Not Anti Vax -- Anti Mandate

There are lots of good reasons to be vaccinated against COVID-19. And lots of reasons not to. I'm a 65 year old overweight diabetic. I decided it was probably a good idea to get vaccinated, even though I had heard, and still hear of problems people are having with the vaccine. My risk assessment came out slightly in favor of vaccination. But not all people have the same risks, or the same risk assessment, and they should not have to lose their jobs or their ability to buy groceries simply because some bureaucrat made a decision. 

We are not subjects, we are citizens. Sovereign individuals. We didn't invent this Republican form of government to manage us. It was supposed to help us. It was supposed to do our bidding; not the reverse. 

Many immunologists believe that natural immunity is better than synthetic immunity. Many immunologists believe that these vaccines are 'leaky', meaning that it trains our immune systems to fight off the weaker strains, but actually permits the stronger strains to persist, making the immunized into walking gain-of-function laboratories.

Many citizens believe that we have gotten insufficient information about the nature and makeup of these vaccines. Case in point: I just started on a new diabetes medicine. It starts with a very low dose, even below therapeutic levels, in order to determine if the patient will have a negative reaction to the drug before he begins taking a larger dose. Here is the information that comes with a drug that I take orally:

Side A - Rybelsus Information Leaflet

Side B - Rybelsus Information Leaflet

That's two large sheets printed in fly-speck font. For scale, the patterns on the bedspread are about 1 foot square. How much do you want to bet that the FDA was partly responsible for the large amount of information that Novo Nordisk must provide with their product?

Now here's a photo of the drug information leaflet that came with my COVID-19 shots:

Pfizer COVID-19 Information Leaflet

Why don't we get the same level of information about a drug that will be injected directly into our sovereign bodies, to tweak our immune systems? People deserve to know. The idea that government has the authority to mandate the introduction of foreign materials directly into our flesh ought to offend the hell out of you.

The Trouble With Communism

'Capitalism' was a word coined by Karl Marx as a term of derision for free market economies. Knowing this, I refuse to call it capitalism anymore. But I digress. Jordan Peterson explains the fundamental errors in the Communist Manifesto. 

This must have been part of a symposium about forms of government, or political systems. There are two other panel members with very dour looks on their faces, which leads me to believe that they are from a different school of thought from our friend JP.

I'm a Walking, Leaky Gain-of-Function Laboratory

As a 65 year old overweight diabetic, I figured I should probably be vaccinated. I've had no noticeable negative effects so far, save for a mildly sore injection site for a day or so. And for a few weeks there, I was able to waltz into any business establishment without a mask, and say, "Yo, I'm fully immunized! I can't hurt you risk-averse cootie-phobes!" 

But then Emperor Inslee dropped the hammer again, and I have to wear a mask anyway. So no more practical advantage to being vaccinated. 

And now, we're finding out that the vaccine is 'leaky', i.e., it doesn't train our border guards to kill or fend off every invader. So the stronger variants escape, creating an even more powerful mutant. I just realized I'm actually a walking gain-of-function laboratory. Swell done, idjits!

Well... I'm Boned...

Sharyl Atkisson

I took the Pfizer COVID vaccine, not because I was mandated to, or because I believe the busybody
illiberal control freaks, but because I'm a 65 year old overweight diabetic. 

Now this: (STUDY) Why so many vaccinated people are getting sick: Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). 

And of course, if the illiberal control freaks ever find out the vaccines are worse than the disease, we'll be right back to face diapers and lockdown city, for all the good that does. I think this is already happening in the People's Republic of California. 

The linked article is by Sharyl Atkisson, whom I trust explicitly and implicitly. She is one of the few true reporters left in the world. Fearless, objective and honest. 

Hey Busybody Control Freaks!

• If the vaccines work, and it fits your risk profile, then get vaccinated. What I do should have no effect on you. Live and let live.
• If the vaccines don't work, then what you or I do won't matter. So let me make my own decisions. Live and let die. 
• The same goes for masks. The same goes for lockdowns. If going out doesn't fit your risk profile, then stay home. 
• If you're afraid of me, then you're at liberty to stand six feet away, if it makes you feel better.

You Decide Who the Kakistocrats Are

Democrat Washington State legislators have bound law enforcement for practically anything. The losers are the law-abiding citizens and property rights. 

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. I hope we come to our senses in the next election, but I'm not holding my breath.

Here's what they're doing in the People's Republic of California. Oh, and Washington State:

How to Perpetrate and Perpetuate Lies

Prologue 

Around the turn of the 20th Century, the industrial revolution was in full swing. Mass production and assembly lines were beginning to develop. Seeing the success in one field, people assumed it would work in other fields, like public schools. Schools that once considered students as customers, under this new vision, began to think of their students as products. They even instituted "quality control" measures, such as standardized tests, to make sure the product was uniformly homogenized.

Labor saving devices and inventions were revolutionizing farming and construction, as well as housework. Simultaneously, other ideas, such as the effects of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto, along with the eugenics movement, were all contributing to the idea that we were 'progressing' into a brave new era of human development. 'Progressivism' was the word given to people who bought into this movement. Of course, it was anything but progress, but political forces like to redefine the language to create buzzwords that will get people to buy into the scheme.

Within a few decades, many of the 'progressive' agenda items were discredited, especially after the real Nazis demonstrated what eugenics and socialism were actually all about. So the 'progressives' renamed themselves 'liberals', and partially eschewed eugenics, but socialism and communism thrived in their minds (the brutality of actual communist implementations, like the USSR, North Vietnam, Red China, etc., drove communism underground for a while, but it's having a mainstream resurgence these days).

About the Buzzwords

The word 'liberal' means of, or pertaining to liberty. But the dictionary actually lists "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." as the first definition! Liberty isn't mentioned at all! The word 'progressive' means of, or pertaining to progress. But the dictionary actually lists "(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas." How does this happen? Deliberately! Someone picked a word and started using it for their movement, until the old context was drowned out. The deception was complete!

I understand that words and the language evolve, and words can take on nearly opposite meanings from what they once were. It's just important that we understand that the new meaning is based on a lie, and that the subliminal message is deliberate.

Epilogue

Consider the following: Let's say that in 1913, people of the Republican Party decided to call themselves 'beneficials', on the grounds that ideas like limited government, free markets, equal justice, personal freedom, personal responsibility and charity are beneficial to society, and are superior to any alternatives. After 75 years or so, the first definition for the word 'beneficial' might be "(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing limited government, free markets, equal justice, personal freedom, personal responsibility and charity." Hey, maybe we Classical Liberals should start calling ourselves 'beneficials'!