A lot of water has gone underneath the bridge since March 22, 2020, when I posted the first article which mentioned the corona virus confusion which swept the world. Currently, this blog has about sixty articles directly related to the phenomenon.
In November 2020, I set up an organization, Face of Freedom, to galvanize and stir up people to take highly visible action against the Covid restrictions, edicts, and mandates. Writing blog posts which might or might not be read by a small, limited number of people simply was not sufficient any longer. Talking and discussion had to give way to movement. You can see some of the results here and here.
Because of that effort, three things (at least) have happened.
- My work load has increased significantly.
- I have come into contact with an enormous amount of people, in person, over the phone, or digitally. Many of them have become close friends.
- I have found my calling. My wife says I come alive when I’m working on it. Bless her! She has been understanding.
Recently I received an email from a person who will only be known as Z. In the back and forth conversation which ensued, Z raised some interesting questions about face masks, vaccinations, and religion. I soon realized that our dialogue was more than I wanted to continue through email, so I promised I would write this post in which these issues could be explored more thoroughly. I will be directly quoting some parts of the discussion. You are free to comment. Keep it clean.
“I’m intrigued by your format and what you’re putting together here! It’s good to meet and discuss your views and positions and that’s what makes our country great.” — Z
It is good, as Z says, that we can meet and discuss views and positions in a peaceful manner. I appreciate that and will converse with anyone who is willing to do so respectfully.
“What is your position on the vaccine”? — Z
My position: I am against it lock, stock, and barrel. The concoction being promoted is not a real vaccine in the traditional sense of the word, but rather something which is being foisted onto the public in a fraudulent manner. I believe it is a live lab experiment which many people have rushed into in the hope that it will keep them safe. I think it is unwise to make oneself a “guinea pig” regarding anything about which we know virtually nothing and is highly suspect. This is my position. Please note that Z asked only for that.
My statement: I will not inject an unproven, unknown substance into my body on the grounds that it might prevent a viral infection of which I have a very low risk of catching and an even lower one of being harmed or killed by it. I will not allow an injection of any sort of which I do not approve. I will not comply.
“What I think would help would be promoting the vaccines more because that will make sure the mask mandates will be lifted.“ — Z
“What is the “beneficial influence on society” of seeing people by the thousands lined up to be forced to take an injection, or to spend months (going on years) of not seeing another human face?” — Bionic Mosquito
Unfortunately, the way this is posed creates a no-win situation. It limits our choices to two options: The Mask or The Jab. Take the jab or wear the mask. Everyone will be forced to wear a mask, like it or not, until everyone decides to get the jab. You do not have a choice. There simply is no other option. What is even worse, there is no guarantee that the mask mandates will be lifted even if everyone gets a shot and there is every possibility (probability) that the mandates will be re-imposed if the virus (or some variant) comes roaring back.
This is a choice between the lesser of two evils and is quite similar to voting in “democratic” elections. Vote for the Republican ( Democrat) or you will be saddled with the Democrat (Republican). You pick the “least evil” in the vain hope that life will become better. You have no other option, unless there is a third party running who has virtually no chance of success. On this, I am in agreement with Murray Rothbard.
“In the modern world, democracy or voting is only important either to join in or ratify the use of the government to control others, or to use it as a way of preventing one’s self or one’s group from being controlled. Voting, however, is at best, an inefficient instrument for self-defense, and it is far better to replace it by breaking up central government power altogether.”
I choose neither. I do not vote (another story for another time). Neither will I make a decision between one (so-called) medical device which is nothing more than cosmetic and another which might actually kill me. Both are bad. Both are unwanted. I will not comply. I will not choose between two evils which are forced on me. I will choose my own way.
“It seems like you’re a libertarian minded individual and I think that’s great. I also notice references to religion on your website. I’ve always found conflict between a belief in personal liberties and religion”. — Z
I am libertarian-minded. I am also Christian. There is no conflict. What does Z want? Should every person who has a belief in personal liberty abandon religion entirely? This question sets up a conflict by itself–either you can believe in personal liberties OR you can believe religiously, but not both. The unsolvable problem with this is that everyone believes religiously in something, whether they admit it or not. Find the absolute highest value that any person has and you will have found their god and their religion. The obvious conclusion is that since everyone has some religious belief, no one can have personal liberty. There is another question here, however. Where does personal liberty spring from if not from a search for truth–which is religious in nature?
“Christianity teaches a sense of community where a libertarian mindset encourages self over community.” — Z
The basic premise in this statement is wrong. Z does not understand.
“A libertarian mindset says nothing about self over community, it only says something about when the use of force is legitimate.” — Bionic Mosquito, from an email conversation.
(For a more extended study by Bionic Mosquito on the growing atomization of society in favor of individualism over community and the tyranny it is engendering, see here. Scroll down to Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community, and follow the links.)
Libertarianism discourages and condemns acts of aggression against others (see “non-aggression principle” here and here). Libertarianism seeks to determine only what an act of aggression is and how to treat it when it occurs. It does not make any attempt to determine the manner or shape in which society forms itself. Individualism and community are left entirely up to individual choice. Walter Block had this to say about it.
“…the real, more basic, unders[t]anding of libertarianism is not the NAP. Rather, it is our libertarian punishment theory. A more sophistica[t]ed understanding of libertarianism does not say, with the NAP: “Thou shalt not murder, initiate violence against innocent persons or their legitimate possessions.” Rather, it states, that if you do, you will be punished in accordance with libertarian punishment theory.”
Jim Jones taught a ‘sense of community’. So did Mao Tse-Tung. As did Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, and the Moonies. All of these (and many others unmentioned) taught that the ‘community’ they envisioned and aspired to reach depended on separating from the greater society they lived in and forming their own distinct group which was (supposedly) superior to the rest of the world and at war with it. All of these taught that the individual must be subsumed and absorbed into the community, losing any sense of self and living only for the benefit of the group. Outliers and dissidents were to be punished and/or excluded from the group. The Amish practice this to some extent. This is not libertarianism nor Christianity. It is the religion of socialism, albeit, in the Amish community, it is a “voluntary” choice and the adherents are “free” to leave if they so choose, although extreme pressure is put on everyone not to make or follow through with that decision.
Christianity does not teach a ‘sense of community’, per se. Instead, it teaches that we are to “Love one another” (without exception) and it is from this that the community springs. Isolated individuals are not ‘taught’ about community as much as they are ‘brought’ into the community, where they learn how to get along with others in a peaceful, non-violent, non-aggressive way. Christianity does not denigrate ‘self’, but rather encourages and allows the individual to grow, prosper, and develop, within the community, in his or her own way without ever losing sight of the command, “Love one another.”
“That being said, religion would recommend the vaccine as the Catholic Church openly does.”— Z
Religion (adherence to a specific set of man-made rules ostensibly designed to make oneself better spiritually) probably would recommend (require) the Jab. The Catholic Church falls into this category. Some (so-called) Christian churches do. Other religions probably do. Certainly, socialism does. True Christianity does not. Rather, it allows individuals freedom to make their own decisions based on the principle of free will. As human beings, created in the Image of God, we are able to choose according to our own desires and what we think best for ourselves. God does not override our choices nor force us to act differently, but we are responsible for our actions and will bear the consequences of those actions, be they good or bad. Christianity teaches that we are to live according to the Golden Rule. “Do unto others what you would like to have done to you.” Or, put another way, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” With respect to this, Christianity and libertarianism are compatible, in that both rely on freedom of choice rather than coercion.
If I love my neighbor as I do myself, I would not try to force him into any situation which he was not willing to participate in, simply because I do not want him to try to force me in the same manner. If I love my neighbor as Jesus tells me to, then I have to let him alone to live his own life as he sees fit, because I want him to leave me alone to live my life as I see fit. If I love my neighbor in this way, I will not order him (even by proxy) to submit to taking The Jab because I do not want him to order me (even by proxy) to do so. I do not want my neighbor telling me that I have to get the shot. I will not tell him he has to. It is that simple. This concept is not difficult to understand.
“Libertarianism would go against vaccination as if you are a healthy person,…” — Z
Libertarianism is not for nor against vaccination for anyone, healthy or not, but would leave the choice to vaccinate up to the individual person. Libertarianism would be concerned about forced, mandatory inoculations in which free individuals are required to get The Jab against their will. Whether you are a healthy person or a sick one on your death bed has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant.
“…the vaccine would help create herd immunity even though it may not have substantial individual benefit.” — Z
Why would anyone submit to The Jab unless they received some substantial individual benefit from it? Yeah, I cannot figure it out either.
This is pure conjecture and contradictory to boot. The “official” narrative is that herd immunity over the corona virus can be achieved only through widespread injections of the (so-called) vaccine, but there is no evidence that this is the case. Belief that this is true implies an unquestioning, blind acceptance in government/corporate/medical “official statements”, the promoters of which have an enormous financial/social stake in making sure that the narrative wins out. There is pushback on this in the form of numerous influential, professional voices speaking out which are urging caution. What cannot be denied, however, is that real exposure to the virus (like any other communicable disease) confers a natural immunity to those who have been infected and survived. Considering that we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the disease is overwhelmingly a threat only to aged, infirm, obese, and/or diabetic persons who have poor immune systems and other serious health issues, the average person in relatively good health probably has no need to be injected against it.
The contradiction comes in the phrase, “may not have substantial individual benefit.” The official mantra is that “You should still wear the mask even if you get The Jab.” However, either the shot protects you or it does not. Either you are safe after you have been inoculated or you are not. Either there is substantial individual benefit to taking the shot or there is not. Since community is composed of numerous individuals, if there is no substantial individual benefit to injection (or anything at all, for that matter), then there will be no substantial benefit to society at large. If there is no individual benefit, then why would anyone take the risk of getting shot with an unproven substance which might hurt them? Take a bullet for the team for nothing? Surely, no one is that altruistic! There must be some perceived substantial individual benefit to the procedure or no one would participate voluntarily. That benefit can only be seen as “personal self-defense”, which is anathema to those who seek to integrate everyone into an easily controlled mass. Whether Z realizes it or not, this is an argument for what is known as the “hive mentality” or “groupthink” in which the individual is of little or no worth compared to the community at large. Pure socialism, in other words. Pure contradiction. Utopia.
Not for me. I prefer freedom. End of argument.
Sung to the tune and cadence of the military chant, “Sound Off.”
“Ain’t gonna wear no mask, no more,”
(Ain’t gonna wear no mask, no more)
“Ain’t gonna lock down, that’s for sure.”
(Ain’t gonna lock down, that’s for sure)
“Ain’t gonna get jabbed, not for me,”
(Ain’t gonna get jabbed, not for me)
“Ain’t gonna comply, I am free.”
(Ain’t gonna comply, I am free)
“Sound off, one, two.”
(Sound off, one, two)
“Sound off, three, four.”
(Sound off, once more)
Repeat. Enjoy. No copyright restrictions. Credit Face of Freedom.