a list of government-approved Covid test providers. A whole list of them, each can be accessed via a separate link. I try a few. They average around £200 each. The cheapest ones are £99 but are sold out.

Why can’t I see any free NHS ones? The ones given out like sweets in schools and local pharmacies? Why are these not available? Why could I not just pick a free one at the airport?

But of course, there is no to answer these questions, I am desperate to leave so agree to this, too. No test, no flight. So, I order one of these almost £200 test kits, get an email confirming the order, upload all the documents and finally I can complete the purchase of my tickets which, as usual, turn out not so low cost after all.

I check in. My boarding card (lucky I had just bought a printer the previous week) says at the top of the page ‘Covid Documentation Uploaded’. So, now I have the boarding card and a pile of printed pages which presumably I will need to show at UK border control in order to prove my excuse for leaving the country is legitimate.

Finally, I download and fill in the compulsory Passenger Locator Form for the destination country that will enable the system to track and trace me. It is nearly bedtime and I now need to pack.

On the Go

My husband drives me to Stansted in the middle of the night. An early morning flight, no public transport available but at least it’s quiet and there is no traffic. The airport is still closed; a group of families with young children are waiting for the door to open.

These are not holidaymakers breaking the law to get some forbidden fun. No idea where they are travelling but they look like they are going home somewhere south, southeast perhaps? Turkey, Bulgaria or Ukraine? No idea but they do look like part of the globalised chain of workforce escaping poverty and perhaps the lockdown has pushed them to return. Better to be jobless and poor in your own village. The weather tends to be better and the environment less hostile.

Finally, the doors open. I push the scarf up over my face, my hand clutching a plastic folder with a wad of documents allowing me to leave. It is quiet, no waiting. I go through security, passport control seems non-existent, shops still closed so nothing to stop for. I wonder at which point someone will ask me to see the papers. Ask me what my excuse for leaving is. Strangely, that never happens. I am almost disappointed. I spent about four hours sorting out all that paperwork the night before and now this is not even checked!

Immediately I catch myself: why am I disappointed? Because no one will give me the all-clear? Have I been conditioned to want to be waved through the green light already?

Perhaps that is how normalising oppression works. But of course, there is no need to check, the documents been uploaded and recorded somewhere and someone now knows everything about me, my plans, my reason (“excuse”) for leaving the country. Or perhaps the intimate details of my family crisis; my father’s terminal illness and my attempt to get to him before it’s too late have now just been converted into big data slushing around the corpo-government’s control AI machine, and turned into useful predictions.

I guess this type of authoritarianism does not even need stern looks from border control officials, no need to divulge private dramas in public. Hours of stress of getting the documents turned into a discreet but vital small print on my boarding card; the only visible proof that my travel is acceptable to the corpo-state. It is all so neat, tidy, hi-tech and invisible that we can just pretend that all is just normal.

After all, the airport trimmings look all the same; with adverts, duty-free shopping, same old queues at departure gates and same safety drills on the plane, down to the irritating Ryanair voice thanking us for choosing to fly with them (no one chooses to fly with Ryanair, just like no one chooses to go to the dentist, you do it because you have to and you hope it won’t be too unpleasant).

We can pretend nothing has changed. Except the masks on faces, of course. Slow drinking and eating is my solution. During the flight many noses protrude against the regulations, of course. People do need to breathe.

We land on time. I send a message to my father, anxious, hoping he is still there. He is not responding. I am worried. From the tarmac I can see the arrivals hall is full. There is no way of entering so the crowd from my plane stops outside and waits in the drizzle. I wonder why that is. Is that Brexit or is it that people’s papers are now checked after all?

The queue moves very slowly, twenty minutes after landing I send my father another message saying that I’m still waiting for border control. I have no idea why this is so slow; each person seems to spend a good few minutes at the control desk. Finally, an hour and a half after landing I get into the taxi. As the driver pulls away, I notice a long queue of passengers outside the arrivals hall waiting to get a Covid test. I arrive home and find my father hanging on.

My Father’s Illness

There is a twist to this story. My father has been treated for cancer but has been still doing quite well and has been planning to spend the summer away from his flat, in the countryside. His sudden deterioration it unexpected to me but I have not had time to think of reasons. I only learnt of this yesterday. But now I am in the flat, taking my shoes off when my brother drops the bombshell: ‘you know, Dad took the vaccine’.

I am shocked. He told me he was not going to, because he found the registration process too difficult, so he decided to stop trying. I was relieved; I had been persuading him that he should not, that being immunocompromised, his system might not cope. I told him what I knew and what I worried about. My brother tells me another family member helped organize his jab and took him there. Jesus. But I am to pretend I don’t know about it; Dad asked my brother not to tell me.

So, I learn that the day after the Pfizer jab he started to feel weak, and within ten days he was prescribed blood thinning injections, a daily drip and he became bedbound. My brother has hired a hospital-style bed and an oxygen machine, set them up in father’s bedroom and organized a private nurse for daily visits. Dad had not wanted to go to hospital: he believed that hospitals were overrun by contagious Covid patients and that going to hospital would mean certain death under a ventilator.

Luckily (I never thought I would say this), unlike the UK, this ex-communist country never managed to build up its own national health service to a level able to deliver comprehensive care, so a secondary private sector filling the gaps exists and is not beyond the means of many people. So here he is, in his own bedroom and getting care at home.

He is happy to see me but asks me not to touch him. I feel sad, guessing he might worry I am bringing contagion. That hurts. I pretend I know nothing about the jab. Later, much later, I remember this moment and think that, he might have wanted to protect me. He knew the jab made him ill and he worried he was fighting vaccine induced-Covid and did not want to give it to me.

He never told me about the vaccine, I never told him I knew.

Quarantine One: The App

The day after arriving I receive a text message telling me I am now under statute of law obliged to download a particular app and use it during my 10-day home quarantine. I start the download but can’t complete it. Something is stuck and I have no idea how to fix it. I try for a while and then abandon it. I spend most of the time caring for my father who now slips in and out of consciousness.

The next morning I get a phone call but it stops ringing before I have time to answer it. The following day the same happens. I realise this is the local track and trace. They ring but don’t wait for me to answer. Their call is logged, the box gets ticked but the robot or a human cannot be bothered to do the job properly. Actually, it must be a human as a robot would not give up. Good. The tyranny will fail due to human error or sheer laziness.

I don’t know what possessed me but somehow, I manage to complete installing the Quarantine App. The system springs into action. I get a message from the app that I must take a selfie within the next 30 minutes and submit it. I take a selfie from the app which gives me as many times as I like to choose the best shot. I choose the worst shot.

Of course, there is a way to cheat: after doing my selfie I could leave the phone at home and go out for a walk. Trouble is, the selfie demand comes at a different time each day, usually towards the end of the day. But I have no reason to go anywhere, really, I have come here to be with him, and his condition continues to be critical. And at some point, during this journey I decided that I would do everything by the book, just to see what the new normal travel feels and looks like, and what exactly they want us to experience.

Well, here I am, in a 10-day quarantine in a flat with my dying father. We are lucky. I have my brother to get the shopping in and kind neighbours ready to help. We are lucky my father is at home. What would be the point of coming here all this way, only to be stuck in quarantine if he was in a hospital with no visitors allowed? So, all in all, we are lucky.

Difficult Days

Days go by, my father’s condition improves a little, I am his nurse, and of course I touch him – he stopped protesting as soon as he needed a glass of water; I continue to take my selfies. We talk, I read to him, feed him, then he sleeps. He dies two days after my quarantine ends. That is good timing.

There is a lot to do now, and I will not be breaking the law trying to organize the funeral…I remember my favourite literature lesson at school when we debated who was right: Creon or Antigone. Even then, I was in team Antigone.

A doctor arrives to certify death. She is nice and takes her time. Talks a little. Does not look like a corporate bot. She is sitting at a coffee table doing the paperwork. For the cause of death, she writes ‘Thrombosis’. I ponder for a bit and then hesitatingly say: ‘Did you know he was vaccinated?’.

Her face changes and she asks: ‘No, when?’ We tell her, ‘Four weeks ago, exactly’.

‘I am not allowed to say anything,’ she says, ‘but I can tell you I have seen a lot lately. A lot!’ We try to encourage her to talk more but she is cautious. I just ask her: ‘Why would a person on cancer treatment be given a vaccine? Surely that had not been done before?’ She looks at me and says: ‘Because they want to vaccinate us all.’ So, she knows.

This kind of conversation would have been typical in the days of strict communist authoritarianism before 1989. You never knew whom you could trust so you just dropped hints and checked for people’s response. In those days careless talk was dangerous, and I am too young to remember the worst times: the Stalinist years when children were encouraged to denounce their parents; many were imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Now the threat is only a loss of income and public humiliation and yet the new order based on lies, fraud and corrupt science is already in place. Everyone is just doing their job. A perfect example of Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil in which those, following orders in this elaborate house of cards, often do not even know their active contribution to harm inflicted on others. They do not realise because they refuse to look and to know. They stopped taking responsibility for their individual part in the whole.

There is a small group of doctors in the country who are challenging the official narrative, attempt to offer treatment for Covid patients and warn against the untested ‘vaccines’, particularly now that governments want to jab children. Their voices are censored, the people get smeared, ridiculed and shamed by the professional licensing medical body. The modern-day governance in Western democracies!

Travelling Home

As the funeral preparations get underway, I need to organise my return travel. I check the UK government website again. Travelling from an ‘amber’ coded country, I must test negative for Covid within 72 hours prior to departure. Tricky when the flight is on Monday afternoon.

I start to search for UK government-approved tests available in the city. Only a handful provide the specified UK approved antigen test with results in English. They are also open only in the mornings so if I test on Friday morning, I might be testing a few hours too early to fit within the 72 hours.

After hours of online searching, I find one that looks almost right. I pay the equivalent of £35 online and am told to come on the day, without an appointment. The laboratory website provides useful advice, how to prepare for the test. I learn that I should not brush my teeth or use mouthwash on the morning of test. So now I know what to do.

I arrive at the testing centre early, having heard that queues can be quite long. It is, and it is in the street. The lab’s waiting room only allows three people at a time so the rest stand outside. After about an hour it is my turn. I am allowed inside the surgery.

On the right, by the door, a masked man sitting at a desk behind a glass screen is checking my name and the type of test I have purchased. Then, a young tall, man in full white hazmat suit, his face covered, and in protective glasses ushers me to sit on a chair and tip my head backwards.

This is my first Covid test ever and I am terrified. I have rehearsed telling them how sensitive my face feels and asking not to go deep but there is no eye contact, no talk trying to help me feel comfortable, no attempt to put me at ease. He just tells me to tip my head back far.

I just manage to ask him to go into the left nostril as my right one is not straight. He happily obliges and shoves the long stick into my nostril. As soon as the tip enters my nose I feel shock, a feeling of something unnatural, wrong and threatening happening. The area he just touched is too soft, sensitive and the sensation so unfamiliar I involuntarily, and to my own shock, find myself pushing the man’s arm away. He moves back and looks at me, his body language (there is no face available) disapproves of my behaviour.

I say, please don’t go that deep, you already have some but he insists, tells me not to defend myself and does it again. And again, that feeling that a part of me which is vulnerable and should not be touched, gets scraped. He gets his sample and nods for me to go. I am frozen in that chair, unable to move for what seems like a while. I have tears in my eyes, and I am alone with two hazmat wearing robots. No word is uttered as I leave.

I get my negative result within hours. I recover with an old friend. By then I have a splitting headache and my left nostril is moist with a slight leak. The headache lasts for a couple of days but the leak persists for at least ten.

I arrive at the airport early because I have difficulties completing the UK Passenger Locator Form which UK needs from all passengers. I pass through a manned gate with an automatic wrist temperature check. The airport is unusually quiet, and the staff help me identify the problem which stops me from completing the form. The reference number for the double Covid test needed for the Passenger Locator Form is wrong. I ring home and ask my husband to read the reference number off the Covid test kit. Surely it has arrived now. It hasn’t. It looks like the Day 2 and 8 Test I ordered has not been paid for.

I am told I need to buy a new kit if I want to get this flight. I do as I’m told. No form, no flight. I stand next to the luggage drop off counter feeling sweats, and with my hands shaking I battle the website on my phone. Again, all the ‘cheap’ ones are sold out and somehow, at the last minute I manage to make a purchase for £180, get an email, a reference number, complete the form and have my luggage accepted.

I hurry to my gate and make it just in time as passengers are starting to board. I slow down to join the Ryanair herd waiting on the tarmac for the aircraft to be processed before we are told we can travel.

The pavement is marked with lines at 2-meter intervals. Two men behind me are joking loudly that we must stand on the lines correctly, otherwise the virus will jump on us. I turn and smile (no mask, we are still outside) and make eye contact with the fellow humans.

Quarantine Two: Track and Trace

Back home in London, the following day I get my first out of ten phone calls from Track and Trace. Each time a different voice reads the same script.

I am contacting you on behalf of the NHS Test and Trace as you have recently travelled into the UK from abroad. Are you happy to continue in English?”

No idea what would happen if I said ‘no’.

Before we proceed, I need to make you aware that this call will be recorded for training and quality improvement purposes and should just take a few minutes of your time. I can confirm I have completed the necessary data security training and all information you provide today will be stored securely. NHS Test and Trace may need to share your details with other organisations including the Home Office, and further information on data security and privacy can be found on www.gov.uk/coronavirus. Sharing information in the call today means you consent for it to be stored in the ways I have described. Are you happy to proceed with the call?”

I wish I could say, no, I am not. Once or twice I ask how long the data is going to be stored. The caller is not sure and advises me to find this out from the government website. The call proceeds with them checking my year of birth. Then they ask if I have opted into a ‘test to release’ – I frankly don’t even know it is my option, so I say ‘no’.

I later learn that the Test to Release scheme does not replace the compulsory Day 2 and 8 test. The ten-day quarantine can be shortened to 5 days by ‘opting into’ Test to Release for an additional £99. I realise they ask this question to advertise another product!

Can you confirm that you are quarantining at the address you provided on the passenger locator form and will continue to do so for ten days starting on the day after you arrive in the UK.”

So, again, I confirm, yes. What would happen if I said no?

As part of the Covid 19 response you are legally required to take the test on Day 2 and Day 8 and a failure to do so may result in prosecution.”

That answers my previous question…

Has your test arrived? And have you taken or do you intend to take your test?”

Yes.

Then I am asked if I got my test from the NHS or from a private provider. I am confused as I had no option to get an NHS test and I tell the caller. They seem happy with my answer and continue:

If your Day 2 test is positive confirming Covid 19, you do not need to take another test on Day 8.”

I think, on one occasion, I ask how I am expected to post the test if I am not allowed to leave the house. Of course, the assumption is there is someone else in the house, and if I still have difficulties, again, the go-to place is another NHS number. Amazing what they can do these days; they can even pick up your mail for you!

The call continues:

If you develop any of the three coronavirus symptoms which are: a new continuous cough, a high temperature, or a loss or change to your sense of taste or smell, please visit www.gov.uk/coronavirus for further advice. You should not go to the GP, hospital or a pharmacy. If you require medical advice, please ring the NHS on 111 or in an emergency dial 999”.

So here we have the admission of medical malpractice: if I fall ill, I must not seek help from NHS, not even by going to my local pharmacy. I must stay home without help, except of course, if I qualify for 999 ie, a ventilator…

The call continues:

I must advise you that if you test positive for coronavirus or are identified as a close contact of someone who has coronavirus you will be notified by NHS Test and Trace and may be contacted again. Is there anything you would like me to repeat?”

Of course, if someone I sat next to on the (half-empty) plane gets a positive result, my quarantine will stretch to a fortnight or longer! Each time, the call ends with a friendly, youthful, ‘have a great day’. All those who have called me are young voices, all kinds of accents, probably desperate for any job in the current climate. They are trained to stick to the script and any departure from it by my questions seems to trip them up.

And most of them probably think they are doing something socially useful and valuable.

The Quarantine DIY Tests

The one I have purchased in haste at the airport is a kit with two PCR tests to be administered at home on Day 2 and Day 8. The instructions tell me that the test is run at less than a 30-cycle value threshold.

The first thing to say about the swab is that it is long. It looks like a cotton bud used for everyday use, but on closer inspection it is different. The stick itself is about 12 cm long, that’s 6”, and designed to break off after the sample is collected and put into a small tube provided. The tip itself is 2 cm long, quite thin and covered in almost translucent spiky bristles protruding outwards. It looks a bit like a miniature harsh brush designed to scratch the delicate tissue inside the mouth and nose.

I am told to swab the back of the throat for 3-5 seconds over the posterior pharynx and tonsillar areas but to avoid tongue, teeth and the sides of the mouth. Then I am told to insert the same swab to each nostril about 2 cm deep and to rotate it for 3-5 seconds each time.

The form which I have to complete for each test is yet another mandated opportunity for the corpo-government to harvest my personal data, to store it for as long as it sees fit, yet, as is often the case in abusive relationships I have to (I repeat:) I have to give my consent for all this to happen, and even consent for my possible positive test result which may include my personal details: name, date of birth, gender, home address, telephone number, occupation, place of work, ethnicity and the fact that I have tested positive for Covid 19 to be communicated to Public Health England. Luckily, both of my test results are negative.

Eleven days after arrival in the UK my quarantine is officially over. It takes me a couple of days before I venture outside, I detect a bit of agoraphobia. In the last six weeks I spent twenty days in house arrest. They say it takes six weeks to develop a new habit.

Postscriptum

I doubt very much I will travel internationally any time soon. Not planning to take the experimental Covid jab and so will not be enjoying the privilege of freedom promised to those with the vaccine passport. At the time of writing, it is no longer illegal to leave England but the elaborate hoops and the red tape remain and the government website reminds us that “to protect public health in the UK and the vaccine rollout, you should not travel to countries or territories on the red or amber lists”.

The ‘red and amber’ lists cover most countries of the world and returning from an amber list country will involve three or four tests which could come to £240-£340 per person plus the time spent completing all the online forms.

As to the red list countries; even a short spell there ends in an expensive £1750 per person prison-like stay at an airport hotel, as can be seen here.

So whilst not forbidden, even essential travel has been made into a series of expensive, degrading and time-consuming obstacles. Vaccine passports are being rolled out precisely to convince people they will magically bring freedom back to their lives. Do they not realise, that once they have their passports, the vaccine will need regular boosters?

Those still asleep; trusting the governments and the mainstream media think that easy travel is only temporarily put on hold but once the pandemic is ‘under control’, things will get back to the way they used to be. They do not realise the plan is to make travel an exclusive and rare event beyond reach of ordinary people.

This is done to us not just by the predatory elite class. Disappointingly, the pro-lockdown left continues to cheer these restrictions on and dismiss people’s desire and need to travel, as undeserved indulgence or middle-class privilege (interestingly, unrestricted travel around Europe was, until so recently, one of the main reasons for their fierce anti-Brexit position. What happened to their cherished principle of freedom of movement?). They could not be further from the truth.

They forget that, according to official migration data for the end of 2019, the UK is home to 6.2 million people – that is 9% of the total population – who have the nationality of a different country! And that data does not even include naturalised UK citizens like me, first-generation settled migrants who have close relatives all over the world and that unrestricted travel is an essential means to family life, something which is protected by Human Rights Act 1998.

The irony for those like myself, who grew up in communist Eastern Europe, is that freedom of movement, so taken for granted in the West, the right to travel and to have your own passport at home at all times is what we did not have then. The state set limits on where ‘citizens’, treated like its property, could travel.

For many who experienced those times, even as children, a return to state-mandated travel restrictions will feel like going back into tyranny.

As for my own journey: I will never forgive those responsible and all those lockdown fanatics for stealing my Dad’s, and so many other elderly people’s, last year by locking them up in the prison of fear and isolation, and then for pushing them to take the dangerous experimental jab which – for so many – was the last straw in their already weakened bodies.

Joanna Sharp is an academic living in London.

Connect with OffGuardian

cover image credit: soynanii / pixabay

The Lessons of Waco

by Ron Paul, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
June 14, 2021

April 19 was the 28th anniversary of one of the most shameful episodes in modern American history: the massacre of 76 innocent men, women, and children by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) in a military-style assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.

The assault followed a botched raid on the Davidian compound (staged at a time that it would distract attention from an ATF sexual harassment scandal) and a two-month standoff between the Davidians and the agency. The ATF used CS tear gas against the Dravidians, even though the gas was banned by an international treaty the US agreed to just months before the assault. So, if the assault had occurred on foreign soil as part of a military operation, it would have been a war crime.

Waco illustrates the dangers to our lives and liberties posed by a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. Eventually the deadly tools of the military-industrial complex will be brought home and used against US citizens.

In the 28 years since Waco, the military-industrial complex’s role in domestic law enforcement has grown. This is largely thanks to the Section 1033 program that provides military-grade equipment to local law enforcement. The people will not be safe from militarized law enforcement until Section 1033 is repealed and the military-industrial complex is dismantled.

The initial raid on the Branch Davidian compound was justified by claims the Davidians were violating unconstitutional gun laws. Infringements on the Second Amendment empower the federal police state. This is one reason why all those who value liberty must oppose all gun control laws, such as those currently being advocated by President Joe Biden and his congressional allies.

Last week, the ATF helped further Biden’s anti-Second Amendment agenda by issuing a proposed regulation regarding pistols fitted with stabilizers, thus allowing the agency to harass more gun owners.

Also last week, the Department of Justice unveiled model red flag legislation to encourage more states to adopt these laws. Red flag laws allow law enforcement to seize an individual’s firearms based on an allegation the individual may turn violent. Not surprisingly, allowing police to show up at a person’s home and demand he surrender his firearms can lead to violence. Expanding red flag laws will violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights, disregard due process, and lead to police being in more violent encounters.

David Chipman, President Biden’s nominee to head the ATF, is a former ATF agent turned gun control lobbyist. Mr. Chipman is an outspoken defender of the ATF’s actions at Waco. In addition to supporting red flag laws, he wants the ATF to arrest Americans who cannot buy a firearm because they failed a federal background check. The background check produces many false positives. Chipman’s proposal would lead to the arresting of many innocent Americans. This would not bother Chipman since he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that law-abiding gun owners are potential criminals.

The Waco massacre is proof that, as the late libertarian Karl Hess put it, “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.” Those of us who understand this must continue to spread the truth about the true nature of the welfare-warfare-regulatory state. Key to regaining our liberty is making government officials abide by the same rules against the initiation of violence that apply to private citizens.

Connect with Ron Paul

Do You Consent to Color of Law?

by Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath, Nature of Healing
May 30, 2021

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. Appearances can be deceiving.

In his book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, author Richard Rothstein, a leading expert on housing policy, describes the myth that cities came to be racially divided through de-facto segregation, that is, through individual prejudices, income differences, or the actions of banks and real estate agencies.

Rothstein makes clear that it was laws and policy decisions by local, state, and federal governments that directly promoted the discriminatory patterns. From racial zoning in the 1920s to urban planning of the 1950s, to federal subsidies to builders not to build homes for Blacks, it was plain, open discrimination, sanctioned by government, that violated laws that continue unabated today.

The color of law is a cover of law.

Color of Law = Unlawful Mandates

Color of Law operates today by unlawful mandates and Emergency Orders, which serve one purpose: to allow one group of people to abolish your inherent rights. Remember, no one has more rights than anyone else.

No school, no store, no bank, no library, and no governor can make any order or policy that violates  your rights under Natural law. Natural laws are determined by fundamental forces within Nature.  Natural law supersedes all other laws, including man’s laws. The Constitution is codified based on the Universal law that no man has the right to rule over another man, which will always be the truth from the day of birth to the day of death. Natural Law is based in two principles: Truth and Do no harm.

Natural Law is based in principles of truth about the reality we live in. Principles are first and foremost, at the root, the most necessary and important, a foundation to build upon. The word “principle” expresses Natural Moral Law in the very way we use the word itself, such as “in principle” and “on principle”. Natural Law is an essential property of existence; it is born into being and is forever there in our reality without human causality. Our goal is to put these principle first-things first in our lives, to recognize and align with them because they are based in truth, not belief. Man’s society is not putting original, generative, beginning, foundational principles first, but trivialities, lies, and deception. Therefore, Natural Law is not man’s law.

What you need to know in 8 easy steps:

1. Your rights and freedoms are inherent or inborn, a birthright, granted by your Creator.
2. Government institutions do not grant rights. Institutions are established to protect your inherent rights.
3. Governments can only grant benefits and privileges, which comes with limits and consequences.
4. Governments cannot mandate anything under coercion or duress, such as, “Do this or else.”
5. Governments cannot use fear or safety as reasons to take peoples’ rights.
6. Therefore, a “mask policy” set up under government powers is a crime under the color of law that violates your rights and the principles of Natural Law.
7. Defending your rights and freedoms is a personal responsibility, ie., an ability to respond (appropriately, reasonably, morally).
8. Being accountable is the ability to account for your response.

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

If you understand that a government cannot abolish rights which it has no ability to grant in the first place, then you are armed with enough knowledge to begin the process of calling out the facade when you see it practiced. Each success brings confidence for future successes. Humanity, as a whole, moves from oppression to expression, from tyranny to freedom.

Christopher Key, a man who had enough of unlawful dictates, stood up to the Jefferson County School Board in Alabama, and called them out.



Pro Se litigant Luis Ewing shares information on maintaining your rights of public accommodation (without masks and medicines) based on religious discrimination, and violations of the state and federal constitutions under the 1964 Civil Rights Act pursuant to Title 42 Section 1983.

Texan, Randall Kenton sued the Texas Governor by name, in court, causing the governor to rescind the State mask mandate, allowing all bars and restaurants to reopen at full capacity. Twenty state governors followed suit, lifting their own mandates out of fear they would lose their insurance for fraud. See the complaint filed that could be used as a template anywhere.  Health officials continued to recommend wearing a mask based on “personal responsibility” but no law: another example of Color of Law.

These people do not win by a belief. They win by a knowing. They know who they are. By holding their positions and protecting their rights, not only are they showing personal responsibility, but they are an example for others.

Cancel The Master-Slave Paradigm

What Christopher Key and others are showing is that when you reveal that a FRAUD has been perpetrated, and you follow it up by naming names, the perpetrators stand down. Behind all corporations are names of men and women. In general, suing corporate entities does nothing for the greater good, and never has. Corrupt companies, such as Pfizer, may be found criminally liable and fined in court over and over, but they continue to operate and to cause harm. However, going after individuals by name affects their pocketbooks.

No individual governor or prosecutor or judge or school board member wants their insurance rates to go up or to be dropped by insurers. Push just a little and the game has suddenly changed in the peoples’ favor.

Illegal, unlawful, and immoral acts are not only reprehensible but are also a violation of your Natural rights, as expressed in the American Declaration of Independence, and as reflected in the national and state constitutions. If you are the subject of intimidation or coercion by agencies or governments or schools or employers, forcing a medical experiment upon you as a condition to participate in society, your rights have been trampled.

Why do the majority of people become subservient to lawless authorities without any evidence of a clear and present danger? Why do people refuse to stand up for their rights and freedoms? Why do people believe they do not have a choice when it comes to forced muzzles or forced medicines when they do?

Because the majority of people have been indoctrinated through the 15,000-hour public school system and programmed by the Tel-A-Vision to not think for themselves. They have been conditioned to accept government handouts that create co-dependence. They have been dumbed down and emasculated to accept a master outside themselves.

What if accepting stimulus handouts increased the federal debt to bankrupt a nation, which amounted to a federal crime? What if knowing that a national bankruptcy could be the excuse used to reset the debt credit currency system to a Crypto credit system with your body as collateral?

What if this whole scenario already happened during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic where masking was found to be the cause of secondary pneumonia and an invisible virus became the tool to rest society? The Great Depression followed the Spanish flu and a new system was established to enslave people using the birth certificate and social security system. From the Great Depression to the Great Reset, an invisible virus that never existed was blamed. Government promised people benefits and privileges in exchange for their rights. For more details, read Recycling the Spanish Flu Pandemic.

No government. No business, no medical professional, no school, and no employer can require or mandate ANY medical treatment or intervention, including injections or face coverings that block your ability to breathe freely. To require any injection as a condition to participate in society is unlawful coercion according to state law.

Use State Law In Your Favor

You can use state law in your favor. In California, Peggy Hall of thehealthyamerican.org teaches people how to protect their rights using the State Constitution and business codes. She provides documents on her website that you can print and carry with you, such as the right to public accommodation, as well as tools against discrimination. According to California Law:

24170: This is the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act
24171: The Legislature hereby finds and declares … the right of individuals to determine what is done to their own bodies.

24172 This is the “experimental subject’s bill of rights,” and states that individuals…

(j)  Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.

In the Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Section 16 says:

Sec. 16. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE; NO PREFERENCE TO BE GIVEN TO ANY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT OR MODE OF WORSHIP. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.

Shakespeare wrote, All the world is a stage. This is why appearances can be deceiving. In this world of appearances, you can separate yourself from the crowd. Do you beg for rights from government? Do you know who you are? Do you know where you live?

You live in your body. Therefore, you have inherent rights. Your rights include the right to say NO to deception. You can say NO CONTRACT. I DO NOT CONSENT to any offer, contract, testing, treatment, intervention, or injection. Ask them to show you the laws. Man’s laws compel artificial or legal PERSONS, but do not compel you. Know the difference. And think twice before signing your name.

You are not subject to masters unless you are a subject. You are not a slave unless you accept a master outside yourself. You have the power to shift the direction and devolution of humanity by taking responsibility for your actions.

Simple know who you are.

The Liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the Laws of Nature, because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever. – Mikhail Bakunin

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay

Florida Takes the Lead in Protecting Individual Rights

by Del Bigtree w/ Jefferey Jaxen, The HighWire
May 7, 2021



After passing a bill to ensure individual rights and cast aside vaccine passports, FL state Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an executive order to further ensure an end to all emergency measures related to Covid-19.

Connect with The HighWire

The Very Notion of ‘Leadership’ Is One of an Abject Failure of Individual Responsibility

by Gary D. Barnett
May 7, 2021

“Shame on the misguided, the blinded, the distracted and the divided. Shame. You have allowed deceptive men to corrupt and desensitize your hearts and minds to unethically fuel their greed.” 
~ Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy Kassem

Leadership? What a curious term for any intelligent man to utter. How many times throughout my life have I listened to the masses clamoring for someone to lead them? Actually, the most prevalent attitude amongst the people is a desire to find the best ‘leader,’ and the epitome of this phenomenon is the ludicrous idea of voting. This process is continuous, and stretches from the heights of the presidency to the choosing of the local dogcatcher. It seems that the quest of men is to not rely on their best judgment or even on their moral beliefs, but to seek out others to follow instead of trusting self. This dilemma has caused much harm, and allowed for the worst among us to control the human narrative.

Considering the living hell that has consumed this country and the world due to the multitude of followers listening to and bowing down to the evil few, most find themselves at the mercy of the powerful. This is certainly not necessary, and in fact is the absolute worst possible position for any society to consider. It is my opinion that the only viable solution that would lead to an escape from this tyranny, and put a stop to the great reset plan of the oligarchs, is mass resistance and non-compliance by large numbers of people. Total disobedience in other words is crucial. Throw out all the so-called ‘leaders,’ and rely only on self. The response most often received due to this solution comes in the form of a question. “Who will tell me what to do and how to disobey?” Recently, a reader declared: “I’m sure you agree that this requires organization and powerful leadership. We currently have no powerful leadership or plan.”

This of course is not true. The ‘leadership’ has excessive power, is already running the show, and they have the ultimate plan to take total control over all. When the collective seek powerful  ‘leaders’ they are seeking rule. The fallback position of the people tends always to rest on the premise of complete irresponsibility, and confidence in a claimed ‘superior’ commanding force. Because of this bastardized belief system, the people voluntarily contribute to their own misery and demise, and have been throughout time too weak and apathetic to protect their own existence. Will this attitude ever change, or will the common people simply be relegated to reside in a land of serfdom?

Since the beginning of this country, or more accurately, the beginning of the end of this country, that time when the political class came up with a ruling document called the Constitution, ownership of the people by a governing body has been the prevailing state of existence. Throughout our history, this has become more evident with every passing administration. And what has been the people’s only recourse? They have been allowed by their rulers to pick a new pre-selected master (leader) every four years. They always get the ‘leader’ they so desire and deserve, and to this day, this process of voting, the epitome of absurdity, continues without question. Given this scheme, is it any wonder that a fake virus pandemic has brought this country to its knees?

We live in a country with a one-party political system that masquerades as two. Nothing ever changes; the ‘right’ people are always in charge, and the heinous and corrupt policies are never altered. The agendas sought by the few controlling ‘elite’ have been fulfilled over time so that this system based on the total control of all people could go forward. The final goal of total dominance has arrived, and the people still cry out for leadership.

America’s mainland has never been attacked, but the ‘elite’ manipulators at the top of the power pyramid, with help from the selected political class, have waged aggressive war for 94% of our history. Taxation, the theft and raping of the people, has reached heights never imagined, and all money and monetary policy has been designed so that the few control all wealth through a central banking cartel. This could never be more apparent than it is at this very time, as trillions upon trillions of dollars are being created out of thin air to bolster the wealth and power of those that are intent on controlling this entire society.

All this and much more corruption, freedom destruction, torture, mass imprisonment, and murder continue on unabated, while the people go to the polls to guarantee that their masters stay in power. They fight tooth and nail to get their ‘chosen’ ruler, spewing hate toward one another, never once realizing that this system has been rigged since minute one, and that both sides always win, and the people always lose.

Now, the damage has become extreme, and the plot to take over for good is going forward without much resistance. The madness of this fake pandemic, and the propagandized fear mongering that has consumed this society, is taking on a new form, and will morph into a pre-planned conspiracy meant to complete by force a multitude of policy changes in order to advance many nefarious agendas simultaneously. To help this along, the poisonous injection falsely called a ‘vaccine,’ will continue to be given to as many Americans as possible, setting the stage for mass death in the future to advance the desired depopulation effect.

As out of control inflation, food shortages, unemployment, and hatred increase, the downfall of America becomes more imminent. There is still time to reverse this insanity, and to take back the country from the psychopathic ruling class that has been allowed free rein to destroy this economic system while brutalizing the people.

Make no mistake about it; looking for leaders can only assure defeat. Each and every person needs to become his own leader, his own ruler, and needs to stand on his own two feet. With progress in that direction, the fake ‘leaders’ can be eliminated, one by one, and then some semblance of freedom can be restored.

“Anarchism, to me, means not only the denial of authority, not only a new economy, but a revision of the principles of morality. It means the development of the individual as well as the assertion of the individual. It means self-responsibility, and not leader worship.” ~ Voltairine de Cleyre (2012). “Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre — Anarchist, Feminist, Genius”, p.156, SUNY Press

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

10 Reasons Why Freedom Is DANGEROUS

by JP Sears, AwakenWithJP
March 27, 2021



In this video you’ll learn 10 reasons why freedom is dangerous!

Should more of your rights be taken away in order to protect you?

No. All of them should be taken away to protect you even more!

You’ll learn why in this compelling video about the dangers of freedom!

My Rooster Earl Is More of an Expert Than Dr. Fauci

by Dr. Pam Shervanick, America’s Frontline Doctors
March 26, 2021

I live on a farm in the middle of nowhere. When we first started raising hens, they would not last long. Foxes would hunt them, and owls would swoop down and steal them. My hens were scared. Then we got our rooster, Earl. Earl is not a nice creature; he bosses the hens around and occasionally tries to attack me. I bring a boat oar to the henhouse for personal protection. But he keeps the predators away, so the hens put up with him because they are no longer afraid. I have not lost a hen since Earl arrived on the scene.

Why all this talk about Earl the ornery rooster? By observing animal behavior, I have clarity and understanding of the root cause of the current global mass psychosis. Our problem is fear, not Covid-19.

Psychosis is defined as impaired contact with reality.  Educated, rational people have stopped using critical thinking. Acting out of fear, many blindly cling to the words of a government bureaucrat. Dr. Fauci has been wrong more times than he has been right. Under the misleading guise of “following the science,” we comply with his whims, like my hens comply with Earl’s temper. He crows the loudest — Dr. Fauci, not Earl — and is very authoritative. He makes us feel protected and authority makes us feel safe, or does it? When does authoritative behavior become authoritarian rule?

We are collectively facing a ‘complex trauma’, that is a state of prolonged exposure to multiple and interrelated traumas that override our initial fight or flight mechanism. A prolonged state of fear triggers a response known as ‘fawning’.  Fawning behaviors are people-pleasing. Merging the wishes, needs and demands of others, we look to reduce conflict to achieve safety. When a person enters this state, they are under the control of their reptilian brain where lies our primitive drives. Obvious empirical evidence fails to be computed accurately and it becomes impossible to make a balanced decision.

Freedom cannot survive in an obedient, chronically fearful, and delusional society. This is an open invitation for government overreach. We must face our fear and seek truth. We cannot follow instructions out of fear without consideration. Act out of love for yourself, your family, and humankind.  People are not dangerous vectors of disease but lies are. It’s time to take control back. In this series of articles, I will discuss how to control our fear responses so we can remain grounded.

Water is Not for Sale

Interview with Maude Barlow, world-leading expert on water supply issues

by Manlio Masucci, Navdanya International
March 22, 2021

Is it even possible to think of privatizing a major common resource, such as water, essential for life on earth? To the point that it becomes the object of financial speculation on the market? The answer to this seemingly surreal question comes to us, as it often does, from the United States and, needless to say, it is yes.

The entry of water in the futures market, the so-called ‘forward market’, is almost certain to mark a momentous step in the history of humanity. This news from the United States is accompanied by  other recent developments that cannot fail to raise alarm, especially for Italy. These include the latest Ispra report that documents the state of degradation of Italian water sources and the same conclusion regarding the health of its lakes, which are threatened by the phenomenon of eutrophication, caused by the excessive use of fertilizers in agriculture and their disposal in lake basins.

In September 2020 specifically, the European Commission filed an infringement procedure on the state of water in Lake Vico, in northern Lazio. We have to add the notorious statistic about bottled water to this data. Italy continues to be its biggest European Consumer.

All in all, there is more than enough material here to merit an opinion from Maude Barlow, who is internationally renowned for having obtained the recognition of water access as a human right in her role as UN Special Rapporteur. Barlow, a founding member of the International Forum on Globalization and of the Council of Canadians, was awarded the alternative Nobel Right Livelihood Award in 2005 and is considered one of the world’s most authoritative voices on all water-related issues.

We interviewed her to understand what is happening internationally and what to do to protect a resource that is vital to humanity’s  present and future.

***

Maude Barlow, let’s start with the latest news. The CME Group – the world’s largest financial derivatives exchange company – has launched the world’s first water futures market, opening up speculation from financiers and investors. What are the immediate consequences and potential dangers of this act?

There is a massive race going on between those who see the world’s dwindling clean water sources as a commodity to be put on the open market like oil and gas, and those who believe water is a human right, a common resource, and an essential public service. There are many ways in which water is commodified: the privatization of water services; the growing bottled water industry; water trading and water pollution trading (the exchange of fees between polluting agents); land and water grabs in developing countries; and now the creation of a water futures market where wealthy speculators will bid on and profit from drought and suffering, driving the price of water even higher in a world where billions endure a  lack of access. While this is a terrible new development, I am not remotely ready to regard it as a finality. We are recovering many municipalities from privatization experiments. We are getting bans on bottled water through municipalities and universities converting to Blue Communities, which pledge to protect the human right to water access. There is a  growing understanding that nature has rights and we need a legal framework of protection for the water itself. We are already putting together a movement to stop the creation of a water futures market.

Your role was central to making the United Nations declare that access to clean water and sanitation is a human right. Do you think this right has been violated? And if this is the case, are there any steps that the UN can take? 

There have been many positive developments since the UN recognized the right to water. Almost four dozen countries have either amended their constitutions or adopted a new law to protect the human right to water access. The UN resolution has been used in a number of legal cases around the world  and is widely quoted in legal and political circles. Many governments have set targets for the fulfilment of this obligation, which are included in their Sustainable Development Goals. There is no doubt in my mind that creating a water futures market is a violation of the commitment to the human right to water and that it would certainly be worth trying to take this issue to the General Assembly, although, of course, the ‘free’ market would insist that it is exempt from any rules set by that body. I think political pressure on governments to stop this practice and declare water as a common resource is probably the best next step.

You have pointed out that the water crisis is particularly dangerous today, as we live through  the COVID pandemic. What are the connections between the pandemic and the environmental crisis? 

COVID has shone a spotlight on the human water crisis. At least half of the world’s population does not have a place to wash their hands with soap and warm water – the first thing we were taught to do when the virus surfaced last year. Three quarters of households and nearly half of the health care facilities in the Global South lack access to clean water on site.

But the crisis is not restricted to developing countries. The World Health Organization reports that 57 million people in Europe do not have piped water at home and 21 million still lack access to basic drinking water services.

The silver lining, however, may be that aid money and funding coming from wealthy countries to assist the COVID struggle in poor countries, is going to establish permanent sanitation facilities. We need to protect the planet’s water and more just access to it if we have any hope of dealing with such pandemics in the future.

You recently released a joint statement with the renowned environmentalist Vandana Shiva, underlining that the chemical and water-intensive model of industrial agriculture in California and many other parts of the world is a major driver of the water crisis. Agriculture (including irrigation, livestock and aquaculture) is by far the largest water consumer, accounting for 69% of annual water withdrawals globally. (FAO, AQUASTAT). How can we overcome this unsustainable production model?

You raise a very important point here. All over the world, traditional farming methods are being replaced by large industrial and corporate farming operations and factory farms. Not only are they producing massive chemical-laden waste that is dangerous for our waterways, creating deadly blue green algae,but they are also using  water indiscriminately and not practising the water- saving techniques ingrained in the knowledge of Indigenous, peasant and family farmers all over the world. A few corporations own and control almost all aspects of food production, from meat to wheat, and they hold great sway with elected officials over agriculture policy. To truly deal with upcoming water shortages, we must address the way in which we grow food to stop the destruction of groundwater sources caused by industrial agriculture.

A recent report by Ispra (Superior Institute for Environmental Protection and Research – Italy), detected 299 different polluting substances in  surface-level Italian waters. Pesticides and herbicides are the most prevalent among them but fertilizers, which are the root of the eutrophication process, especially in many national lakes, are also present . In many villages around some of these lakes, the water is no longer potable. Is it an uniquely Italian problem or do you consider it to be global?

Eutrophication – the over-enrichment of lakes, rivers and oceans by nutrients – is rampant all over the world. The resulting oxygen depletion can create algal blooms and even ‘dead zones’ where life cannot survive. Many countries, even in the so-called developed world, have little or no regulation for dealing with the runoff from factory farms and industrial food production, even though they may have regulations for human waste. Here in my country, Canada, a study found that 246 major lakes are seriously compromised by eutrophication. Thisincludes Lake Winnipeg, the 10th largest lake in the world, which is suffering badly because of hog farming on its shores. In some poor countries where much of the world’s consumer goods are produced, local water bodies are completely contaminated. Changing these practices has to come first  in our plan for water protection.

With a production of 14 billion litres per year and an annual per capita consumption of 206 liters, Italy is the largest European consumer of bottled water (29 litres per capita more than Germany, +16.4%; 84 litres more than France, +68.9%). What do you think about this?

Bottled water started in Europe and spread to the rest of the world. It used to be packaged in glass in Europe but it is increasingly plastic these days. We are a planet drowning in plastic and we humans are now ingesting it in our food. We must break our bottled water habit and we need Italians to help this happen. Italy is the major consumer of bottled water in Europe and could lead the way in changing this practice and helping to save the planet.

Which steps can civil society, farmers and consumers take to protect their right to water as a common good?

We must all demand that everything our governments do – every policy, every action – takes its effect on water into account. If that effect is harmful to water, we return to the drawing board. Trade agreements that protect corporate water abuse and over-exploitation must be challenged. Governments must legislate to protect the planet’s threatened water supplies and human access to them. Clean, safe, public water for all, everywhere, has to be our goal and the only way to get there is to start truly protecting our precious water sources and stop seeing water as a resource for our profit and convenience.

Can you walk us through the Blue Communities project?

We first introduced the concept of a Blue Community wherever a local municipality, university, or even a religious community, is committed to protecting water as a common resource. The pledge to become a Blue Community is really three-fold: to protect water as a human right; to promise to keep water services public; and to phase out bottled water on municipal premises and events. Many European cities added a fourth: to promote public-public partnerships rather than public-private in their dealings with the Global South.

The whole concept started in Canada when we had a right wing government promoting the privatization of water services  and we wanted to reach municipalities, getting them to promote public services, before the government did. It has been very successful here. To my surprise, the concept got picked up in other places, especially in Europe, and some universities, faith-based communities, etc.  Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Munich, Montreal, Vancouver and Los Angeles are among the cities who have already signed up. So I would love to see Italy embrace the project. We worked with the coalition that undertook the successful referendum against privatization in 2011 and we are still in close touch with the various water justice movements.

cover image credit:  Tama 66 / pixabay

Want a Job? Get a Shot!

by Ron Paul, Ron Paul Instittute
March 22, 2021

Mask tyranny reached a new low recently when a family was kicked off a Spirit Airlines flight because their four-year-old autistic son was not wearing a mask. The family was removed from the plane even though the boy’s doctor had decided the boy should be exempted from mask mandates because the boy panics and engages in behavior that could pose a danger to himself when wearing a mask.

Besides, four-year-olds do not present much risk of spreading or contracting coronavirus. Even if masks did prevent infections among adults, there would be no reason to force children to wear masks.

Mask mandates have as much to do with healthcare as Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screenings have to do with stopping terrorism. Masks and TSA screenings are “security theater” done to reassure those frightened by government and media propaganda regarding coronavirus and terrorism that the government is protecting them.

Covid oppression will worsen if vaccine passports become more widely required. Vaccine passports are digital or physical proof a person has taken a coronavirus vaccine. New York is already requiring that individuals produce digital proof of taking a coronavirus vaccine before being admitted to sporting events.

Imagine if the zealous enforcers of mask mandates had the power to deny you access to public places because you have not “gotten your shot.” Even worse, what if a potential employer had to ensure you were “properly” vaccinated before hiring you? This could come to pass if proponents of mandatory E-Verify have their way.

E-Verify requires employers to submit personal identifying information — such as a social security numbers and biometric data — to a government database to ensure job applicants have federal permission to hold jobs.

Currently, E-Verify is only used to assure a job applicant is a citizen or legal resident. However, its use could be expanded to advancing other purposes, such as ensuring a potential new hire has taken all the recommended vaccines.

E-Verify could even be used to check if a job applicant has ever expressed, or associated with someone who has expressed, “hate speech,” “conspiracy theories,” or “Russian disinformation,” which is code for facts embarrassing to the political class.

Many employers will be reluctant to hire such an employee for fear their businesses will become the next targets of “cancel culture.” Those who doubt this should consider how many businesses have folded under pressure from the cultural Marxists and fired someone for expressing an “unapproved” thought.

Politicians and bureaucrats have used overblown fear of coronavirus to justify the largest infringement of individual liberty in modern times. Covid tyranny has been aided by many Americans who are not just willing to sacrifice their liberty for phony security, but who help government take away liberty from their fellow citizens.

The good news is that, as it becomes increasingly clear that there was no need to shut down the economy, throw millions out of work, subject children to the fraud of “virtual” learning, and force everyone to wear a mask, more people are turning against the politicians and “experts” behind the lockdowns and mandates. Hopefully, these Americans will realize that, in addition to coronavirus lockdowns and mandates, the entire welfare-warfare-fiat money system is built on a foundation of lies.

Police for Freedom: Growing International Movement Is Now in Australia, Netherlands, Spain & Sweden

About Police for Freedom:

The mission of this movement is to re-humanize our societies, bringing back trust and unity between the security forces and the people. The peaceful marches, events, campaigns and content created by Police For Freedom aim to educate people about their human rights, civil liberties, constitutional rights as well as the ethical code of conduct for the police and security forces.

Police for Freedom NL Kickoff with Henna Maria and Dennis Spaanstra 

by Viruswaarheid LIVE
March 17, 2021

Connect with Police for Freedom

Pastor James Coates to Be Released From Edmonton, Canada Jail as Crown Withdraws Charges

by Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
March 17, 2021

EDMONTON: The Justice Centre today announced that Crown Prosecutors have agreed to withdraw all but one of the Public Health Act offences that Pastor James Coates has been charged with. The Justice Centre expects Pastor Coates will be released from jail in the coming days, without any conditions, pending his May 3-5 trial in Provincial Court.

The Justice Centre will defend Pastor Coates on one remaining charge of violating an Order of the Chief Medical Officer of Health by challenging the lawfulness of the public health order that he is charged with violating.

The Pastor of Grace Life Church near Edmonton has been incarcerated in the Edmonton Remand Centre for a month, since February 16. It is expected that Pastor Coates could be released from jail as early as Friday, March 19.

Grace Life is a church of nearly 400 congregants who have exercised their Charter rights and freedoms normally since July of 2020, including their freedoms of assembly, association, expression, religion and conscience. Not one congregant has been lost to Covid, but, sadly, a congregant was lost to the Alberta Government lockdown in the first week of February when he died prematurely because he couldn’t get the cancer treatment he needed due to government lockdown restrictions.

Pastor Coates and Grace Life Church are represented by the Justice Centre in respect of tickets and court summons. The Pastor and his church have been taken to court by Alberta Health Services (AHS) and ordered to close by AHS for holding regular church services and refusing to turn congregants away.

The Justice Centre sent a letter to Premier Jason Kenney on February 17, 2021, challenging him to assume responsibility for protecting the Charter rights and freedoms of Albertans, and to cease allowing an unelected health official, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, to violate rights and freedoms with health orders that are not reviewed by, or approved by, the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Pastor Coates has been jailed in the Edmonton Remand Centre since February 16, after he refused to sign a bail condition that required him to effectively promise to stop exercising his Charter freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, association and peaceful assembly.

On Sunday, February 7, after the morning worship service, two RCMP officers met with Pastor Coates and a few others in his office at the Church and told Pastor Coates that he was under arrest.

The officers imposed a condition on the Pastor that he only hold church if he followed all the public health restrictions, such as permitting only 15% of his congregants to attend a Sunday morning worship service. Pastor Coates explained to the officers that he could not agree to abide by Charter-violating public health orders that prevent him from fulfilling his duty as a minister to lead his congregation in worship. As Pastor Coates did not agree to the condition imposed on him, RCMP should have taken him before a Justice of the Peace, but they did not and, instead, left the church.

Pastor Coates again held church on Sunday February 14. On Monday, February 15, the RCMP asked Pastor Coates to attend at the RCMP station. When Pastor Coates arrived, the RCMP charged him with multiple Public Health Act offences and a criminal offence related to the bail condition imposed on February 7th.

A bail hearing took place on Tuesday, February 16. Crown Prosecutor Karen Thorsrud asked the court to keep Pastor Coates in jail until he could appear for trial. A Justice of the Peace ordered Pastor Coates released on bail on the condition that he only hold church if he followed all the public health restrictions. Pastor Coates could not, in good conscience, agree to such a Charter rights-violating condition of release and was therefore detained at the Edmonton Remand Centre.

Crown prosecutors have now agreed that Pastor Coates can be released without conditions and will withdraw all but one of the Public Health Act charges against him. Prosecutors have also agreed to withdraw the criminal charge in connection with the condition imposed by RCMP on February 7, and instead have charged Pastor Coates $100 for breaching the condition, which Pastor Coates has agreed to pay.

The single charge remaining has not been withdrawn, as the Justice Centre and Pastor Coates want the matter heard at trial, to determine the constitutionality of the public health order that churches only hold worship services at 15% capacity, and to compel the government to produce scientific evidence that might support these violations of Charter freedoms. The trial is scheduled to take place beginning on May 3, 2021.

“The condition that Pastor Coates effectively stop doing his job as a pastor by adhering to unscientific and unconstitutional public health restrictions should never have been imposed on him by the RCMP, or by the Court. We are hopeful that he will finally be released from jail without conditions, and can resume pastoring Grace Life church,” states Justice Centre president John Carpay.

“We look forward appearing in court in May and demanding the government provide evidence that public health restrictions that violate the freedoms of religion, peaceful assembly, expression and association are scientific and are justifiable in a free and democratic country,” concludes Carpay.

The Beauty and Freedom That Is Anarchy

by Gary D. Barnett
March 17, 2021

Will Durant once said: “As soon as liberty is complete it dies in anarchy.”  This statement is incorrect in my view; as it relies on the false assumption that anarchy means chaos. It does not. I say that once anarchy is complete, freedom lives in the individual, and therefore it lives in society. True anarchy is liberty.

From the Greek root anarkhos comes anarchy, and it simply means “without a ruler.” Those that control and worship the state have not only bastardized the honest meaning of the word, but that meaning has been literally eliminated in favor of what I describe as progressive language manipulation, which is simply a devious way to achieve control over others through confusion and deceit.

So anarchy is “society without a state,” as Murray Rothbard so clearly stated in a talk he delivered long ago. Properly accepting this true meaning of anarchy means that it is necessary to define the ‘State.’ Again, the eloquent and brilliant Rothbard defined the state as “that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.  Once again, the great Rothbard is a gentleman, but what this means to me is that the state is full of liars, thieves, and murderers; all with the desire to rule over and control all of society.

It seems that the modern understanding of the terms “anarchy “ and “state” have been intentionally twisted around so as to be opposite of reality. In essence, the state reeks of lawlessness, chaos, and disorder, while anarchy is steeped in the concepts of freedom and liberty. This could never be more obvious than it is today. In our obnoxious postmodern world, the masses have been trained to think and act due to conceived perceptions instead of reality.  Therefore, state claimed truths are lies, and state claimed lies are truth. It does appear that all has been reversed in order to fool those that are easily fooled.

As Orwell put it by the use of a slogan attributed to the English Socialist Party of Oceana in his Novel “1984”: “War is peace; Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength.” The new United States of “doublethink” has arrived, and has been fully embraced, and is being acted out by the people as ordered.

Considering our current state of affairs, and the asinine absurdity of compliance to idiotic and draconian ‘Covid’ mandates issued by state goons, any alien landing on this planet today could only describe the scene as one where the most cowardly, submissive, and pathetic species on earth were the masses of common human beings. Most would be wearing masks, walking around like zombies, staying at distance from one another, locking themselves in home prisons on orders, shaming any that refuse to submit, seeking permission slips to live normally, abandoning their families and friends, injecting toxic mind-controlling poison into their bodies on demand, and watching as state criminals destroy their property, their livelihoods, and their very way of life. They would watch as the state enforcers harassed, beat, and jailed those that resisted while the majority stood by and watched and did nothing to stop it. This is not science fiction, it is not a movie; it is reality in America.

In order for freedom to ever exist, it must come to pass and be fully understood by the people that ‘legal’ force is always and forever the enemy of liberty.  So long as the public lives and exists under the presumption that the force of government is necessary in order for society to function, then freedom can never be achieved, and slavery will be the only result. All advocates of government (the state) expect and accept the initiated force of government, whether it comes in the forms of theft by taxation, the only solution to disputes, social or otherwise, through government courts, the enforced management of all health and medicine, forced control of all ‘education,’ restrictive laws and licensing in order to function, waging aggressive war with standing armies at the expense of American lives and money, and the heavily enforced control of all commerce. In essence, what the people are really accepting is a total monopoly of force by the government that claims to be the people’s ‘representatives.’ That is and has always been a lie.

All indications are that the state and its governing bodies are nothing more than an organized crime syndicate. It is even worse than this description, because organized crime (Mafia) works within its own area and networks, and of course uses and pays off politicians in order to stay in business, but it does not wage world war, and does not seek to gain control of all humanity and the entire planet. The state and government on the other hand, are certainly organized criminal organizations, but they want to gain control of everything and everybody. The state desires to control all money, all commerce, all property, all markets, all military, all theft, all health choices, all employment, all everything.

Government is never legitimate; it is always an exercise of force, it is always corrupt, it is always a murderer, it is always a thief, and it is always evil. It can only exist if the majority of people allow it to exist, and in the process give it a false legitimacy so that its stolen power over society can be protected and retained. Anarchy is still a governing system of sorts; it just relies on self-government instead of a state prison system perpetuated by force and dehumanization of all individual thought and action in order to rule.

In any anarchist society, all power rests in the sovereign individual, and only so long as the non-aggression principle is followed. Each individual in a truly free society such as anarchy provides, can live and pursue their dreams and interests, and can choose the path that is unique to them and their family. This will allow the opportunity to live in harmony with others in a world where cooperation, passion, and love can prosper.

The beauty and freedom that is anarchy is the better way forward.

“The State is, and always has been, the great single enemy of the human race, its liberty, happiness, and progress.” ~ Murray Rothbard

No, President Biden, We Are Not the Government

by Adam Dick, Ron Paul Institute
March 15, 2021

People who desire the protection of freedom from overreaching government have much to be concerned about in President Joe Biden’s Thursday speech focused on coronavirus and coronavirus-related government actions. Yet, likely the most dangerous to freedom proposition in Biden’s speech is an assertion he made that goes far beyond coronavirus-related matters — that the United States government is the same as “us,” the American people.

Biden declared in the speech:

Look, we know what we need to do to beat this virus: Tell the truth. Follow the scientists and the science. Work together. Put trust and faith in our government to fulfill its most important function, which is protecting the American people — no function more important.

We need to remember the government isn’t some foreign force in a distant capital. No, it’s us. All of us. “We the People.” For you and I, that America thrives when we give our hearts, when we turn our hands to common purpose. And right now, my friends, we are doing just that. And I have to say, as your President, I am grateful to you.

Biden is far from the first politician to assert that the American people are the government. Over forty years ago — in 1974, Murray Rothbard examined this absurd, dangerous, and often repeated claim in his essay “The Anatomy of the State.” Rothbard’s essay begins with a section titled “What the State Is Not” that reads like a direct response to the claim in Biden’s speech. Rothbard wrote:

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that “we” are not the government; the government is not “us.” The government does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people. But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority. No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that “we are all part of one another,” must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet. Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

You can read Rothbard’s complete essay here.

Danser Encore: “Let Us Put Up a Fight Against the Tools of Madness”

Flash Mob in Paris, March 4, 2021:



Flashmob organisé le 4 mars 2021 à Paris, Gare du Nord.

Original video is available at Piaf Edit YouTube channel.

Find lyrics in French and English below the second video.

HK – Danser Encore Original Performance



HK – Danser encore (Officiel) 

Original video available at HK saltimbank YouTube channel.

[See lyrics in French and English below.]

DANSER ENCORE (HK – 2020)
Clip tourné à Avignon – Cloître des Carmes le 10/12/2020.

Avec :
HK – Chant * Jacotte Recolin – Violon * Mathilde Dupuch – accordéon * Martin Choquet – saxophone
Raphaël André – trombone * Saïd Zarouri – guitare * Thibault Delbart – guitare

www.hk-officiel.com

English Lyrics

Refrain:

We still want
To keep on dancing
See our minds entwine our bodies
Spend our lives on a chord grid

Refrain x2

We are passing birds
Neither meek nor mild
We don’t swear allegiance
To dawn under any circumstances
We’ve come to break the silence

When at night on TV
Our lordship has spoken
To announce the sentence
We show our irreverence
But still with elegance

Refrain x2

Working, buying the daily grind
Lockdowns and restrictions
Nonsense on prescription
Shame on the thinker
Shame on the dancer

Each authoritarian step
Each reeking security measure
Ruins our hope and confidence
They keep increasing the pressure
To contain our conscience

Refrain x2

Let’s not be impressed
By these unreasonable requests
That sell fear in profusion
Let’s keep them at a distance
Causing distress in excess

For the sake of our mental existence
Social and environmental health
For our smiles and our mind
Let us put up a fight
Against the tools of madness

Refrain x4

 French Lyrics

Refrain :

Nous on veut continuer à danser encore
Voir nos pensées enlacer nos corps
Passer nos vies sur une grille d’accords

Refrain x2

Nous sommes des oiseaux de passage
Jamais dociles ni vraiment sages
Nous ne faisons pas allégeance
À l’aube en toutes circonstances
Nous venons briser le silence

Et quand le soir à la télé
Monsieur le bon roi a parlé
Venu annoncer la sentence
Nous faisons preuve d’irrévérence
Mais toujours avec élégance

Refrain x2

Auto-métro-boulot-conso
Auto attestation qu’on signe
Absurdité sur ordonnance
Et malheur à celui qui pense
Et malheur à celui qui danse

Chaque mesure autoritaire
Chaque relent sécuritaire
Voit s’envoler notre confiance
Ils font preuve de tant d’insistance
Pour confiner notre conscience

Refrain x2

Ne soyons pas impressionnables
Par tous ces gens déraisonnables
Vendeurs de peur en abondance
Angoissants, jusqu’à l’indécence

Sachons les tenir à distance
Pour notre santé mentale
Sociale et environnementale
Nos sourires, notre intelligence
Ne soyons pas sans résistance
Les instruments de leur démence

Refrain x2

[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of these videos are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original sources of these videos. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

Children’s Health Defense Supports Worldwide Demonstration for Freedom on March 20, 2021

by Children’s Health Defense
March 12, 2021

Senta Depuydt (President of Children’s Health Defense Europe) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Chairman of Children’s Health Defense) are supporting the World Wide Demonstration 2021-03-20

Link to Telegram Post



See also:

It’s Time to Rise: Worldwide Freedom Rallies Are Being Organized
for March 20th 2021

Links to the Worldwide Demonstrations:

Telegram:  https://t.me/worldwidedemonstration

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/worldwidedemonstration

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/worldwidedemonstration

Website: https://worldwidedemonstration.com/

Organizers: https://freiebuergerkassel.de

My Umpteenth Reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star
March 12, 2021

I’m departing from my normal practice today and am not blogging about an article that readers sent me, but rather, just to share a few interesting quotations that, I hope, will be thought-provoking.

Recently I received a catalogue of books from Dover Publications, and in its “thrift books” section, it included a collection of some of the Anti-Federalist papers. Dover’s “thrift books” are little paperbacks very reasonably priced. This little edition of some of the Anti-Federalist papers cost only six dollars, so I purchased it, and have to say that the papers collected within it were nicely chosen and ordered.

But beyond this, one thing struck me in this latest re-reading; the prescience of some of the anti-federalists with where we are now.

For example, over and over again in the little Dover edition, the warning cry against the Philadelphia convention’s creature was that it would inevitably issue in aristocracy; perhaps we might call it today a “plutocracy”. “John DeWitt” in his third essay of 5 November 1787 “To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” stated this:

Now therefore is unquestionably the proper time to examine it (the current constitution), and see if it really is what, upon paper, it appears to be. If with your eyes open, you deliberately accept it, however different it may prove in practice what it appears in theory, you will have nobody to blame but yourselves; and what is infinitely worse, as I have before endeavoured to observe to you, you will be wholly without a remedy.

…

Upon attentive examination you can pronounce it nothing less, than a government which, in a few years, will degenerate to a complete Aristocracy, armed with powers unnecessary in any case to bestow, and which in its vortex swallows up every other Government on the Continent. In short, my fellow-citizens, it can be said to be nothing less than a hasty stride to Universal Empire in this Western World, flattering, very flattering to young ambitious minds, but fatal to the liberties of the people. (Dover edition, pp. 48-49.)

George Mason, one of the more well-known anti-federalists, was even more succinct in his predictions, being one of Virginia’s delegates to the Philadelphia convention, and one of three delegates to the convention who refused to sign the document on the convention’s conclusion, along with Elbridge Gerry and Edmund Randolph. We are constantly reminded of the usual narrative that their refusal was based solely on their concern that the document lacked a Bill of Rights. However, over and over the warnings of “aristocracy” and “corruption” occur, sometimes within, and sometimes outside of, a context of concern about such a lack of a Bill of Rights. No such context for Mason’s remarks occurs here:

This Government will commence in a moderate Aristocracy; it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its Operation, produce a Monarchy, or a corrupt oppressive Aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some Years between the two, and then terminate in one or the other. (Boldface emphasis added)

Beyond this general warning, what comes across in this edition and arrangement of some of the anti-federalist papers is that the concern about “aristocracy” is a general template informing their opposition to the system, and that this was the root of their concern about the absence of a Bill of Rights, their critiques of the preamble, their concerns about the power of the judiciary and the open door to judicial activism (or, in some cases, the lack of judicial action), and so on.

In the current situation, people are turning to renewed study of the document and its promoters and advocates.

But I would offer that it is now even more important to revisit the sadly all-but-forgotten papers of the loyal opposition…

See you on the flip side…

CFFS Supports High School Principal Suspended for Promoting Free Speech to Students

by Patrick Wood, Citizens for Free Speech
March 8, 2021

PRESS RELEASE

March 8, 2021

Barton Thorne wanted his students to be aware of the prospect of losing their right to speak and be heard in the era of “cancel culture”, and his high school immediately illustrated his point—by canceling him.

Thorne is the principal of Cordova High School in Shelby County, TN, and when he delivered his weekly video address to staff and students in January, just days after the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, his message was clear: Beware the suppression of online speech and expression that does not conform to the prevailing orthodoxy of the moment.

It was a message not well-received by district administrators, who placed Thorne on paid leave after receiving complaints about the video’s contents. The district’s message was, in turn, not well-received by Citizens for Free Speech (CFFS).

“Here you have a high school principal,” stated CFFS founder and director Patrick Wood, “who is trying to advise his students of the importance of listening to all voices and viewpoints, who then has his own voice silenced by the school district for saying so. It’s unconscionable.”

The video message recorded by Principal Thorne warned that actions taken by the Big Tech social media platforms in limiting or banning online commentary today could have far-reaching implications for young students in their not-too-distant future.

“I’m only getting into this because as a young person, this is your future. You have a future ahead of you, and you will be developing your ideas and your values and the ways that you want to express yourself. But because these entities—Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple—are so powerful, and they have unilaterally made a decision of what you can and cannot see on their platforms, that’s a major issue and I want you to understand that.

“I want you to understand the problem that’s going to face you and your generation if there is no longer a marketplace, a free exchange of ideas.”

Thorne’s video address also referenced past cases of First Amendment suppression gone very wrong, including the Branch Davidian disaster in Waco, TX in 1993.

“What happens if one day a different group of people thinks that my religion is different, or funny, or should be brought into control, or should be filtered?” Thorne pondered. “Take that into speech. Maybe right now I’m in the norm, maybe right now my speech is not too outlandish, or too crazy…but what if a different group comes into power that no longer likes what I have to say, or how I think, or if they begin to think that I’m extreme?”

That question, according to Wood, is the most important one.

“There has been a sizable shift in the political winds in recent months, if not years,” explained the CFFS director, “and what was once considered acceptable speech then, is not considered acceptable now. If we allow a small monopoly of people to control what people can say and what they can hear, who’s to say it won’t be our own speech that is not acceptable six months from now? Or six years from now? It’s a dangerous game they’re playing.”

After serving a six-week suspension, ended only by a federal lawsuit filed on his behalf for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Thorne was finally reinstated as principal. Despite returning to his position, Thorne’s lawsuit goes on, in part to help restore his tarnished reputation, and in part to demonstrate to his students the importance of defending one’s constitutional rights—which was the precise topic of his video address to begin with.

For more information about CFFS please visit www.CitizensForFreeSpeech.org.

Contact:

Bob Frantz

National Director of Communications

bob.frantz@citizensforfreespeech.org