Democrats seem to believe that there is a collective “We” that can be known and that the purpose of policy is to best serve that “We”. I do not necessarily hate that impulse. Of course we should look out for each other.
Many 1950s traditional “big R” Republicans believe that the best way to arrive at “We” is through hierarchical institutions — the military, churches, corporations, and membership organizations (Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions, Boy Scouts).
But depending on how they are set up, hierarchical institutions often suppress individual viewpoints and talents. Sometimes the whole is much less than the sum of the parts so it’s just a different bunch of players in control (than the Democratic technocrats) but it’s a society run by an elite top-down cadre nonetheless.
Only “small r” libertarian republicans tend to understand the sacred role of the individual in society and how protecting individual rights can also produce the best overall outcomes for society. There are lots of “small r” republican elected officials in state governments in red and purple states and they tend to be the biggest defenders of medical freedom.
I think there is an extraordinary opportunity here for a political realignment that rejects the technocratic impulse of the Democratic Party and the institutional impulse of the Republican party and instead coalesces around the sacred rights of individuals to make medical decisions (and all decisions) for themselves. This new political movement unites “small r” republicans and former progressive democrats who became politically homeless when the Democratic Party abandoned its principles and slid into Pharma fascism.
Indeed I think that this new political realignment is already happening and that political candidates who realize this and embrace it will be rewarded by voters in November and beyond.
A “return to our roots” may be inevitable as our institutions, through the moral bankruptcy of those who control them, collapse. I predict a slide into the modern equivalent of the dark ages. Sure, we may have “technology” but it will be impossible (or at the least very unwise) to trust those who control it. We may be left with the hollowed-out hulls of universities, courts, government, medicine, but they will have ceased to have any effect beyond the enrichment of the equivalent of local petty warlords who will use their dwindling power to harass and rob those who are within convenient reach. It won’t be long and we will begin to pass through a period of “every man for himself” which, I guess, is the libertarian dream. I don’t think it’s going to be as good as they think it will be (and make no mistake, I have libertarian leanings: I first voted libertarian in 1976).
Corrupt, sub-moral individuals have captured and ruined our institutions, but the extension of that concept is not that institutions are bad — that’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. On the other hand, thinking that voting one way or the other will change much is rather charmingly naïve. Deck chairs and Titanics come to mind. By ballot day the ship has already sailed. That’s tacit endorsement of the “someone else will fix it” delusion which is far too prevalent (although credit where it’s due: maybe Virginia is a case study in the power of angered mothers, and it’s true that they voted, but they did more — they organized and made a fuss).
The good thing about chaos and darkness is that the dawn eventually comes, and brings order with it. The Renaissance is already afoot. There are unmistakable signs of the thin edge of the spiritual awakening that’s required to put truth, beauty and goodness in their proper places in the minds and hearts of the individuals who will comprise whatever institutions rise from the ashes.
How do you think the monopolies and lax safety (and kids working in factories) during the industrial revolution would have ended, without government regulation?
Also I'm a bit annoyed that the little r's serve under another authority of god.
Can we admit that humans are tribal and think that they're about freedom, forgetting slavery and other crap in the past?
I don’t understand your last question. Of course humans are social animals, this doesn’t make the collective any more real. Working together (ie the division of labor) is required for modern life.
I’m not sure what child labor has to do with this, but to think govt was the cause for its end is demonstrably false. First, all laws are preceded by a social demand by the population (assuming people are engaged and the policies like class is honest and open. Unlike what we have today where the political class in Washington lie and deceive). The child labor laws were put into place after society had already begun to shift away from its practice.
Second, simply passing a law doesn’t mean the practice will end or can end. A poor Asian country could pass anti child labor laws today and the practice wouldn’t stop. Children worked all through human history. As soon as they could help the family they worked the fields or did house chores. It was natural that they would move to the factories as industrialization invented such jobs. The cumulative wealth of society abd the family was so low, the child must contribute or people would starve. Only through wealth accumulation (and don’t think I’m talking about money, because I’m not) can we be in the position where children are afforded the luxury of not working as soon as they can.
And if our society were to slide backward to a poorer state, children all over the country would go to work as the choice becomes that or starving.
As an old Eagle Scout (back when the “Boy” Scouts were boys), I can attest that it was a great way to experience the outdoors and to build skills of self reliance and leadership notwithstanding a minuscule number of bad apples. Hierarchical institutions like the Scouts are not inherently bad; membership is entirely voluntary. Mutual aid societies like the Elks and Shriners provided effective social and medical safety nets (entirely private and voluntary) before they were displaced by massive Federal bureaucracies that have only succeeded in destroying the black family. See “From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State” by David Beito.
I can second that regarding Boy Scouts - was a great way to guide boys to becoming men with character. I’ve seen Lions do a lot of good works. Dr Malone spoke of 3 things yesterday, integrity, dignity, and community. These types of institutions, as well as churches, are very important for the help they offer to community and for teaching about integrity and dignity (and other things.)
This has been a long time coming. I realised in 1998 that the Rs and Ds were basically the same party, though it took me until 2001 (Thanks 9/11) to register with "no party affiliation" - I'm not even an 'Independent'.
I accept there will likely never be a Party that represents all my beliefs, however, how we got ourselves into this mess of only two parties that have the hope of being in 'power' is beyond me. While not perfect, the UK has I believe 5 main parties, any one of which could come into power at any time. While they have their own issues, at least with that number, it feels like more of a choice.
I will say the benefit of having no affiliation is everyone is always clamouring for my vote. In 2016, it was interesting because the Ds ads all said "Don't vote for the other, they're corrupt in these ways." The Rs said "Vote for me, I'm great for you in THESE ways." I mostly voted R - you know why? Because I knew the most about those candidates because of how the Ds ran their campaigns.
“We” is a lie. And yes both parties believe it because using collectivism allows for the worst impulses of man become honorable and moral. It’s happened again and again in the 20th century.
Hierarchy is a natural outcome of human civilization. The left pretends it doesn’t exist in their institutions, but it’s there and every bit as insidious. Always has been.
Hierarchy isn’t bad, or failure to protect and honor the individual is what allows bad people to rule over us. A problem we’ve had since the US became the dominant power.
Most don't understand that with rights come responsibilities. You have the right to free speech, along with the responsibility to speak the truth, and so on...
I hope a realignment is beginning and we can get back to civil servants rather than career politicians screwing over their constituents.
So, if you abdicate rights? Do you also abdicate responsibilities? I would say that responsibilities only come with privilege. Rights are inalienable. Certainly in the American tradition. So long as my exercising of rights do not harm others (which is a pitfall in itself) I have no responsibilities that come with my rights to my life and the fruits of my actions.
The only way to scale back govt graft and corruption is to remove the source of wealth and power that can be generated by the members of the institution
Our government was established for a moral society, which we no longer have.
I understand your meaning, but don't fully agree. Going to my example - if you have an inalienable right to free speech, a just and moral person would speak the truth.
100% agree on governmental corruption. Lobbying should be illegal, the unelected bureaucracy should be mostly eliminated, term limits installed, no PACs/Super PACs, decentralization of all remaining agencies, etc.
Please outline what it would look like...I'd like to see our institutions drastically cut (and moved out of DC) or eliminated, power returned to the local communities, and a lot of things cut at the state level...like departments of health, etc...along with "foundations" that advocate for single payer, educational reform etc.
Please if you can layout a process that we can apply to our towns, states and governments to see what can be "devolved" back onto the individual??
Unfortunately, those individuals are not in the positions of power at the federal level and in several states. Toeing the party line and political theatre rule the day. The interests of the people are not the priority. The priority is maintaining power and control and resources are leveraged to that effect.
Just like you said, those with power and influence believe that what is in their interests and what they so self confidently are assured is best is synonymous with what is in the individual’s best interest. Most often this is so very wrong.
Agreed. I have called it "induced helplessness" - more systemic and engineered than Marty Seligman's "learned helplessness" and the denial of personal agency over health. I have always been surprised how many politically progressive people I know are so conventional and ignorant about matters of health. I used to work with people with cancer and what was then called "alternative cancer treatment" and unpatentable natural remedies that were opposed and suppressed just like now. People have been deeply entrained in the allopathic medical model and passivity. Like we need to teach civics in schools, we need to teach children mastery over their own bodies and how to build strong immunity. Thanks for your interesting analysis.
We've been very effectively brainwashed by TV, movies, news media, even popular fiction books. Once you see this you can look back and see how this was done. So much of what people "know" does not come from personal experience, but from that media experience.
Agree. People have been deeply entrained to trust "the experts," period...in health, child-rearing, home maintenance, EVERYthing. The best thing most of us could do for ourselves today is to go out and try to do something that we've never done before. Build something. Literally. Try a new hobby. Cook something complicated. Teach yourself a skill. Get some chickens. Figure it out! 99 percent of practical life is not rocket science! You can do this! We'd all be much more capable and confident if we stopped listening to "experts" and started figuring things out for ourselves.
Excellent post! Most agree personal responsibility is essential to liberty and medical freedom.
It has been quite a journey to hold the line. We currently have family lecturing us on getting the mRNA shot, not for ourselves but to stop community spread. The irony we get lectured by the thrice jabbed while they contracted omicron. Nearly 2 years and my husband and I remain healthy. Those that are part of the mass formation psychosis cannot even acknowledge the
Agree. "Public Health" is another instance of the 'mythical "we" '. There is no entity named Public that can be healthy or unhealthy. There are only individuals - and "Public Health" has, for the last 22 months, been a complete disaster to the health of individuals almost everywhere that it gave authoritarians - almost entirely on the Left in the U.S. - a chance to gain powers that *nobody* should have.
And I do mean nobody and I do mean never - I don't care if smallpox and bubonic plague show up together - NO LOCKDOWNS, EVER. They have proven to be infinitely more harmful than the problem that they completely *failed* to address, and we're just seeing the beginning of the harms.
One sure way to piss off conservatives and libertarians is to assert that they do not think that "Of course we should look out for each other."
Why do Republicans reliably give far more to charity if they don't care ?
How can Democrats and socialists in general be so utterly devoid of empathy and self-awareness?
What they aim at is precisely a society without solidarity or charity, because the State has eliminated the need for it. Plus we're all equal, so we can't decide anything. Plus we don't own anything that we could give away. Plus our neighbour, just like us, owns nothing and is happy. We'd be both sent to a "psychiatric hospital" for questioning that. Ask an obviously starving North Korean if he's hungry: They'll assure you that they're well fed. Thanks to the State. Don't think that it won't happen here. Politics is the ultimate Frankenstein monster.
The Democrat's cherished State "safety net" is the opposite of solidarity. The free society is the real safety net. In the free society you can count on your family and friends, and if that's not enough they'll call on their family and friends and so on. But you must not exaggerate, you must do your possible to not be a burden but a help. That can only be assessed by people who know you.
Hence you must "love your neighbour like yourself": It is essential that you help people you know. Don't try to help people before you know them well. Ancient wisdom.
Klaus Schwab represents the latest attempt, technology-based attempt at suppressing human judgement - except of course for the superior humans of the ruling class. Tyranny.
Read Tocqueville's 1835 Memoir on Pauperism, where he reaches the conclusion:
"But I am deeply convinced that any permanent, regular,
administrative system whose aim will be to provide for the needs
of the poor, will breed more miseries than it can cure, will deprave
the population that it wants to help and comfort, will in time
reduce the rich to being no more than the tenant-farmers of the
poor, will dry up the sources of savings, will stop the accumulation of capital, will retard the development of trade, will benumb
human industry and activity, and will culminate by bringing
about a violent revolution in the State, when the number of those
who receive alms will have become as large as those who give it,
and the indigent, no longer being able to take from the impoverished rich the means of providing for his needs, will find it easier
to plunder them of all their property at one stroke than to ask for
Yes, Democrats believe that they are the only ones who care (hence the totalitarianism) and yet, as you point out, they are increasingly devoid of empathy.
Harry, I found a lot to ponder on in your comment posting. Your term "Suppressing human judgement", is a good new phrasing of the situation; by not being hackneyed it garners new realisations. Existing terms like "freedom" and "liberty" are banners, yes, but in old packaging. In this NWO there will be freedom of choice in VR games, and for some that might be liberty enough.
I don't want to live someone else's version of "happy".
This time, it's the left. But it was also the right wing who used an inside job on 911 (drills happening the same day- "coincidence") to take away our rights and impose an illegal war.
Think of both parties as both being state corporatist.... That's the definition of fascism.
People had to fight for labor rights during the industrial revolution. Business ran politics.
People had to fight against apartheid Jim crow laws. Wealth ran politics.
Same for slavery and and the Spanish American war and even the genocide of native Americans.
It'll never end, as we see more wars in the horizon for these evil psychopaths.
Power always likes more power.
So we need a new bill of rights, human rights... Not written and interpreted by lawyers and lobbyists, but by people who aren't wealthy or powerful.
Jan 21, 2022·edited Jan 21, 2022Liked by Toby Rogers
Thank you for this paper. As a professor of anthropology, I'm very much interested in this topic. Autonomy and freedom are two essential elements of human nature. The really archaic hunter-gatherer tribes (such as the San) cherish autonomy. They see it as sacred. It is my belief that they are right. Nonetheless they share everything equally. Only children and pregnant women get a bit more. People made constant sacrifices for the most vulnerable. In a way, that was still also more or less the way of life seventy years ago in the alpine village where I live. My understanding of this is that common good and autonomy do not compete. A common good that does not respect autonomy/freedom... is simply not a real common good. And being autonomous and free contributes positively to common good. Hence technocratic "communautarianism"doesn't work for me. On the other hand I'm not so much satisfied with the concept of "self interest". Life has a meaning to me because I'm willing --freely!-- to sacrifice my own interest to help others. In a way this is my real self interest since we're social animals. Self-interest has to be properly understood as something that includes others. Being selfish isn't good for you! The answer to this, I guess, is that any claim to self-interest that threatens the community is bogus, and any threat to my individual rights in the name of common good is a totalitarian scam.
... anyway I can't see how complying to totalitarianism, corporate greed and mandates that are terribly harmful to everyone's health, has anything to do with common good. On the contrary.
And today State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill that would permit children 12 and older to be vaccinated, including against COVID-19, without their parent's consent or knowledge. What a marvelous idea. Your teen can take the jab, become deathly ill and you'll have no idea why, but it's for the greater good somehow.
And isn't it interesting that the idea of parental authority (over a child's healthcare, education, discipline) are so anathema to the same people who are trying to exert this kind of authority over all of us? It's not that they don't want the authority to exist, it's that they want to be the ones in charge.
At the very least, the number one thing standing between people and the information and resources they need to be truly healthy should not be their government.
The left has been at home in the Democratic Party since the Progressive Era. The left has always been married to technocratic rule over the stupid masses. Read the intellectual writings from the new deal, great society or urban renewal. It’s the same assertions that dumb southern whites and urban people of color need them to make sure the working class doesn’t drink and fornicate themselves to death.
It’s the impulse and ideology that stems from the puritans and Yankees. They’ve just stopped pretending they like the blue collared classes (which was an anomaly from the 20th century)
Yes, good points, these ideological strands go way back -- at least to the Progressive Era, likely to Jeremy Bentham before that. It's just that technology now gives the technocrats so much more power and they have become even more corrupt.
Technology is a powerful new tool. It’s also completely dependent on the user and society as to how it will be implemented. In Strauss and Howes book Fourth Turning, they talk about how major events happen, and the mood of the society is as important to the response as the event itself. Pandemics happen with a frequency, but something about today and right now ended up with our world spiraling out of control. That wasn’t the case at all in 1967/68.
The same thing happens with technology. We have a period of time when order and control is if high preference by much of society and the institutions are not providing such leadership. Boomers and genX values individualism and privacy and we saw our institutions respond. Now, the general tenor of society is demanding more leadership and order. The totalitarians are more than happy to wield the tools available to meet that demand. What we need is for the decentralist movement to provide counter points of leadership to pressure local levels of government and control.
We live in a time when people want order and control, but we need to those providing that order to value individualism and not the collective.
Genius. So well stated. Thank you for a link I can send my legacy "f*@$ you, do what they tell you" liberal friends that used to wave the "f*$@ you I won't do what you tell me banner." Sadly, they cannot see the sad transition from firebrand thought to chattle group think. Things become clear when things fall apart, however, if you are paying attention🙏
Many 1950s traditional “big R” Republicans believe that the best way to arrive at “We” is through hierarchical institutions — the military, churches, corporations, and membership organizations (Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions, Boy Scouts).
But depending on how they are set up, hierarchical institutions often suppress individual viewpoints and talents. Sometimes the whole is much less than the sum of the parts so it’s just a different bunch of players in control (than the Democratic technocrats) but it’s a society run by an elite top-down cadre nonetheless.
Only “small r” libertarian republicans tend to understand the sacred role of the individual in society and how protecting individual rights can also produce the best overall outcomes for society. There are lots of “small r” republican elected officials in state governments in red and purple states and they tend to be the biggest defenders of medical freedom.
I think there is an extraordinary opportunity here for a political realignment that rejects the technocratic impulse of the Democratic Party and the institutional impulse of the Republican party and instead coalesces around the sacred rights of individuals to make medical decisions (and all decisions) for themselves. This new political movement unites “small r” republicans and former progressive democrats who became politically homeless when the Democratic Party abandoned its principles and slid into Pharma fascism.
Indeed I think that this new political realignment is already happening and that political candidates who realize this and embrace it will be rewarded by voters in November and beyond.
Small government. Lean government. Less opportunity for technocrats to work their wiles. As government grows, so grows the risk of tyranny.
And both political parties support massive government.
A “return to our roots” may be inevitable as our institutions, through the moral bankruptcy of those who control them, collapse. I predict a slide into the modern equivalent of the dark ages. Sure, we may have “technology” but it will be impossible (or at the least very unwise) to trust those who control it. We may be left with the hollowed-out hulls of universities, courts, government, medicine, but they will have ceased to have any effect beyond the enrichment of the equivalent of local petty warlords who will use their dwindling power to harass and rob those who are within convenient reach. It won’t be long and we will begin to pass through a period of “every man for himself” which, I guess, is the libertarian dream. I don’t think it’s going to be as good as they think it will be (and make no mistake, I have libertarian leanings: I first voted libertarian in 1976).
Corrupt, sub-moral individuals have captured and ruined our institutions, but the extension of that concept is not that institutions are bad — that’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. On the other hand, thinking that voting one way or the other will change much is rather charmingly naïve. Deck chairs and Titanics come to mind. By ballot day the ship has already sailed. That’s tacit endorsement of the “someone else will fix it” delusion which is far too prevalent (although credit where it’s due: maybe Virginia is a case study in the power of angered mothers, and it’s true that they voted, but they did more — they organized and made a fuss).
The good thing about chaos and darkness is that the dawn eventually comes, and brings order with it. The Renaissance is already afoot. There are unmistakable signs of the thin edge of the spiritual awakening that’s required to put truth, beauty and goodness in their proper places in the minds and hearts of the individuals who will comprise whatever institutions rise from the ashes.
How do you think the monopolies and lax safety (and kids working in factories) during the industrial revolution would have ended, without government regulation?
Also I'm a bit annoyed that the little r's serve under another authority of god.
Can we admit that humans are tribal and think that they're about freedom, forgetting slavery and other crap in the past?
I don’t understand your last question. Of course humans are social animals, this doesn’t make the collective any more real. Working together (ie the division of labor) is required for modern life.
I’m not sure what child labor has to do with this, but to think govt was the cause for its end is demonstrably false. First, all laws are preceded by a social demand by the population (assuming people are engaged and the policies like class is honest and open. Unlike what we have today where the political class in Washington lie and deceive). The child labor laws were put into place after society had already begun to shift away from its practice.
Second, simply passing a law doesn’t mean the practice will end or can end. A poor Asian country could pass anti child labor laws today and the practice wouldn’t stop. Children worked all through human history. As soon as they could help the family they worked the fields or did house chores. It was natural that they would move to the factories as industrialization invented such jobs. The cumulative wealth of society abd the family was so low, the child must contribute or people would starve. Only through wealth accumulation (and don’t think I’m talking about money, because I’m not) can we be in the position where children are afforded the luxury of not working as soon as they can.
And if our society were to slide backward to a poorer state, children all over the country would go to work as the choice becomes that or starving.
I know, right? It’s much like scientists thinking they’re about science, forgetting phlogiston and geocentrism and other crap in the past.
As an old Eagle Scout (back when the “Boy” Scouts were boys), I can attest that it was a great way to experience the outdoors and to build skills of self reliance and leadership notwithstanding a minuscule number of bad apples. Hierarchical institutions like the Scouts are not inherently bad; membership is entirely voluntary. Mutual aid societies like the Elks and Shriners provided effective social and medical safety nets (entirely private and voluntary) before they were displaced by massive Federal bureaucracies that have only succeeded in destroying the black family. See “From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State” by David Beito.
I can second that regarding Boy Scouts - was a great way to guide boys to becoming men with character. I’ve seen Lions do a lot of good works. Dr Malone spoke of 3 things yesterday, integrity, dignity, and community. These types of institutions, as well as churches, are very important for the help they offer to community and for teaching about integrity and dignity (and other things.)
Yes
This has been a long time coming. I realised in 1998 that the Rs and Ds were basically the same party, though it took me until 2001 (Thanks 9/11) to register with "no party affiliation" - I'm not even an 'Independent'.
I accept there will likely never be a Party that represents all my beliefs, however, how we got ourselves into this mess of only two parties that have the hope of being in 'power' is beyond me. While not perfect, the UK has I believe 5 main parties, any one of which could come into power at any time. While they have their own issues, at least with that number, it feels like more of a choice.
I will say the benefit of having no affiliation is everyone is always clamouring for my vote. In 2016, it was interesting because the Ds ads all said "Don't vote for the other, they're corrupt in these ways." The Rs said "Vote for me, I'm great for you in THESE ways." I mostly voted R - you know why? Because I knew the most about those candidates because of how the Ds ran their campaigns.
“We” is a lie. And yes both parties believe it because using collectivism allows for the worst impulses of man become honorable and moral. It’s happened again and again in the 20th century.
Hierarchy is a natural outcome of human civilization. The left pretends it doesn’t exist in their institutions, but it’s there and every bit as insidious. Always has been.
Hierarchy isn’t bad, or failure to protect and honor the individual is what allows bad people to rule over us. A problem we’ve had since the US became the dominant power.
Most don't understand that with rights come responsibilities. You have the right to free speech, along with the responsibility to speak the truth, and so on...
I hope a realignment is beginning and we can get back to civil servants rather than career politicians screwing over their constituents.
So, if you abdicate rights? Do you also abdicate responsibilities? I would say that responsibilities only come with privilege. Rights are inalienable. Certainly in the American tradition. So long as my exercising of rights do not harm others (which is a pitfall in itself) I have no responsibilities that come with my rights to my life and the fruits of my actions.
The only way to scale back govt graft and corruption is to remove the source of wealth and power that can be generated by the members of the institution
Our government was established for a moral society, which we no longer have.
I understand your meaning, but don't fully agree. Going to my example - if you have an inalienable right to free speech, a just and moral person would speak the truth.
100% agree on governmental corruption. Lobbying should be illegal, the unelected bureaucracy should be mostly eliminated, term limits installed, no PACs/Super PACs, decentralization of all remaining agencies, etc.
Please outline what it would look like...I'd like to see our institutions drastically cut (and moved out of DC) or eliminated, power returned to the local communities, and a lot of things cut at the state level...like departments of health, etc...along with "foundations" that advocate for single payer, educational reform etc.
Please if you can layout a process that we can apply to our towns, states and governments to see what can be "devolved" back onto the individual??
"I’m tired of how even smart people act as if we’re one revelation or moral epiphany away from the system reforming and becoming just and righteous."
Cease with this fantasy. Power here is just blackmailed pedophile politicians and spooks running a Truman show Potemkin village."
(https://twitter.com/LibertyBlitz/status/1484198597675524096)
"Nation-state democracy is just an illusion that makes you feel you are choosing the sort of government you want."
But you can’t vote away true power, the real state survives every vote."
(https://twitter.com/LibertyBlitz/status/1484229127062405126)
Unfortunately, those individuals are not in the positions of power at the federal level and in several states. Toeing the party line and political theatre rule the day. The interests of the people are not the priority. The priority is maintaining power and control and resources are leveraged to that effect.
Just like you said, those with power and influence believe that what is in their interests and what they so self confidently are assured is best is synonymous with what is in the individual’s best interest. Most often this is so very wrong.
I like this idea...keep going please....just throw out ideas, possible starting points, etc. etc. etc.
Thank you. Know it is a lot of work.
Agreed. I have called it "induced helplessness" - more systemic and engineered than Marty Seligman's "learned helplessness" and the denial of personal agency over health. I have always been surprised how many politically progressive people I know are so conventional and ignorant about matters of health. I used to work with people with cancer and what was then called "alternative cancer treatment" and unpatentable natural remedies that were opposed and suppressed just like now. People have been deeply entrained in the allopathic medical model and passivity. Like we need to teach civics in schools, we need to teach children mastery over their own bodies and how to build strong immunity. Thanks for your interesting analysis.
We've been very effectively brainwashed by TV, movies, news media, even popular fiction books. Once you see this you can look back and see how this was done. So much of what people "know" does not come from personal experience, but from that media experience.
Agree. People have been deeply entrained to trust "the experts," period...in health, child-rearing, home maintenance, EVERYthing. The best thing most of us could do for ourselves today is to go out and try to do something that we've never done before. Build something. Literally. Try a new hobby. Cook something complicated. Teach yourself a skill. Get some chickens. Figure it out! 99 percent of practical life is not rocket science! You can do this! We'd all be much more capable and confident if we stopped listening to "experts" and started figuring things out for ourselves.
Excellent post! Most agree personal responsibility is essential to liberty and medical freedom.
It has been quite a journey to hold the line. We currently have family lecturing us on getting the mRNA shot, not for ourselves but to stop community spread. The irony we get lectured by the thrice jabbed while they contracted omicron. Nearly 2 years and my husband and I remain healthy. Those that are part of the mass formation psychosis cannot even acknowledge the
shots have failed.
Collectivism in prisons mind, body and soul.
Agree. "Public Health" is another instance of the 'mythical "we" '. There is no entity named Public that can be healthy or unhealthy. There are only individuals - and "Public Health" has, for the last 22 months, been a complete disaster to the health of individuals almost everywhere that it gave authoritarians - almost entirely on the Left in the U.S. - a chance to gain powers that *nobody* should have.
And I do mean nobody and I do mean never - I don't care if smallpox and bubonic plague show up together - NO LOCKDOWNS, EVER. They have proven to be infinitely more harmful than the problem that they completely *failed* to address, and we're just seeing the beginning of the harms.
One sure way to piss off conservatives and libertarians is to assert that they do not think that "Of course we should look out for each other."
Why do Republicans reliably give far more to charity if they don't care ?
How can Democrats and socialists in general be so utterly devoid of empathy and self-awareness?
What they aim at is precisely a society without solidarity or charity, because the State has eliminated the need for it. Plus we're all equal, so we can't decide anything. Plus we don't own anything that we could give away. Plus our neighbour, just like us, owns nothing and is happy. We'd be both sent to a "psychiatric hospital" for questioning that. Ask an obviously starving North Korean if he's hungry: They'll assure you that they're well fed. Thanks to the State. Don't think that it won't happen here. Politics is the ultimate Frankenstein monster.
The Democrat's cherished State "safety net" is the opposite of solidarity. The free society is the real safety net. In the free society you can count on your family and friends, and if that's not enough they'll call on their family and friends and so on. But you must not exaggerate, you must do your possible to not be a burden but a help. That can only be assessed by people who know you.
Hence you must "love your neighbour like yourself": It is essential that you help people you know. Don't try to help people before you know them well. Ancient wisdom.
Klaus Schwab represents the latest attempt, technology-based attempt at suppressing human judgement - except of course for the superior humans of the ruling class. Tyranny.
Read Tocqueville's 1835 Memoir on Pauperism, where he reaches the conclusion:
"But I am deeply convinced that any permanent, regular,
administrative system whose aim will be to provide for the needs
of the poor, will breed more miseries than it can cure, will deprave
the population that it wants to help and comfort, will in time
reduce the rich to being no more than the tenant-farmers of the
poor, will dry up the sources of savings, will stop the accumulation of capital, will retard the development of trade, will benumb
human industry and activity, and will culminate by bringing
about a violent revolution in the State, when the number of those
who receive alms will have become as large as those who give it,
and the indigent, no longer being able to take from the impoverished rich the means of providing for his needs, will find it easier
to plunder them of all their property at one stroke than to ask for
their help."
Yes, Democrats believe that they are the only ones who care (hence the totalitarianism) and yet, as you point out, they are increasingly devoid of empathy.
Wow, great quote from deToquevill.
Harry, I found a lot to ponder on in your comment posting. Your term "Suppressing human judgement", is a good new phrasing of the situation; by not being hackneyed it garners new realisations. Existing terms like "freedom" and "liberty" are banners, yes, but in old packaging. In this NWO there will be freedom of choice in VR games, and for some that might be liberty enough.
I don't want to live someone else's version of "happy".
Toby's term "Biofascists" is a good word coinage.
Do you have a blog?
This time, it's the left. But it was also the right wing who used an inside job on 911 (drills happening the same day- "coincidence") to take away our rights and impose an illegal war.
Think of both parties as both being state corporatist.... That's the definition of fascism.
People had to fight for labor rights during the industrial revolution. Business ran politics.
People had to fight against apartheid Jim crow laws. Wealth ran politics.
Same for slavery and and the Spanish American war and even the genocide of native Americans.
It'll never end, as we see more wars in the horizon for these evil psychopaths.
Power always likes more power.
So we need a new bill of rights, human rights... Not written and interpreted by lawyers and lobbyists, but by people who aren't wealthy or powerful.
Thank you for this paper. As a professor of anthropology, I'm very much interested in this topic. Autonomy and freedom are two essential elements of human nature. The really archaic hunter-gatherer tribes (such as the San) cherish autonomy. They see it as sacred. It is my belief that they are right. Nonetheless they share everything equally. Only children and pregnant women get a bit more. People made constant sacrifices for the most vulnerable. In a way, that was still also more or less the way of life seventy years ago in the alpine village where I live. My understanding of this is that common good and autonomy do not compete. A common good that does not respect autonomy/freedom... is simply not a real common good. And being autonomous and free contributes positively to common good. Hence technocratic "communautarianism"doesn't work for me. On the other hand I'm not so much satisfied with the concept of "self interest". Life has a meaning to me because I'm willing --freely!-- to sacrifice my own interest to help others. In a way this is my real self interest since we're social animals. Self-interest has to be properly understood as something that includes others. Being selfish isn't good for you! The answer to this, I guess, is that any claim to self-interest that threatens the community is bogus, and any threat to my individual rights in the name of common good is a totalitarian scam.
... anyway I can't see how complying to totalitarianism, corporate greed and mandates that are terribly harmful to everyone's health, has anything to do with common good. On the contrary.
William F Buckley’s quote about the wisdom of the common man was never more true than it is today:
“I’d rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty at Harvard.”
https://youtu.be/2nf_bu-kBr4
Ain't that the truth.
https://www.newswars.com/this-is-america-nypd-arrests-9-year-old-girl-five-others-for-entering-museum-of-natural-history-without-vax-passport/
Imagine what she'll do when she's 10. Arrested in NYC for being vax-free.
Great post, Toby.
I loved the video of her being sprung from jail at the end of the day! Not all heroes wear capes (some wear parkas)!
Yes! This moment changed her forever.
Rosa *Parka*
Hero!
Go Jayla!
Insanity. SMH.
Health-seeking behavior isn't a confounding variable. It's the treatment.
Well said! 🙌
And today State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a bill that would permit children 12 and older to be vaccinated, including against COVID-19, without their parent's consent or knowledge. What a marvelous idea. Your teen can take the jab, become deathly ill and you'll have no idea why, but it's for the greater good somehow.
He's so horrible. SW is literally insane.
Working hand in hand with Dick Pan. They're both nuts.
And isn't it interesting that the idea of parental authority (over a child's healthcare, education, discipline) are so anathema to the same people who are trying to exert this kind of authority over all of us? It's not that they don't want the authority to exist, it's that they want to be the ones in charge.
Great point.
I think you make a great argument.
At the very least, the number one thing standing between people and the information and resources they need to be truly healthy should not be their government.
The left has been at home in the Democratic Party since the Progressive Era. The left has always been married to technocratic rule over the stupid masses. Read the intellectual writings from the new deal, great society or urban renewal. It’s the same assertions that dumb southern whites and urban people of color need them to make sure the working class doesn’t drink and fornicate themselves to death.
It’s the impulse and ideology that stems from the puritans and Yankees. They’ve just stopped pretending they like the blue collared classes (which was an anomaly from the 20th century)
Yes, good points, these ideological strands go way back -- at least to the Progressive Era, likely to Jeremy Bentham before that. It's just that technology now gives the technocrats so much more power and they have become even more corrupt.
Technology is a powerful new tool. It’s also completely dependent on the user and society as to how it will be implemented. In Strauss and Howes book Fourth Turning, they talk about how major events happen, and the mood of the society is as important to the response as the event itself. Pandemics happen with a frequency, but something about today and right now ended up with our world spiraling out of control. That wasn’t the case at all in 1967/68.
The same thing happens with technology. We have a period of time when order and control is if high preference by much of society and the institutions are not providing such leadership. Boomers and genX values individualism and privacy and we saw our institutions respond. Now, the general tenor of society is demanding more leadership and order. The totalitarians are more than happy to wield the tools available to meet that demand. What we need is for the decentralist movement to provide counter points of leadership to pressure local levels of government and control.
We live in a time when people want order and control, but we need to those providing that order to value individualism and not the collective.
Genius. So well stated. Thank you for a link I can send my legacy "f*@$ you, do what they tell you" liberal friends that used to wave the "f*$@ you I won't do what you tell me banner." Sadly, they cannot see the sad transition from firebrand thought to chattle group think. Things become clear when things fall apart, however, if you are paying attention🙏
"My body, my choice" - gee that doesn't seem to be the "Liberal" position anymore.
That position was always about selfishness. And so you can see how their present position doesn't really conflict after all.
We should be led by the invisible hand, not the hidden hands.
As I used to tell patients when I was practicing, do your own research and be your own health advocate.