Property of…

There could hardly be a greater example of not owning oneself or being sovereign over one’s own children than the issue of vaccination, and in Australia they are now ratcheting up the message of just who is the owner and sovereign of the lives on that continent, and in general what the relationship between individuals and their governments is in all like governments worldwide.

The paradoxes are several; one may NOT take one group of drugs (those on the drug war list, some not particularly harmful, some beneficial even), though the entities that forbid the ingestion, possession, cultivation and marketing of these substances have been and are known to have a big hand in the latter two aspects; while one is hugely encouraged to take drugs on a different list (those constantly promoted on commercial television, most of which have long lists of warnings and damaging side effects, and many of which are as addictive or more addictive than the drugs on the first list); and now there is a category of substances that people will be REQUIRED to take into their bodies, per state edict, and which are verifiably known to contain super harmful components, like aluminium.

Imagine that, and tie your mind in a nice Gordian Knot (which can be untied, if one cares to).

This would be a good time for the “my body, my choice” crowd to get involved on this issue, too. The argument’s even stronger here. A lot stronger, as there’s only a single life at a time involved. They won’t, though. In this case, what the group wants is paramount (how’s that work?).

In any case, you definitely don’t own your own body Down Under, and your kids belong to the state. Should be starting to make people really nervous, this sort of thing. I hope that’s the case, or will be soon.

Time to say no. Time to step away.

Australia vaccination; all doctors under the gun; minister of health keeps lying

Australia vaccination: all doctors under the gun: minister of health keeps lying by Jon Rappoport November 25, 2017 Welcome to the Australian state of Victoria, where the minister of health, Jill Hennessy, has just put all doctors under the gun. Vaccinating every child has become so important to Hennessey, she’s declared that a doctor who…

Italia Fragmentando

If its impetus and genesis can even be believed to be organic, and not conducted by precisely those ‘unintended’ beneficiaries who may stand and plan to gain from a ‘be careful what you wish for’ outcome (a difficult sell for any mass movement at this point), the linked article below is shared here on The DMP rather than its sister site The Black Sheep Herald because, while it is ‘good news’ in the sense that this tendency/movement in Italy (referred to in a previous BSH post) is growing, possibly spreading even, and is, at least, remaining in the news, it’s also an example of a perfectly collectivist and default perspective. Not good news, in that sense, but the way things are certainly.

That is to say, the commenting linker at Global Research (DK Matai?), calls the movement, “a manifestation of extreme social “egotism”, of generalized destruction of any form of solidarity and adherence to more general projects….’Everybody for himself’ seems to dominate the continent,” while article’s author writes, “It could be said that Northern Italy feels the same way as Northern Europe towards the Mediterranean Europe: a tendency that indicates a more or less marked lack of solidarity between all the European states….,” the implication being that all Europeans should feel solidarity with each other, whichever of its nations they are in or are from. But, why is that, at least for the ones who know better, that may have learned and accepted some things that others haven’t yet or don’t ever want to?

Let’s say a European citizen is aware of the corruption of European governmental actions and of its totalitarian favoring structure and is aware that private entities own that structure almost entirely, and use it to do their bidding – and which as a criticism, by the way, has nothing to do with preferring “Everybody for himself” – and that there is no way to alter the course of that partnered combination entity (that of government with powerful private and corporate wealth) while also supporting it, why should the tepid idea of “solidarity” trump that knowledge, particularly if that solidarity is not about addressing nor even includes an awareness of the more fundamental problem and dynamic?

We don’t own each other, and one is not morally and perpetually obliged to participate in that which one knows to be hyper corrupt and hyper harmful because there are public works or social services that a purported majority of people at any given moment within a given geography would like to see done. “Hey, it’s too bad about all that drone bombing and the depleted uranium and Agent Orange, and those economic sanctions that wound up killing hundreds of thousands of people ‘over there’, but we’ve gotta fund food stamps here at home, so all that will just have to continue, I guess, darn it, because, well, we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater! Thanks! Maybe you can vote those people and policies you don’t like out of office and off the books in, say, a few thousand years or so (and hope that their spots aren’t immediately taken by people and new laws just like them, and into a system that still naturally begets such outcomes while naturally thwarting all others). In the meantime, you’re part of the group and owe it a debt and have to pitch in, forever, so quit complaining. Thanks!”

If the social entity ‘everybody’ thinks is an agent for good is provably not, then why should anyone who realizes this be expected and required to participate in and with it? My argument is that no one should be, and I wonder how many people have ever contemplated the social structure they live under or the assumptions being made to support its existence and adherence to it?

That’s got to be a very small number of people, but I think it’s growing, and it’s likely that some of these people in Catalonia and Venuto and Lombardia and Scotland are not rabid nationalists or bigots, but rather are aware of the above realities and of the warnings of history and literature, and so would just prefer that any centralized authority they are currently required to live under be much smaller and much closer to home.

Global Research

Venice and Lombardy: Why Is the Request for Independence Growing? The following article was written before the recent referendum in Venice and Lombardy. It remains relevant as far as, everything happening in Europe those days is becoming, more a more, a manifestation of extreme social “egotism”, of generalized destruction of any form of solidarity and adherence to more general projects.

The Jury Is In

The jury is long ago in. There is absolutely no way to meaningfully control, rein in, oversee, or reform a behemoth centralized power to which all must render their fortunes, to whatever (arbitrary) degree. It is demonstrably clear that any pool of treasure derived and accumulated from such a coercive association will absolutely be pilfered, skimmed, redirected, misdirected, squandered, wasted and finally brazenly stolen outright by exactly the people that the author of the article linked below would prefer (and rightly so) be deprived of its largesse.

It is further demonstrably true that any such pool will always necessarily be captured by such people and the organizations they create for the very purpose of becoming the directors and appropriators of it, and can’t help but be. Once captured and in order to capture and consolidate their hold on it, they will always then write and have laws passed, by the institution (the state) that enforces their interests, to greatly favor those particular interests and make the road extremely rough or entirely impassable for anyone working in opposition to them. Finally, in the end, no matter how gross an infraction or violation by a member of this class, whether legal or ethical, they are so powerful that they can simply either ignore the system of justice which applies to all non-directors, or modify it on the fly if they want to make a show of being subjected to it (note that the most major and notorious events in the U.S. over the last 60 years: JFK’s assassination, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, 9/11, and the financial catastrophe of ’07-’08, got processed for public consumption via Congressional actions, whether by special “Commissions” or by regular hearings, and not via the jural system, whether Grand or petit). There are never any indictments issued or sentences passed, and no one ever goes to jail or even loses their job or gets demoted. All these things, because they directly involve the behemoth, become extra-judicial. They are processed for show outside the justice system applicable to all non-directors.

This is plain to see if see one cares to. A fact that must be reckoned with, and at long last. The problem needs no further defining. Oligarchy sucks, and it’s hyper corrupt. We got that. The solution needs now to be laid out. Except, now the circularity begins.

Collectivism of any kind requires, mandates participation (tax payments), and that’s practically every single political system of any size and note in the modern and ancient worlds, and that compelled participation begets a pool of treasure which calls relentlessly to the pathologically corrupt hearts and minds that will always and surely come to direct it, and to the more petty tyrants among us who want to control others via proximity to and minor control over some small corner of that pool, and to all the busybodies that are sure they know what’s best for others and are willing to use or condone force if and as necessary to see their benevolent will for others and the common good done. The pool WILL be captured and administered by this group. Always, and no discovered infraction will ever cause even the slightest loss of grip for the first part of that triumvirate, the directors.

The only thing that could ever affect the directors, I have come to believe, would be the advent of viable voluntary society as a counterweight. I’m not even sure that would do it, but I think it’s the the only thing that might (and I think it’s morally correct, anyway), and it has not been tried. Marching in the street does nothing but blow off steam for the marchers and those that root for them. Voting only gives non-directors a vague sense that they have a say and are theoretically in charge of their own destinies, at least nominally. But marching and voting largely only waste the time of the participants and divert their energies from examining the actual juggernaut dynamic which is the actual root or primary engine of all the grossest societal ills, and into hollow ceremonial actions. Even when civil demonstration seems to have worked, as perhaps with Gandhi, or with King and the civil rights marches, the effort expended and costs were gargantuan. It’s not a realistic level of effort and time to have to routinely put forth to obtain or maintain one’s liberty and other “rights”. The behemoth can just change its mind later, anyway, even when it appears to have conceded.

Having examined these issues and the questions of morality involved at great length, I have no regard for socialism, because we don’t own each other. It’s also a proven failure, for the reasons I have stated herein. That said, I understand the author’s frustration and how he’d like things to go. I wish he had a patch of land somewhere to try to realize his goals, so long as I wasn’t required to contribute to or be governed by them. But as to controlling the existing behemoth, I would ask, just how exactly would he propose it might be checked? What precedent exists to show that it ever could be? Who exactly among us is morally fit AND intellectually capable (both) of overseeing it, and of undoing its capture and of preventing its future re-capture?

I suggest that nothing can check it while it’s mandatory, and that no one is fit to oversee it, nor ever could be. The reading of history would seem to make this statement nearly irrefutable (I include”nearly” only in case there is an example of which I am unaware). If it’s not, though, or doesn’t need to be true with future attempts, it’s time someone in the collectivist world laid out the viable path to their goal that precludes capture by the directors.

The problem has been defined, ad infinitum – the linked article contributes more evidence to that definition – so enough of that part maybe for awhile. Time to describe exactly how a system does not get hijacked. The U.S. Constitution has a very clear clause in it about the right of the people to redress grievances (against their government). Great idea, but that clause has no teeth because the road to redress has been made hyper-arduous and time consuming at best, and with state employed gatekeepers along the path, whether in front of the Grand Jury or the Court systems, who can simply turn any petition away,  so it’s meaningless.

That’s true for all of us, in every system. Anyone aware of a crime or injustice, needing a wrong righted, needs to beg the state to hear the case and petition. When it won’t, or when it makes the road so rough that it cannot be traveled, because it would run counter to the directors’ interests to do so, then what?

The Left should address that question now. It’s really well established at this point that oligarchy, plutocracy is the problem. It’s also well established that the deep-pocketed among us can hijack any and every system ever so far devised, so that problem would seem to be perpetual in nature, at least in the current paradigm where all are required to contribute to it. It would be good if bright minds would turn their attention to that dilemma now.

America’s oligarchy: No money for opioid crisis, endless funds for corporate tax cuts

28 October 2017 On Thursday, US President Donald Trump proclaimed the opioid crisis, which killed some 64,000 people last year, a “public health emergency,” a move that, despite appeals from medical professionals and public health advocates, did not include one cent in additional funding.

 

Spazzatura

I have occasion to regularly enter someone else’s house to carry out a task for them. A TV is always on in this house during waking hours, and so is always on when I enter, and I enter at varying times, so I’m not hearing the same show or announcers every day. It is always tuned to CNN or MSNBC. I am never in the house for more than 30 seconds before I hear the word “Trump” and never more than a minute before I hear the word “Russia”. That’s every single time I enter the house for more than a year, no matter what time I enter, so I have to assume that’s about all that gets discussed on those stations (I never watch corporate TV news, and haven’t in many years, so that’s a guess based on my daily sampling), even though I’m led to believe there is still no proof of criminal activity by Trump or his campaign with respect to Russia (that linked conversation, by the way, being non-spazzatura of the highest order), many though the allegations and suggestions are. I’m not aware of even an instance of the appearance of impropriety involving Trump and/or his campaign as substantial as that outlined in the story linked below about the Clintons and their foundation. (Jon Rappoport, by the way, being a bad-ass good guy, one of my favorites.)

That instance is tangible and verifiable, and incredibly damning and significant – it’s amazing no indictments have been issued, or would be if that sort of thing ever happened, in an uncorrupted system – and it’s never mentioned, that I know of, not on those two stations. Almost never, anyway, unless maybe to discount the story briefly before getting back to Trump. I never hear the words “Clinton” and then “Russia”, in any case, except as an accusation by Hillary Clinton about Donald Trump.

Anyway, that’s a landslide of coverage of an unproven story line, and unproven after a very long period. Relentless, one might call it. One might also call it propaganda, rather than news reporting. Relentless, bludgeoning propaganda. Propaganda with an obvious agenda that all useful propaganda must have, and that agenda not being impartial investigative reporting. CNN’s even been caught admitting they make stuff up for ratings. Recently. You’d think they’d be out of business or have their license revoked.

It’s garbage, and obviously so. In Italy they have an expression for such broadcasts: spazzatura (spahts-uh-tooruh). Spazzatura means “trash”. Trash TV. I stayed in Florence for awhile during college, living with an Italian family. When I would enter their house the TV was always on in the living room, always way too loud, usually tuned to some spazzatura (usually a modified talk show format with a middle-aged man in a suit looking “legitimate,” but with a super-busty, scantily clad young woman at his side, who would both get joined at random moments by, say, a grotesquely made-up clown riding a giant tricycle in circles around their couch a few times while shrieking some nonsense while everyone guffawed before riding off again).

Since I didn’t speak the language fluently enough to comprehend the words spoken at a normal conversational rate, I was left to just take in the overall impressions, both auditory and visual, that the broadcast created in me. The auditory one was very significant. It was horrible to listen to. I didn’t need to see the screen or understand the words spoken to know that the show was poison, numbing poison, and intentionally so. Terrible energy, very low wavelengths some would probably say. I felt my own energy dim in its presence. That’s all I needed to know. The sound, energy and feeling of spazzatura is unmistakable to me now. Very easy to identify, especially when not looking at the screen.

Though I do speak English, and even though there is no clown on a tricycle, and it’s more toned down, American corporate news (CNN, Fox, the NBCs) is absolutely spazzatura, both in content and in style. Entirely partisan propaganda meant to distract the viewer from all wholesome, relevant and honest trains of thought, and with an energy meant to numb those exposed to it. It’s so obvious. It’s amazing to me that anyone wants to watch and listen to it.

But, they do, everywhere, all over the world, in the “West,” anyway, and it’s a crucial point about human nature and susceptibility. Certainly not an argument for humanity’s innate love of beauty, truth or critical thinking.

Boom: The Clintons, US Uranium, Putin, and the FBI

By Jon Rappoport In 2016, long before the current news story broke about the FBI concealing a multi-year investigation into Russian bribery, the Clintons, US uranium, and Russia, I wrote about the scandal and spelled it out in simple terms. A writer for the Washington Post then called me and tried to extract a statement he could use to discredit the story.

Inevitable Outcomes (So Far)

Empire and its injustices and atrocities being one of the grossest examples and expressions of collectivism, the article shared below isn’t shared because we anymore need to describe the particular problem – all descriptions of the phenomenon’s outcomes are redundant now, and are predictable, to be expected – but to draw attention specifically to the engine that makes this possible.

For those who only care about consequences, then for the argument in favor of collectivism to work and be consistent, it must be factored in that when one favors and votes for, say, food stamps, or maybe some domestic health care program nominally aimed at children below the poverty line, then one must also note that the agent of those programs is the same one that will carry out unaccountable and extrajudicial drone bombings of “persons of interest” overseas (and thus of any collateral persons that should happen to be too close to them at the time), and enact economic measures against foreign countries that will absolutely wind up killing or harming innocents of the exact same type and social strata targeted domestically for the beneficent social programs – perhaps by design, and undertake aggressive overt invasion and occupation of foreign countries via the American military, and covert destabilisation and overthrow of foreign countries by way of the American and allied western intelligence services and agencies, and so on.

To endorse one is to necessarily authorize the other, as the agent is the same, and the endorsement does not happen at any ballot box, but in the prior act of approving in spirit the ideas behind the authority; i.e., collectivism, the greater good, the general welfare, democracy, et al, or more to the point, the idea of forcing others to do your will, and pay for it, via the intermediary of the state, the provably uncontrollable state.

Then, after accounting for that side of the coin, it must then be determined if the existence of collective central authority as a governing force in human society and relations, whether expressed by Stalin or Mao, or by an American President or the British Crown, is a net gain to that society (human society as a whole). There are many plausible and seemingly credible claims about the number of people that died as a direct result of the collectivist regimes of the 20th Century, and now also about the number of people dead as a result of American foreign policy (including military and intelligence activities), and just since 2001, never mind all that happened between 1946 and then, or the preceding harm caused by the subject of the article, the British Empire, or any other imperial power (Dutch, Spanish, Roman, etc.). In both cases the numbers are in the many tens of millions, at least, and the combined numbers are said to be in the hundreds of millions.

That’s a LOT of harm. So much that I imagine it absolutely dwarfs any potentially offsetting benefits which might be said to be the result of collectivism.

And, that’s just deaths. It doesn’t include the creation of poverty, disease, injury, or the general ruination of life, property and the environment that accompanies the death. So, it seems to me that the balance sheet is wildly not in favor of collectivism even purely from a consequentialist perspective. And, that perspective is not even the strongest argument against collectivism.

Crimes Against Humanity: The British Empire

It was the largest empire ever to have existed. And as the saying used to go, the sun never sets on the British Empire. At its height in 1922, the colonial power was lording it over a fifth of the world’s population and for many of them, the sun never rose again.