Ritafee
Is Being Human
In Walden, Henry David Thoreau famously observed that ...
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at its root.
And there can be no doubt that there are many thousands that are hacking away at the branches of the evil that we see spreading out before us in the name of this pandemic panic, diligently deconstructing the dissembling discourse of the disease doomsayers. And rightfully so, I count myself amongst them.
However, if all we are doing is smacking down the lies that are being spread about this pandemic as soon as they arise, then we run the risk of missing that root of the evil altogether.
So allow me, if you will, to take one hefty swipe at that root with my battle axe of truth by clearly stating, and rejecting, the new governing principle for society that we are being asked to accept on the basis of this pandemic pandemonium.
Now, this new governing principle for society, of course, is implicit.
I mean, we’re going to sign on to it by our silent consent, not our explicit consent. But, nonetheless it rests on a hypothetical—a hypothetical chain of infection that can take place in the event of a spreading infectious agent.
Now keep in mind, this has nothing to do with a novel coronavirus. This is about a general principle.
But the principle holds that if there is a spreading infectious agent of some sort that is hypothetically infecting people around the globe, and you might become infected by this agent, and you might end up passing it on to someone else, who might end up passing it on to someone else, etc., etc., and somewhere down that chain of infection, someone who is immune-compromised might end up becoming infected, and they might be part of that sliver of a fraction of a percentage point of the population who might die from the disease.
And if that were to take place, well, of course, every single link in that chain of infection should be classified as a murderer.
And in order to prevent such a mass murder from taking place, governments around the world are not just empowered but actually obligated to implement a sort of de facto medical martial law by following the pronouncements of the duly unelected health authorities to do whatever they deem necessary to prevent such a hypothetical chain of infection from taking place, up to and including quarantining people within the walls of their own homes and/or entering those walls to forcibly remove people from their own homes.
DR. MICHAEL RYAN: “And at the moment in most parts of the world, due to lockdown, most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household, at family level. In some sense, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
But that, of course, is a lie. Because every single flu season for your entire life there have been such hypothetical chains of infection that have taken place. And I have no doubt—let’s put it on the table—I have no doubt that there is someone reading these words right now who has been involved in some chain of infection that has ended up in some immune-compromised person dying.
Never before has that person had to think of themselves as a murderer, let alone lock themselves within the confines of their own home to prevent such a murder from ever taking place again. But that is what we are being asked to accept right now.
And I want this out on the table.
Because if we do not clearly articulate this principle that we’re being asked to accept, then by our silence we will consent to it.
We will tacitly, implicitly consent to what is taking place right now.
And I want to clearly state it and clearly reject it.
Now, there may be some people in the crowd who disagree with me.
So, first of all, let me put something else out on the table and make it very clear that, of course, none of what I say is to, in any way, undermine the basic right that everyone has, everyone always has had, and everyone always will have, to take whatever precautionary measure they feel is necessary in order to prevent such a chain of infection from taking place—including isolating yourself in your own home, wearing whatever protective gear you want, socially distancing yourself from anyone you come in contact with, or anything else that you feel is appropriate to prevent such a chain of infection.
Of course, you have that right. But that negative right is now being flipped on its head into a positive obligation on everyone in society to stop all productive human activity, to lock everyone up in their homes, and to treat them as prisoners, tracking and surveilling everything that they do and everyone that they come in contact with on the basis of a hypothetical chain of infection that could take place.
And I want that out on the table.
If you agree with that principle and you think that is a good thing, then clearly state it.
Clearly state that you agree with the abridgement of our most basic freedoms on the basis of this hypothetical chain of infection, and clearly state where your line in the sand is.
What do you think would be going too far for the government to do on the back of such a pandemic panic?
Biometric ID tracing and tracking every movement of every citizen at all times for the rest of their lives?
Or the ability to march into peoples’ homes to check for potential infections and forcibly vaccinate them if need be?
Or any other number of measures that are now coming into view as a result of this panic?
Where is your line in the sand, clearly stated, so that when that line is crossed, people can see whether or not you were a hypocrite for cheering it on.
Unless there is no line in the sand, and you think that governments are justified in doing anything that any presumed “health authority” says in the light of a pandemic situation.
But at least state it openly and on the record.
What would you do - you specifically - not the agents of the state to whom you outsource your violence - but you - in order to prevent people from living their lives in the event of a pandemic.
I join James Corbett, in clearly rejecting this principle that we are being asked to accept right now.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one striking at its root.
And there can be no doubt that there are many thousands that are hacking away at the branches of the evil that we see spreading out before us in the name of this pandemic panic, diligently deconstructing the dissembling discourse of the disease doomsayers. And rightfully so, I count myself amongst them.
However, if all we are doing is smacking down the lies that are being spread about this pandemic as soon as they arise, then we run the risk of missing that root of the evil altogether.
So allow me, if you will, to take one hefty swipe at that root with my battle axe of truth by clearly stating, and rejecting, the new governing principle for society that we are being asked to accept on the basis of this pandemic pandemonium.
Now, this new governing principle for society, of course, is implicit.
I mean, we’re going to sign on to it by our silent consent, not our explicit consent. But, nonetheless it rests on a hypothetical—a hypothetical chain of infection that can take place in the event of a spreading infectious agent.
Now keep in mind, this has nothing to do with a novel coronavirus. This is about a general principle.
But the principle holds that if there is a spreading infectious agent of some sort that is hypothetically infecting people around the globe, and you might become infected by this agent, and you might end up passing it on to someone else, who might end up passing it on to someone else, etc., etc., and somewhere down that chain of infection, someone who is immune-compromised might end up becoming infected, and they might be part of that sliver of a fraction of a percentage point of the population who might die from the disease.
And if that were to take place, well, of course, every single link in that chain of infection should be classified as a murderer.
And in order to prevent such a mass murder from taking place, governments around the world are not just empowered but actually obligated to implement a sort of de facto medical martial law by following the pronouncements of the duly unelected health authorities to do whatever they deem necessary to prevent such a hypothetical chain of infection from taking place, up to and including quarantining people within the walls of their own homes and/or entering those walls to forcibly remove people from their own homes.
DR. MICHAEL RYAN: “And at the moment in most parts of the world, due to lockdown, most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household, at family level. In some sense, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
We are being asked to accept this abrogation of our most precious freedoms, including our freedom to travel, our freedom of association and assembly, our freedom from arbitrary detention within the walls of our own home, our freedom of privacy in transaction and interaction, and other hard-fought freedoms that were purchased at the price of our forefathers’ blood, on the basis of a novel coronavirus that is presenting a novel, existential threat to humanity that has never before existed.
But that, of course, is a lie. Because every single flu season for your entire life there have been such hypothetical chains of infection that have taken place. And I have no doubt—let’s put it on the table—I have no doubt that there is someone reading these words right now who has been involved in some chain of infection that has ended up in some immune-compromised person dying.
Never before has that person had to think of themselves as a murderer, let alone lock themselves within the confines of their own home to prevent such a murder from ever taking place again. But that is what we are being asked to accept right now.
And I want this out on the table.
Because if we do not clearly articulate this principle that we’re being asked to accept, then by our silence we will consent to it.
We will tacitly, implicitly consent to what is taking place right now.
And I want to clearly state it and clearly reject it.
Now, there may be some people in the crowd who disagree with me.
So, first of all, let me put something else out on the table and make it very clear that, of course, none of what I say is to, in any way, undermine the basic right that everyone has, everyone always has had, and everyone always will have, to take whatever precautionary measure they feel is necessary in order to prevent such a chain of infection from taking place—including isolating yourself in your own home, wearing whatever protective gear you want, socially distancing yourself from anyone you come in contact with, or anything else that you feel is appropriate to prevent such a chain of infection.
Of course, you have that right. But that negative right is now being flipped on its head into a positive obligation on everyone in society to stop all productive human activity, to lock everyone up in their homes, and to treat them as prisoners, tracking and surveilling everything that they do and everyone that they come in contact with on the basis of a hypothetical chain of infection that could take place.
And I want that out on the table.
If you agree with that principle and you think that is a good thing, then clearly state it.
Clearly state that you agree with the abridgement of our most basic freedoms on the basis of this hypothetical chain of infection, and clearly state where your line in the sand is.
What do you think would be going too far for the government to do on the back of such a pandemic panic?
Biometric ID tracing and tracking every movement of every citizen at all times for the rest of their lives?
Or the ability to march into peoples’ homes to check for potential infections and forcibly vaccinate them if need be?
Or any other number of measures that are now coming into view as a result of this panic?
Where is your line in the sand, clearly stated, so that when that line is crossed, people can see whether or not you were a hypocrite for cheering it on.
Unless there is no line in the sand, and you think that governments are justified in doing anything that any presumed “health authority” says in the light of a pandemic situation.
But at least state it openly and on the record.
What would you do - you specifically - not the agents of the state to whom you outsource your violence - but you - in order to prevent people from living their lives in the event of a pandemic.
I join James Corbett, in clearly rejecting this principle that we are being asked to accept right now.
