Thank you for a breath of sanity Caitlin. We truly have institutionalized immorality, and an obliviousness to it. People can walk by a hobo and convince themselves that the hobo just 'made bad personal choices.' Not that the structures of our society are actually geared towards making people destitute. There weren't any hobos back in pre-capitalist communal societies. Guess they all just made better 'choices' back then.
Agree with everything here, Caitlin -- you are correct as usual. Except I think the World Economic Forum and it's very real plan to restrict meat eating to the privileged elites and relegate the rest of us to consuming bugs for our protein, is -- along with the rest of their evil designs -- something worth protesting and worrying about. Too true that, as you always point out, it is an illusion that any real differences exist between Democrats and Republicans and therefore we should not look to either party (or any other President, or even Congress) to solve our problems. But Klaus Schwab is truly scary...
I'm not sure why eating bugs is seen as a bad thing. Lots of cultures have dishes with insects as protein in them. I've eaten crickets baked into chips and they were quite tasty. And insects do not take up huge grasslands, create methane from their digestive processes, or get fed grains that could be people food instead. Insects cuisine sounds like an environmentally friendly alternative.
"I'm not sure why eating bugs is seen as a bad thing."
Weird and potentially hazardous sexual fetishes are not a bad thing either. The bad thing is when they are forced on other people without their fully informed consent.
Klaus Schwab (and his technocratic cronies) wanting everyone to eat bugs is no different to them wanting to piss on everyone to satisfy their sexual fetish for golden showers.
The sign of a thoroughly demoralised population is when they say "Well, golden showers are not really such a terrible sexual fetish. I don't see the problem with Klaus and his cronies pissing on us".
The sign of a healthy and spirited population is when they say "Fuck being pissed on. Fuck eating bugs. Fuck your 15 minute concentration camps. Fuck your digital ID and digital vouchers. Fuck your facial recognition and surveillance grid. Fuck your pronouns. Fuck your de-gendering of language and the youth. Fuck your lockdowns. Fuck your technocracy. We're not doing it thank you very much. Let me show you to the door."
I suggest you do some research on psychopathy and human psychology.... and in particular how the victims of psychopaths have a tendency to trauma bond with their abusers and rationalise their own abuse.
The only reason we are talking about eating bugs is because it was deliberately introduced into the story as it's ridiculous and gross. Klaus and his vanity project (who have no actual power) was chosen, and play up to, the role as evil, mad, nazi villain, as he is kinda weird and has a Germanic accent. If we decide we should eat less dead animals we can flourish on beans, nuts, fruit and veg, there is no need to start eating insects. Do we think the hugely powerful animal ag/pharma/agrochemcial industry really wants us eating worms?
"Klaus and his vanity project (who have no actual power)"
Klaus Schwab's 'young global leaders' program reads like a 'who's who' of presidents and prime ministers over the last 30 years. A couple of years ago Schwab boasted that half of the Canadian government had gone through his WEF indoctrination program and were essentially tools (puppets) of the WEF.
He spoke of the WEF 'penetrating' the governments of the world, as well as media, business and industry.
When a Canadian politician tried to bring up the subject of WEF's influence over Canadian politicians his mic was swiftly cut. To find out who has power, just look for who you're not allowed to criticise. WHO, WEF, UN etc are a de facto world government already.
Schwab's 'global shapers' program is also putting young people (useful idiots) into all key positions in tech, industry and media. This means they will all be brainwashed into championing climate change, smart cities, digital everything etc and they will give it a fresh, trendy vibe .... essential for getting support from young people - exactly like all those SM influencers who were paid to promote the vax.
It's not a 'vanity project'. It's technocracy. It's digital feudalism.
"(Schwab) ... was chosen, and play up to, the role as evil, mad, nazi villain, as he is kinda weird and has a Germanic accent"
No. The 'young global shapers' were chosen to be the face of the WEF's technocracy agenda so the public would not be put off by Schwab's creepy vibes. Schwab speaks mostly to political puppets and movers and shakers in the business world. His brainwashed army of 'global shapers' and 'young global leaders' are the ones implementing it all at the coal face.
" If we decide we should eat less dead animals we can flourish on beans, nuts, fruit and veg, there is no need to start eating insects."
The issue is not a debate over dietary choice. The issue is not having dietary choice taken away by force.
"Do we think the hugely powerful animal ag/pharma/agrochemcial industry really wants us eating worms?"
These are not normal businesses like your neighbour selling free range eggs at the garden gate. Normal business models do not apply.
These corporations are all part of the globalist network (at the top level) and so are not bound by normal free market incentives. Even supermarket chains, airlines and the healthcare system are more beholden to the globalists than they are the consumer. The lockdowns should have made that obvious, if it wasn't already.
Case in point if Trudeau and his government is so anti-oil and wishing to control us with (real) climate change why has 'According to one recent study, Canada’s federal and provincial governments funnelled over C$23 billion (US$18.5 billion) in subsidies to three major oil and gas pipeline projects in just the past three years, much of it to the Trans Mountain expansion.' (which even industry say is uneconomic) and why does 'In British Columbia, Trudeau also back LNG Canada, a massive gas pipeline and liquified natural gas (LNG) export project. LNG Canada and the associated Coastal GasLink Pipeline are fiercely opposed by the Wet'suwet'en First Nation hereditary chiefs, whose territory the pipeline will cross.' https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/justin-trudeau-thinks-he-s-climate-champion-even-he-builds-oil-pipelines#:~:text=Trudeau%20has%20also%20given%20unflinching,is%20facing%20scrutiny%20in%20Michigan.
Could the WEF saga of evil, controlling villains allegedly using faked climate change be about getting us up in arms over any attempt to curb industry even if it crosses First Nation land and destroys the environment (and even if supposedly indoctrinated leaders are carrying on with business as usual and supporting big fossil fuel)?
Politics only appears to make no sense if you believe the politicians believe the things they say.
The WEF is neither for or against industry. They are for technocracy. They are for industry that suits their agenda and against industry that does not suit their agenda.
The global leaders programs seems to be about networking for people already running large companies, a 2 week jolly at Harvard and marketing for the WEF 'community' https://www.younggloballeaders.org/the-journey
You're missing the forest, 'cause the bugs. It's about choice - about choosing to continue to prop up people that strive to take that beautiful burden away. Boiled cicada might taste like pumpkin goddam pie, but imagine not even knowing what butterfly pork is, let alone losing the option.
Darren—You’re missing the idea that “choice” is for the privileged. Us anglos get to choose!!! Goddammit! Most of the world does not have the privilege to “choose” meat over less devastating proteins. Can you base your argument on anything other than you want your privileges?
Most of the world does not have the privilege to “choose” meat
What a condescending and first world thing to say., you think that western white people are the inventors of eating meat ? Cattle domestication began in the 9th century BC in southwest asia. But lets be a little less western centric, human beings have been eating meat worldwide since long before the neolithic transition. Recent research suggests that human brain size growth is directly attributable to animal fats. Without humans eating animals we might not even be able to have a conversation.
Not a defense of the meat industry, a recognition that meat has been a part of the human diet for a very long time. You apparently are so hung up on the politics of it that you can't admit the truth of a historical fact.
In 1963 the government made it illegal for Cubans to slaughter their cows or sell beef and byproducts without state permission. It is government regulation and bureaucracy preventing access not industry.
'evil designs' been reading too much Dan Brown? Caitlin is right; this Satanic plot is absurd. The alleged plan to stop us eating unsustainable and environmentally destructive dead animal flesh was created by the industry machine to increase demand and price for their products in the face of overwhelming indications against doing so. Any 'protest' will be on behalf of animal ag and it's very closely related industries big pharma and big agrochemicals.
You often make some very valuable criticisms of the bureaucratic stranglehold on information, corruption and propaganda. This post shines a bright light on your obvious fixation/bias against what you call the “right” or “conservatives”. Both right and left are comprised of power hungry politicians and bureaucratic opportunists. You seem to believe capitalism is inherently evil while socialism is altruistic. The hierarchical nature of all organizations both government and corporate are inherently predisposed to corruption and domination. There is no form of government as yet devised that has demonstrated its ability to avoid ultimate domination of the masses by the “clever”.
No socialist government has ever come to power in a global environment that wasn’t dominated by capitalist, fanatically anti-socialist forces. When you equate the atrocities of a revolutionary regime with the routine aggression of the imperialist forces, you ought to recognize the paranoia and treacherous fear imparted by the enemy with the bigger budgets, the bigger guns and countless proxies.
The right-wing response to any legitimate criticism of capitalism is always “the alternative is worse,” and this is demonstrably true because the hegemon will always make the rebel pay. You need look no further than Cuba, which was driven into Soviet sanctuary by the credible threat of annihilation by the “freedom-loving” America. And for its commitment to remain a sovereign state, it has remained under a criminal economic embargo since its revolution.
A socialist government in a de-nuclearized global environment has no mandate, no imperative to initiate aggression, and we all know that capitalism cannot make any such claim.
Especially since “the masses” are all too willing to surrender their autonomy and their responsibility to their country as soon as they get bourgeois comfy. Comfort and convenience has been a lot more effective in taking down the US Bill of Rights and governance than guns and jackboots in the street. That treatment we reserve for those who have fought the empire for centuries—Blacks and natives. And Caitlin ain’t no Ida B. Wells.
Then don't have a state and don't have property rights that a state would have to guarantee.
Seriously, you Christian lot are quite the opposite of what peak human performance looks like so maybe you have no business determining what human social reproduction looks like. The problem is not that we haven't been emulating you well enough, I can guarantee that.
Actually, it has been tried but every time it is, it tends to lead to martyrdom for those who try it because it runs so counter to the 'Official Narrative'.
Those who push the 'Official Narrative' feel threatened by the loss of revenue that would arise if, God forbid! the practice of a genuine form of Christianity might catch on!
"Then don't have a state and don't have property rights that a state would have to guarantee."
The state does not guarantee property rights. It continuously violates them. The only thing it guarantees is that it will enforce its MONOPOLY on violating your property rights (a monopoly on theft called 'taxation').
But it even fails at this, by failing to adequately police most cities. And also by incentivising crime, single mother households and social breakdown with welfare (forced redistribution of stolen wealth) and social programs (state schools etc).
When crime gets really bad people run to the state asking it for more 'protection'. Thus the state continues to grow in size and scope based on its failure to protect anyone from anything (including the state)...... and the downward spiral continues.
A state which protected property rights would be a state of anarchy. Anarchy is what happens when we agree that everyone has equal rights. Equal property rights. Equal personhood rights. Equal bodily autonomy rights. And so on.
In a state of anarchy police would protect your property and personhood. And you would pay them voluntarily for their services. And you would have a contract drawn up between you to this effect, outlining each other's responsibilities .... just like you already use with any other service provider.
Policing is, after all, just another service. We already have a private security industry so its not like we are not capable of organising our own police protection and paying for it.
Rights don't exist without a liberal state, you neoliberal fascist regard. There is no such thing as natural law, and if there were, it wouldn't read at all like Christian theology. Have you ever read any material on the philosophy of law or are you just another whiny self-important middle class loser?
Your ancap shit is just the heroic complex of mental illnesses fashioned into a Protestant form, and is nothing but a meme. Under anarchy, police wouldn't exist, and those that tried would be seen as illegitimate warlords and destroyed rather quickly, and all you useless slaver fucks would be best served with barbeque sauce on a brioche bun.
Rights don't exist full stop. 'Rights' are just an agreement to respect each other's property and person, and to condemn those who violate the same. Rights cannot be bestowed, only recognised (or not) and protected (or not).
A 'state' which respects the property and personhood rights of its population would be a state of anarchy, by definition. With EQUAL rights for all there can be no concept of legitimate rulers. With no legitimate rulers the concept of a state also has no legitimacy.
"Have you ever read any material on the philosophy of law or are you just another whiny self-important middle class loser?"
The phrase 'middle class loser' is not an argument.
"Your ancap shit"
Again, you are not making an argument.
"..... heroic complex of mental illnesses fashioned into a Protestant form, and is nothing but a meme."
Still no argument.
"Under anarchy, police wouldn't exist"
If by 'policing' you mean a service industry which offer protection to person and property, then this service is entirely compatible with a state of anarchy. In fact, protecting person and property rights from would-be rulers (tyrants, mafias, kings etc) is precisely the way to achieve and protect a state of anarchy.
If by 'policing' you mean a group of thugs who protect the state's monopoly on legalised theft and violence, then of course this is is not compatible with anarchy.
"....and those that tried would be seen as illegitimate warlords and destroyed rather quickly"
Anyone is welcome to 'see' a private (free market) police service as 'illegitimate warlords', just as they are welcome to 'see' free market bakers, plumbers and electricians as 'illegitimate warlords' as well. But as long as the police, bakers, plumbers or electricians are not violating anyone's property or person nobody has the right to 'destroy' them. To attempt such a thing is attempted murder.
".... and all you useless slaver fucks would be best served with barbeque sauce on a brioche bun."
Again, you are not making an argument.
I can assure you that if you lived in a society where it was generally agreed that murder, theft, extortion, rape, assault and 'destroying' service providers were immoral and socially unacceptable ways to behave you would not dare to behave in those ways.
And if you did the police would arrest you and put you in jail, same as if you tried to murder a policeman in our current statist society.
An anarchic society is MORE morally consistent than a statist society, therefore crime would be EVEN LESS tolerated than it is now. Your notions of a 'Mad Max' type of society make no sense.
This is your logic: the abolition of violent rulers would result in even more violent rulers.
By your logic the abolition of slavery would result in even more slavery. The abolition of monarchy would result in even more kings and queens. And the abolition of child labour in mines would result in even more child labour in mines.
>A 'state' which respects the property and personhood rights of its population would be a state of anarchy
No such sovereign state of property protection can exist because it is not the sovereign's business to respect anything. That relation flows the other way, social contract theory notwithstanding. Further, property does not exist without recognition, same as every other right. One of the mechanisms used to recognize property is the official record. Anyone can keep a copy of something; it takes ontological fuckery like priests and mysics to keep "truth".
There are two different definitions of state-ness that you are conflating here, and to do so only proves that you are a liar who is speaking only for their property interests. The rest of your effete verbal dance you call an argument rests upon the idea of private property as a Form, something that we delude ourselves is real, and before which the oversocialized and overeducated elite liberal arts faculties apparently cannot resist falling to their knees trembling. That, I consider one of several slave theories generated by Platonism and its successors, all of which I therefore, along with his entire cosmic doctrine, reject as unnecessary.
Formal debate is a sign of people who aren't doing enough primary production and need to be forced into it by their peers.
Of course anarchy will work better, but capitalism (defined as the separation of labor from its conditions, not whatever emotional humbug Mises, John Bates Clark, and other capitalist ideologues want us to feel) is an aristocratic form, which defeats the purpose of anarchy.
Anarchy is a description of any society, or group, or relationship or transaction in which all parties respect each other's property and person.
Virtually all everyday relationship and transactions (personal and business) are conducted according to the principles of anarchy (no rulers). We all understand and accept that this is the only civilised, moral and consistent way to behave.
We all recognise that to deviate from voluntary relationships and transactions is immoral, anti social, unjust and socially unacceptable. We call such people muggers, rapists, thieves, tyrants and so on.
There is literally no way to argue for the moral legitimacy of such transgressions because such an argument cannot be universalised. A 'moral rule' is first and foremost A RULE (a condition which applies universally). Therefore any behaviour which cannot be universalised (cannot apply to everyone) cannot be said to be a moral rule. This automatically makes statism (any flavour) impossible to defend morally, or even describe in terms of morality.
We cannot say it is right for us ALL to be thieves, rapists or rulers. Such behaviour cannot be universally applicable to all ..... unlike a RESPECT for personhood and property rights, which CAN be universally applicable all.
The only way to create a SYSTEM which deviates from anarchy is to assign UNEQUAL moral rights (AKA 'moral hypocrisy') such that John has the right to rule Sally, and violate her property and person... but Sally does not have the right to rule John.
Thus any moral or legal system deviating from the principle of anarchy is inherently inconsistent, illogical, hypocritical and indefensible. The ONLY way one can defend such a system is with aggression (the initiation of force), which is all statism (any flavour) is.
This is why defenders of statism (of any flavour) must create all sorts of nonsensical words and bogus concepts to disguise the fact that statism (of any flavour) is just thuggery, with absolutely no moral or philosophical justification.
In addition to all sorts of weasel words and weasel concepts a variety of elaborate costumes and rituals (and impressive buildings) are also used to create the sense that the thugs (and their minions) are somehow a separate category of human to everyone else.
But in a rational / moral / philosophical debate we are all naked and equal and costumes, special hats, flags, big buildings etc count for nothing.
You have yet to provide a valid - or even coherent - justification for violating anyone else's property or person. Your last comment was just squid ink, which is the standard response a statist gives when trying to evade the fact that statism is - and can only ever be - indefensible... except through violence (which I hope we can agree does not count as an argument).
Anarchy (no rulers) is quite literally the only form of social interaction / transaction which can be justified with reason (as opposed to violence). Every other form of interaction/ transaction is just thuggery (with or without fancy costumes and weasel words).
You can of course argue that thuggery is the only way humans are capable of interacting/ transacting... but the problem is that 99.999% of human interactions and transactions already occur in a state of anarchy with all parties respecting each other's person and property and enjoying the civilised and pleasant life experience which such interactions create.
The idea that politicians (and monarchy) cannot somehow adhere to the anarchic behaviour that the rest of us already engage in and accept is as normal (and condemn when a transgression occurs) is absurd.
Too simplistic, assuming any kind of government will not work. Also simplistic thinking Libertarianism will work any better. Returning to living like savages is not the answer either.
1. Keep your conversation at the sophomoric level. Sports, trivia, gossip
2. Worship the military. Say "thanks for your service" regardless if the service was about invading a foreign country without cause. Salute our enlisted persons at every city lamp post.
3. Never knock the system -- Capitalism elevated to sacred status
4. Internalize your frustrations. Tell the unfortunate it's "their own damned fault".
5. Read and worship Ayn Rand.
6. Never apologize for the USA.
7. Blame our misfortunes on foreign interference. "They hate us for our freedoms"
8. Believe in our sacred duty of dominating the world. Our exceptionalism.
I think I might have written something to the following before on this site.
The two major parties are a Uniparty feigning opposition. CSPAN is Kabuki Theater. Caitlin called it a puppet show and that's true too.
I know we live in a dystopia and it will get worse before it gets better. A change is going to come eventually. In the meantime I have to ride out the mass psychosis.
I remember 60 years ago, when I was in grade 1, hearing that there were babies starving in Africa. I was totally mortified as only a child can be. Here I am, 60 years later and there are babies starving in Africa. Yet theyve supposedly put "man on the moon", robotic cameras looking for water on the moon, trips into space robotic surgery, etc. I have no words.
Sad to say, this is one of your best, Caitlin. The horrors of which you speak are real and in plain sight and are damnable by any sane human. They can be engaged with and destroyed by real politicians of which we have only one or two around the planet but with not a lot of power as the whole show has been captured by power crazy psychopaths under the umbrella of 'representational politics' or electoral politics if you prefer. These damaged people are attracted to power over our lives as moths are to a flame. The remedy therefore is for us to spread the power around to each of us so we are no longer represented by anyone but ourselves. Peoples' Congresses if you like! Then we'll see a real and profound change in everything. They had such a system in Libya before the madmen and women of the West had to [sadistically] destroy it lest the rest of the world took notice of the outbreak of sanity. Here, I'll put just some of the policies ordinary Libyan people decided upon but before I do remember that tribes in Libya were always at each other's throats before Gaddafi guided them to prosperity and internal peace until the NATO bully boys & girls stuck a middle finger up at Nuremberg's solution to aggressive war criminals such as themselves.
Whoever you vote for you're voting for the same worsening horrorshow as before. Don't vote! Don't encourage these horrible psychopaths and sociopaths! Put the 'Don't Vote!' stickers everywhere. We, the People, are Sovereign and NOT Parliament, Congress, or whatever other nests of vipers think.
I promised you an insight into Libyan politics. Here it comes. Gaddafi only blanket prohibited the practice of usury (the charging of interest on a loan of [imaginary] money) and any form whatsoever of PARTY politics. He encouraged Full Participatory Democracy where people could decide their own futures themselves. Some of the things the people came up with in this real exhibition of socialism were phenomenal but nevertheless quite sensible. Ready? Read this and weep.
♥ No debt to IMF, World Bank or anyone. Libya was independent!
♥ No interest on loans. Banks in Libya were state-owned and loans given at 0% by law.
♥ No electricity bills as electricity was free for all.
♥ All newly married couples in Libya received a free apartment or 60,000 Dinar (U$ 50,000).
♥ Education and medical treatments were free.
♥ Libya achieved the highest literacy rate in the whole of N Africa.
♥ 25% of Libyans had a degree.
♥ Students would be paid the average salary for the profession they were studying for.
♥ If unable to get employment the state would give full salary until employment was found.
♥ If a farming career was sought then farming land, equipment, seeds, livestock would be given for free.
♥ The state subsidised 50% of the cost of cars which were sold at factory cost. No tax.
♥ 40 loaves of bread in Libya cost U$ 0.15
♥ Price of petrol in Libya was U$0.14 per litre
♥ A portion of Libyan oil sale was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
♥ No beggars on the streets and no homelessness.
♥ No external debts with reserves amounting to U$ 150 billion but now stolen and frozen by the psychopaths of the West.
As a footnote I can add that NATO turned this country from a vibrant healthy democracy into a failed state with open air slave markets all on the back of 'democracy'. Now they don't give a tinkers cuss about what goes on there after they aggressively destroyed the civilian population.
It is time to usher in a decent happy peace-loving civilisation or prepare for a horrible radioactive death at the hands of the criminally insane that their hypnotised prey have actually voted into power. There! Pathos *and* Logos. Anything anyone care to add to the Direct Democracy argument?
Some do notice, but choose to laugh as a shield against insanity. And maybe too much solemn commentary on stupidity - just reinforces stupidity. There are fools in this world, many are actually in charge of things, and they need to be ridiculed. I have hope that things will sort out, and that hope is based on the opinion that most people are not sadomasochistic and won't accept punishment for themselves or others - just because they are apart of a demographic that can be exploited. Human rights are for all human beings: people. People living on the street, under bridges or slums is the hallmark of a failed society.
Other people laugh bc they have pseudo bulbar affect, knowing that hordes of half-dead people walking around the streets at night is disturbing and can drive someone insane.
Institutionalized outrage, in addition to distracting the populace, has also proven to be great for fundraising. Nothing else fills the coffers and boosts ratings like good old fashioned outrage.
The left/ right paradigm is a load of nonsense obviously. But that does not mean the things you list are all 'crazy conspiracies'.
It just means the ruling class understand that by dividing up society and turning our opposition to their nefarious agendas into 'left wing' or 'right wing' talking points they effectively divide our opposition to those agendas. And they can even get half the population supporting those nefarious agendas just to 'stick it' to the opposite side of the political aisle.
Trump is a classic example of this technique in action. If the globalists want half the population to support a policy or agenda they just need to have Trump oppose it (or at least say he opposes it). And vice versa.
Many people were opposed to mask wearing, but they wore a mask anyway just because they did not want to be seen as a right wing, pussy grabbing, gun toting, Trump supporter.
Here's another one. Trump supported the use of HCQ. This meant half the population violently opposed its use. This made it easy to ban its use. With alternative treatments all banned, the conditions were put in place to give the vax EUA. No EUA could be granted if alternative treatments were being used.
Thus, Trumps vocal promotion of HCQ (which was bound to generate division and opposition) helped to get the vax approved under EUA. And as we all know Trump is very proud of his vax.
The left/ right paradigm is a kind of technology (a technology of psychology) which the ruling class use to impose their will onto the people. The left / right paradigm ensures society will never be united on any issue, and will constantly fight each other - which is all the ruling class need to push any agenda through.
They don't need our consent to rule us ... they just need our division.
So you are equating shirt/ shoes with masks. But the comparison doesn't work because masks are not normal items of clothing.
Masks interfere with respiration and affect one's physiology profoundly (increasing CO2 levels in the blood, lowering O2, causing headaches, causing acne, tooth decay, lung infections etc). Many people suffered injuries and health issues due to forced mask wearing over the last 3 years. Students collapsing during sporting events, workers getting severe headaches, dizziness and exhaustion etc.
Masks also interfere with essential verbal and non verbal communication. We are social creatures and we rely heavily on facial expressions which masks obviously block. Most of the communication between two interacting humans is non verbal in nature.
As a result, mask wearing over the last 3 years has contributed greatly to anxiety and depression due to a lack of proper human-to-human interaction. Mask wearing parents have literally caused developmental retardation of their children, with reduced verbal and emotional skills being measured among the children of mask wearers.
The famous 'still face' experiment (look it up) observes that babies become extremely agitated and distressed when the mother interacts with a blank facial expression. Babies of mask wearing parents have been severely traumatised and damaged emotionally - literally denied the chance to interact non verbally, which is the only interaction they are capable of at that age. Facial expressions are their main connection to other humans.
Many babies and young children of habitual mask wearers now find an unmasked face highly disturbing and upsetting, as if the mouth and nose are bizarre and offensive orifices that should be covered up. Babies have been observed crying instantly when the parents remove their masks and display their open mouths with teeth and tongues and other 'foreign' body parts.
Masks (unlike shirts and shoes) also represent a powerful narrative about airborne contagion. For over a century now there have been many scientific experiments trying to infect healthy people by exposing them to the snot, coughs, sneezes and lung fluid of people sick with colds and flus. None of these experiments have ever managed to make healthy people sick in this way. Even during the Spanish Flu they tried exposing healthy people to sick people (Rosenau experiments), and had them sit close together, talk, share the same breathe, cough directly in their faces, drink their snot or rub it in their eyes. None of the healthy volunteers got sick.
The results of these experiments have been ignored because ... well... they don't make money for Big Pharma. The theory of contagion is highly profitable - and a great tool of social control. The last 3 years have certainly demonstrated that. A population who believe in airborne contagion is easy to manage and exploit.
Therefore to force people to wear masks is to force them to participate in pseudo science (and highly profitable pseudo science), and more importantly it forces them to PROMOTE that pseudo science by their forced participation in the public mask wearing ritual behaviour.
The contagion model used to justify lockdowns in 2020 came from an experiment conducted by the BBC, various universities and celebrity mathematician Hannah Fry in 2018 involving smartphones, not sick people.
Volunteers downloaded an app which allowed their smartphones to be tracked over a period of weeks, and a model of contagion between smartphones (not people) was created from the data. Had the experiment tried to model contagion between people it would have failed to demonstrate any contagion - just like every other experiment over the last 100 years has failed.
This makes mask wearing a SYMBOLIC act. It signifies belief in a SUPERSTITION, not a scientifically proven phenomenon. It is even worse than being forced to wear a tin foil hat, because at least there is SOME science behind tin foil hat wearing. Tin foil is well known to block certain electromagnetic frequencies. So in theory it would provide some protection from being 'zapped' by aliens.
Would YOU object to being forced to wear a tin foil had to enter a shop, use public transport, see your doctor or keep your job? Would YOU feel it was morally wrong to wear such an item in public, and by doing so help to legitimise people's mass delusion in a hostile alien invasion?
Mask wearing in public created the impression of a 'pandemic', but no more people got sick or died in 2020 than previous years. Mortality rates in many countries (Australia, Ireland, Spain etc) were well below average in 2020. Hospitals were at reduced capacity compared to previous years - as verified by FOIA requests. Many nurses reported being so bored and underworked they just watched Netflix, fell asleep or made tik tok dance videos during 2020.
The seasonal flu (which is not a contagious disease - but rather a natural detox mechanism our bodies undergo on a fairly regular basis) mysteriously 'disappeared' in 2020. It did not really disappear, it just got rebranded as 'covid' - a disease which shares the exact same symptoms as the flu (cough, fever, loss of smell etc).
To be forced to wear a mask is to be forced to participate in a mass delusion. It is therefore NOT comparable to a shirt or shoes. It is more comparable to being forced to wear a tin foil hat in public, or a T shirt with a swastika on it (or any other highly political symbol) or a yellow star sewn onto your clothing (some unvaccinated students were forced to wear yellow stars in a UK school for a while).
Being opposed to masks is NOT a libertarian issue. It is a scientific issue and a health and safety issue. Mask wearing is dirty, filthy, unhealthy habit which causes great harm to the lungs, mouth and brain (due to oxygen starvation and CO2 build up) and it is also completely at odds with science.
It is not a virtuous act. It is hugely destructive and irresponsible.
The right to NOT be forced to breathe in your own CO2 (a waste product) is a basic human right and not a libertarian indulgence. Blocking your airway for extended periods of time is just as dangerous as blocking your anus. Our bodies must be able to excrete waste products!
The reason why masks have a medical connotation is because surgeons used to wear masks to stop blood and pus (and god knows what else) squirting from their patients and entering their mouths during operations. It never had anything to do with preventing supposed 'transmission' of colds and flus.
If you want links to any of the things I have asserted I can provide :)
Neither Team D nor Team R can criticize each other for substantive offenses, because both are guilty of the same offenses.
Take away so-called wedge issues and you couldn't slide a sheet of paper between the two teams, as they basically overlap.
This is why wedge issues are so crucial. Otherwise there's no game to play, no excuse for not giving each faction what they want. In fact, the surest way to make Team R implode is to destroy Team D, and vice versa.
Team R and Team D need each other, just as you can make a perfectly bankable Batman movie without Robin, but you need The Joker or Batman is just a rich weirdo with an unseemly penchant for cosplay.
Trying to convince children they're trans IS an everyday horror, not a conspiracy theory. And it's leaving a very fucked up trail of destruction in its wake. Why aren't ALL kids worth protecting, right now?
You verge on the edge of being guilty of the issue you are looking to expose.
In essence, your piece is saying the Duopoly is as bad as each other, both using biased based issues to divide us. This is without doubt true but then you fail by suggesting one is worse than the other "the right side of the aisle it’s even more ridiculous".
You list some examples of these divisive points which are on the fringes of matters that are much bigger. That we have to ignore these as they are not of the present but worry about nuclear war that is. There's a big contradiction right there. Nuclear war is a concern of the future in the same sense as those issues you are eager to dismiss.
You have a history of dismissing what is happening now as non important. We have just witnessed the greatest crime committed on humanity and yet it's crickets from Caitlin. The largest transfer of wealth and power/control grab. Our liberties under direct assault with flagrant censorship and silencing in mainstream media of anyone speaking out against the chosen narrative. A narrative in itself that is global despite Left/Right leadership yet has also been promoted as a Liberal/Conservative issue. Sadly, too many saw it as that. I am a Lefty that according to the pseudo left is now an extreme right wing Trumper. Caitlin, your introduction seems to have bought into that narrative.
While you make a lot of good points you have a serious blind spot. The culture war is not a distraction. Why did the left abandon peace and start loving Wall Street? It was planned see here
Great article. Did you happen to see or listen to Jimmy Dore with Cornel West? I heard it on Friday and was just crushed. West didn't talk about poverty and shitty wages. I've been walking around in a stupor since then. Caitlin and others say reform or revolution won't come from an elected leader. I must've put a little bit too much hope in Cornel West. Seems his main focus is "fighting facism" and Trump. Utterly depressing. Then Dore tries to steer him to talk about money and poverty. The internet then calls Dore racist. Wtf is going on. I feel like I'm going crazy these days. I listen to RBN (Revolutionary Blackout Network)'s criticism of West/Dore interview. All good in the beginning. Then they get very upset at Dore, because Dore tried to get West off the racism talk. For the love. What in the hell? I am so goddamn sick of racism and trans. How does anybody think talking about those things will help? It's money! Money! Money!
No I didn’t but it is apparent that many people who think that they are aware of what’s going on still buy into large parts of the propaganda. It is very frustrating
"We’ve never known anything besides this abusive dystopia, so we’ve got no perspective on what a healthy society would look like and how very, very far we are from it."
This is the crux of the matter. How to motivate people to actually see the world as it is--not as they've been brainwashed into thinking it is or wish it was. When dystopia is all you know, perhaps the idea of utopia sounds "abusive"? Better the evil you know than the good you don't? We've got to help folks to appreciate the good and walk away from the "lesser evils" we've been told is all the choice we deserve. by the ruling elites. We deserve better. We should demand better.
Just watching a few videos on youtube of other cities in other countries (Dublin, Ireland) for example - will show any American quickly just how much the US has been trashed and exploited by the uber-wealthy who now control both political parties, and determine what laws will get passed in congress. Most Americans do not know easy, affordable access to high-end healthcare, where they won't go bankrupt. Americans do not know decent work conditions and liveable wages, and clean cities without homeless living in tents within a few blocks of them. Many Americans don't realize how egregiously they are being exploited, and how much of their wealth is being used for Imperial domination with bombs and drones in places thousands of miles away from them. There is no reason for such incredible wealth disparity, and such incredible destruction of the once vaunted American standard of living, along with the environment itself. The Greed Is Good doctrine, and every-man-for himself - is an immoral, inhumane way to organize a society - and yet here we are, the results of social darwinism taken to the limit. A few obscenely wealthy, many who rarely even live in the country - and the rest ... nothing more than cheap, working human automatons - dispensed with quickly in old age.
Then you may have to start looking at patriarchy and all it’s consequences which we are seeing now in our devastated planet while our “leaders” dither.
Thank you for a breath of sanity Caitlin. We truly have institutionalized immorality, and an obliviousness to it. People can walk by a hobo and convince themselves that the hobo just 'made bad personal choices.' Not that the structures of our society are actually geared towards making people destitute. There weren't any hobos back in pre-capitalist communal societies. Guess they all just made better 'choices' back then.
There ain't a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties --George C Wallace
I think it was Nader. That’s who I heard say it.
Wallace said it first (1968). He got 13.5% of the vote.
Nader never says "ain't."
When he was right, he was right.
Agree with everything here, Caitlin -- you are correct as usual. Except I think the World Economic Forum and it's very real plan to restrict meat eating to the privileged elites and relegate the rest of us to consuming bugs for our protein, is -- along with the rest of their evil designs -- something worth protesting and worrying about. Too true that, as you always point out, it is an illusion that any real differences exist between Democrats and Republicans and therefore we should not look to either party (or any other President, or even Congress) to solve our problems. But Klaus Schwab is truly scary...
I'm not sure why eating bugs is seen as a bad thing. Lots of cultures have dishes with insects as protein in them. I've eaten crickets baked into chips and they were quite tasty. And insects do not take up huge grasslands, create methane from their digestive processes, or get fed grains that could be people food instead. Insects cuisine sounds like an environmentally friendly alternative.
"I'm not sure why eating bugs is seen as a bad thing."
Weird and potentially hazardous sexual fetishes are not a bad thing either. The bad thing is when they are forced on other people without their fully informed consent.
Klaus Schwab (and his technocratic cronies) wanting everyone to eat bugs is no different to them wanting to piss on everyone to satisfy their sexual fetish for golden showers.
The sign of a thoroughly demoralised population is when they say "Well, golden showers are not really such a terrible sexual fetish. I don't see the problem with Klaus and his cronies pissing on us".
The sign of a healthy and spirited population is when they say "Fuck being pissed on. Fuck eating bugs. Fuck your 15 minute concentration camps. Fuck your digital ID and digital vouchers. Fuck your facial recognition and surveillance grid. Fuck your pronouns. Fuck your de-gendering of language and the youth. Fuck your lockdowns. Fuck your technocracy. We're not doing it thank you very much. Let me show you to the door."
I suggest you do some research on psychopathy and human psychology.... and in particular how the victims of psychopaths have a tendency to trauma bond with their abusers and rationalise their own abuse.
The only reason we are talking about eating bugs is because it was deliberately introduced into the story as it's ridiculous and gross. Klaus and his vanity project (who have no actual power) was chosen, and play up to, the role as evil, mad, nazi villain, as he is kinda weird and has a Germanic accent. If we decide we should eat less dead animals we can flourish on beans, nuts, fruit and veg, there is no need to start eating insects. Do we think the hugely powerful animal ag/pharma/agrochemcial industry really wants us eating worms?
"Klaus and his vanity project (who have no actual power)"
Klaus Schwab's 'young global leaders' program reads like a 'who's who' of presidents and prime ministers over the last 30 years. A couple of years ago Schwab boasted that half of the Canadian government had gone through his WEF indoctrination program and were essentially tools (puppets) of the WEF.
He spoke of the WEF 'penetrating' the governments of the world, as well as media, business and industry.
When a Canadian politician tried to bring up the subject of WEF's influence over Canadian politicians his mic was swiftly cut. To find out who has power, just look for who you're not allowed to criticise. WHO, WEF, UN etc are a de facto world government already.
Schwab's 'global shapers' program is also putting young people (useful idiots) into all key positions in tech, industry and media. This means they will all be brainwashed into championing climate change, smart cities, digital everything etc and they will give it a fresh, trendy vibe .... essential for getting support from young people - exactly like all those SM influencers who were paid to promote the vax.
It's not a 'vanity project'. It's technocracy. It's digital feudalism.
"(Schwab) ... was chosen, and play up to, the role as evil, mad, nazi villain, as he is kinda weird and has a Germanic accent"
No. The 'young global shapers' were chosen to be the face of the WEF's technocracy agenda so the public would not be put off by Schwab's creepy vibes. Schwab speaks mostly to political puppets and movers and shakers in the business world. His brainwashed army of 'global shapers' and 'young global leaders' are the ones implementing it all at the coal face.
" If we decide we should eat less dead animals we can flourish on beans, nuts, fruit and veg, there is no need to start eating insects."
The issue is not a debate over dietary choice. The issue is not having dietary choice taken away by force.
"Do we think the hugely powerful animal ag/pharma/agrochemcial industry really wants us eating worms?"
These are not normal businesses like your neighbour selling free range eggs at the garden gate. Normal business models do not apply.
These corporations are all part of the globalist network (at the top level) and so are not bound by normal free market incentives. Even supermarket chains, airlines and the healthcare system are more beholden to the globalists than they are the consumer. The lockdowns should have made that obvious, if it wasn't already.
Case in point if Trudeau and his government is so anti-oil and wishing to control us with (real) climate change why has 'According to one recent study, Canada’s federal and provincial governments funnelled over C$23 billion (US$18.5 billion) in subsidies to three major oil and gas pipeline projects in just the past three years, much of it to the Trans Mountain expansion.' (which even industry say is uneconomic) and why does 'In British Columbia, Trudeau also back LNG Canada, a massive gas pipeline and liquified natural gas (LNG) export project. LNG Canada and the associated Coastal GasLink Pipeline are fiercely opposed by the Wet'suwet'en First Nation hereditary chiefs, whose territory the pipeline will cross.' https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/justin-trudeau-thinks-he-s-climate-champion-even-he-builds-oil-pipelines#:~:text=Trudeau%20has%20also%20given%20unflinching,is%20facing%20scrutiny%20in%20Michigan.
Could the WEF saga of evil, controlling villains allegedly using faked climate change be about getting us up in arms over any attempt to curb industry even if it crosses First Nation land and destroys the environment (and even if supposedly indoctrinated leaders are carrying on with business as usual and supporting big fossil fuel)?
Politics only appears to make no sense if you believe the politicians believe the things they say.
The WEF is neither for or against industry. They are for technocracy. They are for industry that suits their agenda and against industry that does not suit their agenda.
The do not care about people or the environment.
The global leaders programs seems to be about networking for people already running large companies, a 2 week jolly at Harvard and marketing for the WEF 'community' https://www.younggloballeaders.org/the-journey
Hook, line and sinker.
I am curious what you think would happen if oil and gas were removed from society today ?
Some magical moment when John Kerry snaps his fingers at his waiting climate butler and poof oil and gas no longer existed ?
https://www.redbubble.com/i/greeting-card/Dr-Evil-Klaus-Schwab-WEF-by-CanadaWide/124076350.5MT14
Yeah, locusts taste like shrimp on the barbie. ;-)
You're missing the forest, 'cause the bugs. It's about choice - about choosing to continue to prop up people that strive to take that beautiful burden away. Boiled cicada might taste like pumpkin goddam pie, but imagine not even knowing what butterfly pork is, let alone losing the option.
Darren—You’re missing the idea that “choice” is for the privileged. Us anglos get to choose!!! Goddammit! Most of the world does not have the privilege to “choose” meat over less devastating proteins. Can you base your argument on anything other than you want your privileges?
Most of the world does not have the privilege to “choose” meat
What a condescending and first world thing to say., you think that western white people are the inventors of eating meat ? Cattle domestication began in the 9th century BC in southwest asia. But lets be a little less western centric, human beings have been eating meat worldwide since long before the neolithic transition. Recent research suggests that human brain size growth is directly attributable to animal fats. Without humans eating animals we might not even be able to have a conversation.
A complete non-sequitur. And a defense of meat based on research paid for by the meat industry. Uffda.
Not a defense of the meat industry, a recognition that meat has been a part of the human diet for a very long time. You apparently are so hung up on the politics of it that you can't admit the truth of a historical fact.
Cubans have a hard time getting red meat because:
In 1963 the government made it illegal for Cubans to slaughter their cows or sell beef and byproducts without state permission. It is government regulation and bureaucracy preventing access not industry.
Imagine being a vegetarian or a vegan and not knowing how good the taste of organic fruits and vegetables are...
When given the choice, most cultures move away from eating insects. It doesn't seem to be a natural human preference.
I ate bugs when I was a kitten and before I learned to hunt properly.
Schwab is downright creepy. He should be added to Caitlin's hypothetical execution list.
'evil designs' been reading too much Dan Brown? Caitlin is right; this Satanic plot is absurd. The alleged plan to stop us eating unsustainable and environmentally destructive dead animal flesh was created by the industry machine to increase demand and price for their products in the face of overwhelming indications against doing so. Any 'protest' will be on behalf of animal ag and it's very closely related industries big pharma and big agrochemicals.
You often make some very valuable criticisms of the bureaucratic stranglehold on information, corruption and propaganda. This post shines a bright light on your obvious fixation/bias against what you call the “right” or “conservatives”. Both right and left are comprised of power hungry politicians and bureaucratic opportunists. You seem to believe capitalism is inherently evil while socialism is altruistic. The hierarchical nature of all organizations both government and corporate are inherently predisposed to corruption and domination. There is no form of government as yet devised that has demonstrated its ability to avoid ultimate domination of the masses by the “clever”.
No socialist government has ever come to power in a global environment that wasn’t dominated by capitalist, fanatically anti-socialist forces. When you equate the atrocities of a revolutionary regime with the routine aggression of the imperialist forces, you ought to recognize the paranoia and treacherous fear imparted by the enemy with the bigger budgets, the bigger guns and countless proxies.
The right-wing response to any legitimate criticism of capitalism is always “the alternative is worse,” and this is demonstrably true because the hegemon will always make the rebel pay. You need look no further than Cuba, which was driven into Soviet sanctuary by the credible threat of annihilation by the “freedom-loving” America. And for its commitment to remain a sovereign state, it has remained under a criminal economic embargo since its revolution.
A socialist government in a de-nuclearized global environment has no mandate, no imperative to initiate aggression, and we all know that capitalism cannot make any such claim.
https://www.ianwelsh.net/7-rules-for-running-a-real-left-wing-government/
Useful for any government outside the Overton Window.
That's sort of the point if you read the article.
Especially since “the masses” are all too willing to surrender their autonomy and their responsibility to their country as soon as they get bourgeois comfy. Comfort and convenience has been a lot more effective in taking down the US Bill of Rights and governance than guns and jackboots in the street. That treatment we reserve for those who have fought the empire for centuries—Blacks and natives. And Caitlin ain’t no Ida B. Wells.
Then don't have a state and don't have property rights that a state would have to guarantee.
Seriously, you Christian lot are quite the opposite of what peak human performance looks like so maybe you have no business determining what human social reproduction looks like. The problem is not that we haven't been emulating you well enough, I can guarantee that.
The only problem with Christianity is that it hasn't been tried yet.
Actually, it has been tried but every time it is, it tends to lead to martyrdom for those who try it because it runs so counter to the 'Official Narrative'.
Those who push the 'Official Narrative' feel threatened by the loss of revenue that would arise if, God forbid! the practice of a genuine form of Christianity might catch on!
"Then don't have a state and don't have property rights that a state would have to guarantee."
The state does not guarantee property rights. It continuously violates them. The only thing it guarantees is that it will enforce its MONOPOLY on violating your property rights (a monopoly on theft called 'taxation').
But it even fails at this, by failing to adequately police most cities. And also by incentivising crime, single mother households and social breakdown with welfare (forced redistribution of stolen wealth) and social programs (state schools etc).
When crime gets really bad people run to the state asking it for more 'protection'. Thus the state continues to grow in size and scope based on its failure to protect anyone from anything (including the state)...... and the downward spiral continues.
A state which protected property rights would be a state of anarchy. Anarchy is what happens when we agree that everyone has equal rights. Equal property rights. Equal personhood rights. Equal bodily autonomy rights. And so on.
In a state of anarchy police would protect your property and personhood. And you would pay them voluntarily for their services. And you would have a contract drawn up between you to this effect, outlining each other's responsibilities .... just like you already use with any other service provider.
Policing is, after all, just another service. We already have a private security industry so its not like we are not capable of organising our own police protection and paying for it.
Rights don't exist without a liberal state, you neoliberal fascist regard. There is no such thing as natural law, and if there were, it wouldn't read at all like Christian theology. Have you ever read any material on the philosophy of law or are you just another whiny self-important middle class loser?
Your ancap shit is just the heroic complex of mental illnesses fashioned into a Protestant form, and is nothing but a meme. Under anarchy, police wouldn't exist, and those that tried would be seen as illegitimate warlords and destroyed rather quickly, and all you useless slaver fucks would be best served with barbeque sauce on a brioche bun.
"Rights don't exist without a liberal state"
Rights don't exist full stop. 'Rights' are just an agreement to respect each other's property and person, and to condemn those who violate the same. Rights cannot be bestowed, only recognised (or not) and protected (or not).
A 'state' which respects the property and personhood rights of its population would be a state of anarchy, by definition. With EQUAL rights for all there can be no concept of legitimate rulers. With no legitimate rulers the concept of a state also has no legitimacy.
"Have you ever read any material on the philosophy of law or are you just another whiny self-important middle class loser?"
The phrase 'middle class loser' is not an argument.
"Your ancap shit"
Again, you are not making an argument.
"..... heroic complex of mental illnesses fashioned into a Protestant form, and is nothing but a meme."
Still no argument.
"Under anarchy, police wouldn't exist"
If by 'policing' you mean a service industry which offer protection to person and property, then this service is entirely compatible with a state of anarchy. In fact, protecting person and property rights from would-be rulers (tyrants, mafias, kings etc) is precisely the way to achieve and protect a state of anarchy.
If by 'policing' you mean a group of thugs who protect the state's monopoly on legalised theft and violence, then of course this is is not compatible with anarchy.
"....and those that tried would be seen as illegitimate warlords and destroyed rather quickly"
Anyone is welcome to 'see' a private (free market) police service as 'illegitimate warlords', just as they are welcome to 'see' free market bakers, plumbers and electricians as 'illegitimate warlords' as well. But as long as the police, bakers, plumbers or electricians are not violating anyone's property or person nobody has the right to 'destroy' them. To attempt such a thing is attempted murder.
".... and all you useless slaver fucks would be best served with barbeque sauce on a brioche bun."
Again, you are not making an argument.
I can assure you that if you lived in a society where it was generally agreed that murder, theft, extortion, rape, assault and 'destroying' service providers were immoral and socially unacceptable ways to behave you would not dare to behave in those ways.
And if you did the police would arrest you and put you in jail, same as if you tried to murder a policeman in our current statist society.
An anarchic society is MORE morally consistent than a statist society, therefore crime would be EVEN LESS tolerated than it is now. Your notions of a 'Mad Max' type of society make no sense.
This is your logic: the abolition of violent rulers would result in even more violent rulers.
By your logic the abolition of slavery would result in even more slavery. The abolition of monarchy would result in even more kings and queens. And the abolition of child labour in mines would result in even more child labour in mines.
This logic makes no sense.
>A 'state' which respects the property and personhood rights of its population would be a state of anarchy
No such sovereign state of property protection can exist because it is not the sovereign's business to respect anything. That relation flows the other way, social contract theory notwithstanding. Further, property does not exist without recognition, same as every other right. One of the mechanisms used to recognize property is the official record. Anyone can keep a copy of something; it takes ontological fuckery like priests and mysics to keep "truth".
There are two different definitions of state-ness that you are conflating here, and to do so only proves that you are a liar who is speaking only for their property interests. The rest of your effete verbal dance you call an argument rests upon the idea of private property as a Form, something that we delude ourselves is real, and before which the oversocialized and overeducated elite liberal arts faculties apparently cannot resist falling to their knees trembling. That, I consider one of several slave theories generated by Platonism and its successors, all of which I therefore, along with his entire cosmic doctrine, reject as unnecessary.
Formal debate is a sign of people who aren't doing enough primary production and need to be forced into it by their peers.
Of course anarchy will work better, but capitalism (defined as the separation of labor from its conditions, not whatever emotional humbug Mises, John Bates Clark, and other capitalist ideologues want us to feel) is an aristocratic form, which defeats the purpose of anarchy.
Anarchy is a description of any society, or group, or relationship or transaction in which all parties respect each other's property and person.
Virtually all everyday relationship and transactions (personal and business) are conducted according to the principles of anarchy (no rulers). We all understand and accept that this is the only civilised, moral and consistent way to behave.
We all recognise that to deviate from voluntary relationships and transactions is immoral, anti social, unjust and socially unacceptable. We call such people muggers, rapists, thieves, tyrants and so on.
There is literally no way to argue for the moral legitimacy of such transgressions because such an argument cannot be universalised. A 'moral rule' is first and foremost A RULE (a condition which applies universally). Therefore any behaviour which cannot be universalised (cannot apply to everyone) cannot be said to be a moral rule. This automatically makes statism (any flavour) impossible to defend morally, or even describe in terms of morality.
We cannot say it is right for us ALL to be thieves, rapists or rulers. Such behaviour cannot be universally applicable to all ..... unlike a RESPECT for personhood and property rights, which CAN be universally applicable all.
The only way to create a SYSTEM which deviates from anarchy is to assign UNEQUAL moral rights (AKA 'moral hypocrisy') such that John has the right to rule Sally, and violate her property and person... but Sally does not have the right to rule John.
Thus any moral or legal system deviating from the principle of anarchy is inherently inconsistent, illogical, hypocritical and indefensible. The ONLY way one can defend such a system is with aggression (the initiation of force), which is all statism (any flavour) is.
This is why defenders of statism (of any flavour) must create all sorts of nonsensical words and bogus concepts to disguise the fact that statism (of any flavour) is just thuggery, with absolutely no moral or philosophical justification.
In addition to all sorts of weasel words and weasel concepts a variety of elaborate costumes and rituals (and impressive buildings) are also used to create the sense that the thugs (and their minions) are somehow a separate category of human to everyone else.
But in a rational / moral / philosophical debate we are all naked and equal and costumes, special hats, flags, big buildings etc count for nothing.
You have yet to provide a valid - or even coherent - justification for violating anyone else's property or person. Your last comment was just squid ink, which is the standard response a statist gives when trying to evade the fact that statism is - and can only ever be - indefensible... except through violence (which I hope we can agree does not count as an argument).
Anarchy (no rulers) is quite literally the only form of social interaction / transaction which can be justified with reason (as opposed to violence). Every other form of interaction/ transaction is just thuggery (with or without fancy costumes and weasel words).
You can of course argue that thuggery is the only way humans are capable of interacting/ transacting... but the problem is that 99.999% of human interactions and transactions already occur in a state of anarchy with all parties respecting each other's person and property and enjoying the civilised and pleasant life experience which such interactions create.
The idea that politicians (and monarchy) cannot somehow adhere to the anarchic behaviour that the rest of us already engage in and accept is as normal (and condemn when a transgression occurs) is absurd.
Too simplistic, assuming any kind of government will not work. Also simplistic thinking Libertarianism will work any better. Returning to living like savages is not the answer either.
Jamenta, what is living like a savage?
Believing you can live on the fucking North Pole on your own Erica Shugart.
I guess I didn’t know that my ancestors did that. Thought people living in harsh geographical environments banned together. ..
Rules to follow to survive in America
1. Keep your conversation at the sophomoric level. Sports, trivia, gossip
2. Worship the military. Say "thanks for your service" regardless if the service was about invading a foreign country without cause. Salute our enlisted persons at every city lamp post.
3. Never knock the system -- Capitalism elevated to sacred status
4. Internalize your frustrations. Tell the unfortunate it's "their own damned fault".
5. Read and worship Ayn Rand.
6. Never apologize for the USA.
7. Blame our misfortunes on foreign interference. "They hate us for our freedoms"
8. Believe in our sacred duty of dominating the world. Our exceptionalism.
.
I think I might have written something to the following before on this site.
The two major parties are a Uniparty feigning opposition. CSPAN is Kabuki Theater. Caitlin called it a puppet show and that's true too.
I know we live in a dystopia and it will get worse before it gets better. A change is going to come eventually. In the meantime I have to ride out the mass psychosis.
I remember 60 years ago, when I was in grade 1, hearing that there were babies starving in Africa. I was totally mortified as only a child can be. Here I am, 60 years later and there are babies starving in Africa. Yet theyve supposedly put "man on the moon", robotic cameras looking for water on the moon, trips into space robotic surgery, etc. I have no words.
Highly recommend the RFK book The Real Anthony Fauci - covers Africa extensively.
Babies and children and adults and elderly starving in the USA.
Sad to say, this is one of your best, Caitlin. The horrors of which you speak are real and in plain sight and are damnable by any sane human. They can be engaged with and destroyed by real politicians of which we have only one or two around the planet but with not a lot of power as the whole show has been captured by power crazy psychopaths under the umbrella of 'representational politics' or electoral politics if you prefer. These damaged people are attracted to power over our lives as moths are to a flame. The remedy therefore is for us to spread the power around to each of us so we are no longer represented by anyone but ourselves. Peoples' Congresses if you like! Then we'll see a real and profound change in everything. They had such a system in Libya before the madmen and women of the West had to [sadistically] destroy it lest the rest of the world took notice of the outbreak of sanity. Here, I'll put just some of the policies ordinary Libyan people decided upon but before I do remember that tribes in Libya were always at each other's throats before Gaddafi guided them to prosperity and internal peace until the NATO bully boys & girls stuck a middle finger up at Nuremberg's solution to aggressive war criminals such as themselves.
Whoever you vote for you're voting for the same worsening horrorshow as before. Don't vote! Don't encourage these horrible psychopaths and sociopaths! Put the 'Don't Vote!' stickers everywhere. We, the People, are Sovereign and NOT Parliament, Congress, or whatever other nests of vipers think.
I promised you an insight into Libyan politics. Here it comes. Gaddafi only blanket prohibited the practice of usury (the charging of interest on a loan of [imaginary] money) and any form whatsoever of PARTY politics. He encouraged Full Participatory Democracy where people could decide their own futures themselves. Some of the things the people came up with in this real exhibition of socialism were phenomenal but nevertheless quite sensible. Ready? Read this and weep.
♥ No debt to IMF, World Bank or anyone. Libya was independent!
♥ No interest on loans. Banks in Libya were state-owned and loans given at 0% by law.
♥ No electricity bills as electricity was free for all.
♥ All newly married couples in Libya received a free apartment or 60,000 Dinar (U$ 50,000).
♥ Education and medical treatments were free.
♥ Libya achieved the highest literacy rate in the whole of N Africa.
♥ 25% of Libyans had a degree.
♥ Students would be paid the average salary for the profession they were studying for.
♥ If unable to get employment the state would give full salary until employment was found.
♥ If a farming career was sought then farming land, equipment, seeds, livestock would be given for free.
♥ The state subsidised 50% of the cost of cars which were sold at factory cost. No tax.
♥ 40 loaves of bread in Libya cost U$ 0.15
♥ Price of petrol in Libya was U$0.14 per litre
♥ A portion of Libyan oil sale was credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
♥ No beggars on the streets and no homelessness.
♥ No external debts with reserves amounting to U$ 150 billion but now stolen and frozen by the psychopaths of the West.
His Green Book is here should you wish to know how to facilitate similar in your own country: http://openanthropology.org/libya/gaddafi-green-book.pdf
As a footnote I can add that NATO turned this country from a vibrant healthy democracy into a failed state with open air slave markets all on the back of 'democracy'. Now they don't give a tinkers cuss about what goes on there after they aggressively destroyed the civilian population.
It is time to usher in a decent happy peace-loving civilisation or prepare for a horrible radioactive death at the hands of the criminally insane that their hypnotised prey have actually voted into power. There! Pathos *and* Logos. Anything anyone care to add to the Direct Democracy argument?
Some do notice, but choose to laugh as a shield against insanity. And maybe too much solemn commentary on stupidity - just reinforces stupidity. There are fools in this world, many are actually in charge of things, and they need to be ridiculed. I have hope that things will sort out, and that hope is based on the opinion that most people are not sadomasochistic and won't accept punishment for themselves or others - just because they are apart of a demographic that can be exploited. Human rights are for all human beings: people. People living on the street, under bridges or slums is the hallmark of a failed society.
Other people laugh bc they have pseudo bulbar affect, knowing that hordes of half-dead people walking around the streets at night is disturbing and can drive someone insane.
Right. You can only take so much reality, at a time.
Institutionalized outrage, in addition to distracting the populace, has also proven to be great for fundraising. Nothing else fills the coffers and boosts ratings like good old fashioned outrage.
The left/ right paradigm is a load of nonsense obviously. But that does not mean the things you list are all 'crazy conspiracies'.
It just means the ruling class understand that by dividing up society and turning our opposition to their nefarious agendas into 'left wing' or 'right wing' talking points they effectively divide our opposition to those agendas. And they can even get half the population supporting those nefarious agendas just to 'stick it' to the opposite side of the political aisle.
Trump is a classic example of this technique in action. If the globalists want half the population to support a policy or agenda they just need to have Trump oppose it (or at least say he opposes it). And vice versa.
Many people were opposed to mask wearing, but they wore a mask anyway just because they did not want to be seen as a right wing, pussy grabbing, gun toting, Trump supporter.
Here's another one. Trump supported the use of HCQ. This meant half the population violently opposed its use. This made it easy to ban its use. With alternative treatments all banned, the conditions were put in place to give the vax EUA. No EUA could be granted if alternative treatments were being used.
Thus, Trumps vocal promotion of HCQ (which was bound to generate division and opposition) helped to get the vax approved under EUA. And as we all know Trump is very proud of his vax.
The left/ right paradigm is a kind of technology (a technology of psychology) which the ruling class use to impose their will onto the people. The left / right paradigm ensures society will never be united on any issue, and will constantly fight each other - which is all the ruling class need to push any agenda through.
They don't need our consent to rule us ... they just need our division.
So you are equating shirt/ shoes with masks. But the comparison doesn't work because masks are not normal items of clothing.
Masks interfere with respiration and affect one's physiology profoundly (increasing CO2 levels in the blood, lowering O2, causing headaches, causing acne, tooth decay, lung infections etc). Many people suffered injuries and health issues due to forced mask wearing over the last 3 years. Students collapsing during sporting events, workers getting severe headaches, dizziness and exhaustion etc.
Masks also interfere with essential verbal and non verbal communication. We are social creatures and we rely heavily on facial expressions which masks obviously block. Most of the communication between two interacting humans is non verbal in nature.
As a result, mask wearing over the last 3 years has contributed greatly to anxiety and depression due to a lack of proper human-to-human interaction. Mask wearing parents have literally caused developmental retardation of their children, with reduced verbal and emotional skills being measured among the children of mask wearers.
The famous 'still face' experiment (look it up) observes that babies become extremely agitated and distressed when the mother interacts with a blank facial expression. Babies of mask wearing parents have been severely traumatised and damaged emotionally - literally denied the chance to interact non verbally, which is the only interaction they are capable of at that age. Facial expressions are their main connection to other humans.
Many babies and young children of habitual mask wearers now find an unmasked face highly disturbing and upsetting, as if the mouth and nose are bizarre and offensive orifices that should be covered up. Babies have been observed crying instantly when the parents remove their masks and display their open mouths with teeth and tongues and other 'foreign' body parts.
Masks (unlike shirts and shoes) also represent a powerful narrative about airborne contagion. For over a century now there have been many scientific experiments trying to infect healthy people by exposing them to the snot, coughs, sneezes and lung fluid of people sick with colds and flus. None of these experiments have ever managed to make healthy people sick in this way. Even during the Spanish Flu they tried exposing healthy people to sick people (Rosenau experiments), and had them sit close together, talk, share the same breathe, cough directly in their faces, drink their snot or rub it in their eyes. None of the healthy volunteers got sick.
The results of these experiments have been ignored because ... well... they don't make money for Big Pharma. The theory of contagion is highly profitable - and a great tool of social control. The last 3 years have certainly demonstrated that. A population who believe in airborne contagion is easy to manage and exploit.
Therefore to force people to wear masks is to force them to participate in pseudo science (and highly profitable pseudo science), and more importantly it forces them to PROMOTE that pseudo science by their forced participation in the public mask wearing ritual behaviour.
The contagion model used to justify lockdowns in 2020 came from an experiment conducted by the BBC, various universities and celebrity mathematician Hannah Fry in 2018 involving smartphones, not sick people.
Volunteers downloaded an app which allowed their smartphones to be tracked over a period of weeks, and a model of contagion between smartphones (not people) was created from the data. Had the experiment tried to model contagion between people it would have failed to demonstrate any contagion - just like every other experiment over the last 100 years has failed.
This makes mask wearing a SYMBOLIC act. It signifies belief in a SUPERSTITION, not a scientifically proven phenomenon. It is even worse than being forced to wear a tin foil hat, because at least there is SOME science behind tin foil hat wearing. Tin foil is well known to block certain electromagnetic frequencies. So in theory it would provide some protection from being 'zapped' by aliens.
Would YOU object to being forced to wear a tin foil had to enter a shop, use public transport, see your doctor or keep your job? Would YOU feel it was morally wrong to wear such an item in public, and by doing so help to legitimise people's mass delusion in a hostile alien invasion?
Mask wearing in public created the impression of a 'pandemic', but no more people got sick or died in 2020 than previous years. Mortality rates in many countries (Australia, Ireland, Spain etc) were well below average in 2020. Hospitals were at reduced capacity compared to previous years - as verified by FOIA requests. Many nurses reported being so bored and underworked they just watched Netflix, fell asleep or made tik tok dance videos during 2020.
The seasonal flu (which is not a contagious disease - but rather a natural detox mechanism our bodies undergo on a fairly regular basis) mysteriously 'disappeared' in 2020. It did not really disappear, it just got rebranded as 'covid' - a disease which shares the exact same symptoms as the flu (cough, fever, loss of smell etc).
To be forced to wear a mask is to be forced to participate in a mass delusion. It is therefore NOT comparable to a shirt or shoes. It is more comparable to being forced to wear a tin foil hat in public, or a T shirt with a swastika on it (or any other highly political symbol) or a yellow star sewn onto your clothing (some unvaccinated students were forced to wear yellow stars in a UK school for a while).
Being opposed to masks is NOT a libertarian issue. It is a scientific issue and a health and safety issue. Mask wearing is dirty, filthy, unhealthy habit which causes great harm to the lungs, mouth and brain (due to oxygen starvation and CO2 build up) and it is also completely at odds with science.
It is not a virtuous act. It is hugely destructive and irresponsible.
The right to NOT be forced to breathe in your own CO2 (a waste product) is a basic human right and not a libertarian indulgence. Blocking your airway for extended periods of time is just as dangerous as blocking your anus. Our bodies must be able to excrete waste products!
The reason why masks have a medical connotation is because surgeons used to wear masks to stop blood and pus (and god knows what else) squirting from their patients and entering their mouths during operations. It never had anything to do with preventing supposed 'transmission' of colds and flus.
If you want links to any of the things I have asserted I can provide :)
Neither Team D nor Team R can criticize each other for substantive offenses, because both are guilty of the same offenses.
Take away so-called wedge issues and you couldn't slide a sheet of paper between the two teams, as they basically overlap.
This is why wedge issues are so crucial. Otherwise there's no game to play, no excuse for not giving each faction what they want. In fact, the surest way to make Team R implode is to destroy Team D, and vice versa.
Team R and Team D need each other, just as you can make a perfectly bankable Batman movie without Robin, but you need The Joker or Batman is just a rich weirdo with an unseemly penchant for cosplay.
Trying to convince children they're trans IS an everyday horror, not a conspiracy theory. And it's leaving a very fucked up trail of destruction in its wake. Why aren't ALL kids worth protecting, right now?
You verge on the edge of being guilty of the issue you are looking to expose.
In essence, your piece is saying the Duopoly is as bad as each other, both using biased based issues to divide us. This is without doubt true but then you fail by suggesting one is worse than the other "the right side of the aisle it’s even more ridiculous".
You list some examples of these divisive points which are on the fringes of matters that are much bigger. That we have to ignore these as they are not of the present but worry about nuclear war that is. There's a big contradiction right there. Nuclear war is a concern of the future in the same sense as those issues you are eager to dismiss.
You have a history of dismissing what is happening now as non important. We have just witnessed the greatest crime committed on humanity and yet it's crickets from Caitlin. The largest transfer of wealth and power/control grab. Our liberties under direct assault with flagrant censorship and silencing in mainstream media of anyone speaking out against the chosen narrative. A narrative in itself that is global despite Left/Right leadership yet has also been promoted as a Liberal/Conservative issue. Sadly, too many saw it as that. I am a Lefty that according to the pseudo left is now an extreme right wing Trumper. Caitlin, your introduction seems to have bought into that narrative.
While you make a lot of good points you have a serious blind spot. The culture war is not a distraction. Why did the left abandon peace and start loving Wall Street? It was planned see here
https://pamho.medium.com/the-new-progressive-world-order-or-rage-against-the-deux-ex-machina-983e73905f9b
Great article. Did you happen to see or listen to Jimmy Dore with Cornel West? I heard it on Friday and was just crushed. West didn't talk about poverty and shitty wages. I've been walking around in a stupor since then. Caitlin and others say reform or revolution won't come from an elected leader. I must've put a little bit too much hope in Cornel West. Seems his main focus is "fighting facism" and Trump. Utterly depressing. Then Dore tries to steer him to talk about money and poverty. The internet then calls Dore racist. Wtf is going on. I feel like I'm going crazy these days. I listen to RBN (Revolutionary Blackout Network)'s criticism of West/Dore interview. All good in the beginning. Then they get very upset at Dore, because Dore tried to get West off the racism talk. For the love. What in the hell? I am so goddamn sick of racism and trans. How does anybody think talking about those things will help? It's money! Money! Money!
No I didn’t but it is apparent that many people who think that they are aware of what’s going on still buy into large parts of the propaganda. It is very frustrating
Lord have mercy is it ever.
"We’ve never known anything besides this abusive dystopia, so we’ve got no perspective on what a healthy society would look like and how very, very far we are from it."
This is the crux of the matter. How to motivate people to actually see the world as it is--not as they've been brainwashed into thinking it is or wish it was. When dystopia is all you know, perhaps the idea of utopia sounds "abusive"? Better the evil you know than the good you don't? We've got to help folks to appreciate the good and walk away from the "lesser evils" we've been told is all the choice we deserve. by the ruling elites. We deserve better. We should demand better.
Just watching a few videos on youtube of other cities in other countries (Dublin, Ireland) for example - will show any American quickly just how much the US has been trashed and exploited by the uber-wealthy who now control both political parties, and determine what laws will get passed in congress. Most Americans do not know easy, affordable access to high-end healthcare, where they won't go bankrupt. Americans do not know decent work conditions and liveable wages, and clean cities without homeless living in tents within a few blocks of them. Many Americans don't realize how egregiously they are being exploited, and how much of their wealth is being used for Imperial domination with bombs and drones in places thousands of miles away from them. There is no reason for such incredible wealth disparity, and such incredible destruction of the once vaunted American standard of living, along with the environment itself. The Greed Is Good doctrine, and every-man-for himself - is an immoral, inhumane way to organize a society - and yet here we are, the results of social darwinism taken to the limit. A few obscenely wealthy, many who rarely even live in the country - and the rest ... nothing more than cheap, working human automatons - dispensed with quickly in old age.
Objectivism is the religion of the rich.
Then you may have to start looking at patriarchy and all it’s consequences which we are seeing now in our devastated planet while our “leaders” dither.
While Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland spread love and peace. Why resist their beneficence?
Notice the sound of crickets instead of massive protests in the streets?