"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.
Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.
By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience. "
--- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835)
To extrapolate from and riff on that last sentence:
The nature of the tests and vaccines you are forced to take signifies less than the fact of extorted obedience.
Imagine this: everybody is imprisoned (as they are now under house arrest in most places, completely restricted from freedom of movement)
The only ways allowed by power to exit the prison are:
1) Take a vaccine with no liability, not knowing what it is or what it does, just on the say-so of some authority figure you're supposed to trust and respect and who is part of an elite who have already raped you, your family and all your ancestors multiple times.
2) If you're male, agree to be circumcized (what's the big deal? 70 to 90% of males already are). If you're female agree to have half of your clitoris removed (what's the big deal? It's just a reasonable preventative measure. You'll still have plenty of nerves there and feel things, just not half as much as your average nymphomaniac, which is desirable anyway, right? Why would you want to be addicted to sex because it feels so good anyway? And why should females get to have intact genitals and not males? How is that fair?)
3) Bend over and let a complete stranger stick a broomstick up your rear end. In and out once to the depth of about 10 inches. You can use lube if you want. One stroke and then you're free to go and do whatever you want. There might be occasional re-injections of the broomstick though to make sure you're an obedient and trustworthy person.
4) Bend over and let a complete stranger stick a tube up your rear end and give you a coffee enema (which is supposedly very healthy for you, Amandha Vollmer even says it's part of her daily routine). There might be occasional re-applications of the coffee enema, for your own health, of course, and just to make sure you're an obedient and trustworthy person.
Which one would the so-called "truthers" take if there was no other way to participate in "modern society" and stay out of the woods and living a life of complete obscurity and restricted movements? Which one would be least scary and most agreeable? The last two roads to freedom involve only private humiliations, whereas the first two roads involve private humiliation plus a high possibility of physical injury and damage with no recourse to damages.
And yet all 4 courses of action would be accepting the principle of extortion, agreeing to being extorted, being given a choice only in a controlled lesser of 'evils" situation or a choice of the least unwanted and unchosen and never the freely chosen, correct?
Therefore, morally speaking, all four courses are just as reprehensible and are agreements to a contract with extortion. All 4 courses are paths to the corruption that keeps the "system" intact.
Therefore, it matters not how you agree to extortion, as long as you agree to it, then the bad karma that all human beings who seek power by exploiting others are wary of coming back to themselves, is more or less neutralized. This, of course, is also why they never hide anything or hide things in plain sight: for people to see it and know about it and still agree to it, therefore reversing the laws of karma.
In other words, if you beat somebody up for no reason, then you're a bad, violent person who has it coming to him. But if you beat somebody up in a boxing match that you both agreed to and got paid for, then the same amount of physical damage inflicted or even more is not seen as bad but only as "part of the game" agreed to.
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
click 3 times to enlarge