Infographic: Jeffrey Epstein's Relationships with Bill Gates, the Clintons, Hollywood, Organized Crime, the Deep State, M.O.S.S.A.D., and More

 

To see this image in full resolution,
right-click on the image, and open in new tab or window,

and download if necessary.

     Sources for this infographic include:

     - Whitney Webb, interview on Jimmy Dore, December 12th, 2022:

"The Mafia, CIA & Jeffrey Epstein Worked TOGETHER To Traffic Minors"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rhlXhvf-c

     - (Read more in Whitney Webb's books One Nation Under Blackmail, parts 1 and 2)

     - I.B.M. and the Holocaust by Edwin Black

Created and published on December 13th, 2022.

Libertarian Party Should Return Money to Taxpayers if it Qualifies for Public Funding

             Another midterm election is upon us.

 

            And, in 2022, the Libertarian Party has achieved ballot access in forty-one states, plus the District of Columbia.

            (Source: TheGreenPapers.com;

                        http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G22/parties.phtml?party=LBTN#CA)

 

            In one of these states – Illinois – six of the Libertarian Party’s nominees will be on the ballot:

            - Scott Schluter (running for governor along with lieutenant governor candidate John Phillips),

            - Secretary of State candidate Jon Stewart (a former professional wrestler, former Republican, and candidate for the party’s gubernatorial nomination in 2018),

            - attorney general candidate Dan Robin,

            - treasurer candidate Preston Nelson,

            - comptroller candidate Deirdre McCloskey, and

            - Bill Redpath, the party’s state chair, who is running for U.S. Senator from Illinois.

 

            Recent polls have put Scott Schluter at between four and nine percent of the vote.

            [Source: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/governor/2022/illinois/]

 

 

            In the voting districts in which Libertarian candidates receive more than five percent of the vote on Election Day, the party – in most places now classified as a “new party” – will officially qualify as a “minor party”.

            [Note: A minor party is defined, by the F.E.C., as a party which received between five and twenty-five percent in the previous election. A new party is one that received between zero and five percent.

            Source: http://transition.fec.gov/info/chtwo.htm#:~:text=Minor%20party%20candidates%20(nominees%20of,party%20candidates%20in%20that%20elec]

            In those jurisdictions, the Libertarian Party – and any other party receiving more than 5% – will be eligible to receive public taxpayer funds, “based on the ratio of their party’s vote in the preceding presidential election to the average of the two major party candidates in that election”, according to the F.E.C..

 

            In his October 10^th, 2016 article for RealClearPolitics.com, titled ““Why Gary Johnson Can Still Make Election History”, author Bill Scher wrote, “…don’t you think for a second that the vehemently anti-big-government Libertarians won’t cash that big government check in a heartbeat.”

            [Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/10/why_gary_johnson_can_still_make_libertarian_history_132015.html]

 

            But, to anyone who is familiar with libertarian political theory and voluntaryist ethics, this presents a problem, as “Taxation is Theft” has been a slogan in the party for some time now.
            For the Libertarian Party of Illinois to accept taxpayer funds, would involve receiving funds which were arguably stolen, or extorted, from non-consenting civilians.

 

            Among those members of the party who do want the party to accept public funding, claims that “We’re just following the same rules that everyone else has to follow” seem tempting. After all, these rules affect other small parties in the same way, and the party could use the funding. “We need the money”.

            However, to accept such funds, would be immoral, and should be considered immoral by Libertarians.

            The party will certainly not be done “needing money” after receiving such taxpayer  funds. And, of course, needing something is not a valid reason to take it from somebody.

 

 

            We must stay true to first principles.

            The collection of taxes is done through a soft, legalized form of violence.

            Although the collection of personal income is done “without violence” (when the state and the I.R.S. take it out of your check), it is only non-violent on its face. In truth, the government would consider it an act of violence if you were to show up at a government tax office and try to recoup some of what was taken from you, claiming that you are owed a refund for bad service. And just the same, if you were to make attempts to conceal your wealth, or defend yourself and your property against confiscation. And the government would use real violence – i.e., physical force – to confront you, and to punish the actions you took, which the government chooses to perceive as violent. But it is the government which initiated force (started the fight).

            Additionally, some members of the party feel that voters never agreed to be subject to certain types of taxes in the first place. But whether Amendment XVI (which allowed income taxation) was duly ratified or not, the taxation of personal   income, by the federal government, should still be considered immoral (legalized theft).

          The fact that the money has already been taxed, justifies neither the continuation nor the increase of funding to new organizations. The fact that taxpayer funds previously supported a set of activities which were, overall, less inclined to promote liberty, does not justify reinventing ourselves as a new arm of the government (instead of a political party) before we are duly elected.
          To accept extorted funds from taxpayers, to fund our political party, would be to participate in, and benefit from, the non-consensual use of other people’s money to promote a political cause which about 95% of them do not endorse.
            A party that asks its members to sign a pledge promising that they do not support the use of violence to achieve political goals, should not wait to receive funds that were extorted from taxpayers at the threat of violent arrest and imprisonment, while sitting on its hands, pretending that it doesn't approve of that arrangement.
             For the Libertarian Party to accept public funding, would be for the party to say to the taxpayers, “Pay us, or else.” We would become what we hate. And it would demoralize us.

            Going through the experience of being treated nicely (rather than fairly) by this public funding law, might cause Libertarians to, one day, conclude that the rest of the arrangement is fair, in regard to election law.
            They could conclude that Democrats and Republicans are equal participants in a fair system.
            This is obviously not the case, however, as the major parties' previous electoral successes have allowed them to be "grandfathered in" in various ways (such as their duopoly on the authoring of campaign finance regulations; and their control over who qualifies for debates, through the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates).

            If “the rules” allow the legalized extortion of people’s wealth, then “the rules” cannot possibly be fair in the first place. The Libertarian Party should not participate in a rigged game, no matter how lightly rigged it appears to be.

            Those rules can be changed, and with little notice, and little effect on the party’s activities.

            And the way the rules are written now, they arguably promise a kind of charity to smaller parties, whom arguably do not necessarily deserve that charity. Especially ones which are known for their support of meritocracy and their opposition to government being charitable with “other people’s money”.

            Think of what would happen if a fascist or authoritarian party – one that openly wanted to expand the size, scope, and budget of government – were to receive enough of the vote to qualify for public funds? The same law that allows the Libertarian Party access to those funds, allows public funds to be given to any party receiving more than five percent of the vote.

 

            We must not resort to “arguments from benevolence”; arguments which fascist parties could easily use for their own purposes.

            Just as we would not argue that government is a “necessary evil”, so must we avoid arguing that the Libertarian Party should support evil (i.e., involuntary) sourcing of tax revenues in order to fund ourselves as a “necessary” arm of the government.

            That is why no argument, based on “the rules”, nor practicality, should be allowed to stand, in regard to the debate over whether the Libertarian Party should accept taxpayer funds as a consequence of achieving more than five percent in the election.

 

            While optimistic Libertarians tend to comfort themselves with the notion that receiving public money will serve the necessary and practical purpose of funding our party’s important work, the election returns have not yet signified that the public agrees that our work is necessary.

            To accept public funds would arguably turn the Libertarian Party into an arm of the government. Not just the government, but a statist government; one which most party adherents consider too centralized, monopolistic, and immoral, to be able to exercise its powers without resorting to more violence (and legitimizing violence in the process).

            Why should the Libertarian Party become a sort of "Department of Redundancy Department" within its hated enemy, the State, when it could remain a private, voluntary political organization, like it is supposed to be? It would only serve to legitimize the State, if the party were to "join" the government in this manner, before it is even elected.

            The situation would undoubtedly be ironic. But what are we going to say to taxpayers when they rightfully point out that the party’s receiving stolen funds to become an arm of the government, is not only ironic, but also hypocritical?
            While the irony of an anti-tax party receiving taxpayer funds will serve as an amusing spectacle that will draw some new voters in and make them curious, we cannot be sure that our defense of receiving public funds will not turn off many potential voters who would be more interested in us if we were less hypocritical.
            By and large, if and when the Libertarian Party elects to receive public funds as a consequence of surpassing five percent of the vote, we will be ridiculed. We will be treated as if we were Ayn Rand showing up at the Social Security office to pick up her check.

            The fact that it seems necessary and proper to us to do anti-government work within the government, means nothing to most voters. And if the history of the expansion of government tells us anything, it is that what is necessary and proper to one group of people may not be necessary and proper in the eyes of another group of people.
            We must not pretend that the expenditure of extorted taxpayer funds will do good to the taxpayers simply because the recipients believe that they are using the money to do good.
            We do not deserve this money unless and until we convince taxpayers that there is something in it for them. If members of the public want to send us money, nothing will stop them after we achieve five percent of the vote, just as nothing will have stopped them beforehand.

 

            The Libertarian Party should decline and refuse public taxpayer funds whether or not it surpasses five percent of the vote.

            This would show consistency, and dedication to our voluntaryist principles. It would also demonstrate our adherence to a law which makes us eligible for public funding, but which does not require us to accept the money.

            Most importantly, it would provide the Libertarian Party with an important opportunity, which no other party would be likely to take, given the same circumstances: We would get an opportunity to save the taxpayers money without even taking office.
          This could be a “teachable moment” to voters, which could be pitched as “giving the public a refund” or “getting the taxpayers their money back” as an apology and reparations for bloated government, waste, and mismanagement.

            Although this would be only a small step towards fixing the government’s budgetary problems, it should be framed as such anyway, to avoid risking the public's contempt by appearing to pat ourselves on our own backs in self-congratulation. We should make it clear that more "refunds" are coming whenever we are eventually elected.
            It doesn't matter how much the influx of funds would help the party. Nor does it matter how small a step it would be to return those funds, when it comes to filling deficits in government budgets.
            Principles matter. And voters remember hypocrisy.
            The party should keep its eyes on the prize of remaining untouched by tainted money (and also, of saving the taxpayers money).

            Moreover, rejecting public funds would not be a total loss, in terms of the party's overall success.
            If we take a stand opposing theft from taxpayers when it is most important to do so (that is, when that theft stands to benefit us), then we may receive goodwill, and a boost in popularity and reputation, that will far outweigh the economic loss sustained in refusing public funds.
            We will get good press, and more people will consider voting for us in the future.
            Additionally, we will stand out as the first small party to oppose taxing people to fund political parties which they may not support (and to which they might even have strong ethical objections). Refusing public funds would send a message that, when other small parties accept public funds, they are benefiting from legalized theft (just the same as it would be if Libertarians - or Republicans or Democrats, for that matter - were to accept them).

            And who knows? Refusing public funds might even garner the party some voluntary donations (so economic loss isn't assured).
            And voluntary donations are the best kind of donations, because they’re the only donations that are ethical to accept.
               How much money we take in, through “playing by the rules” doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as whether the money is obtained ethically in the first place.

           For the party to accept what amounts to - from the perspective of any self-respecting student of libertarian ethics - “legally stolen funds” (that is, funds extorted through violence that is legitimized through formal legal processes) would be to participate in a transaction that should be considered not only antithetical to our stated moral precepts, but also legally null and void.
            It should not even have standing in court, just as an ordinary person would have no standing if he knowingly agreed to receive stolen goods, and then claimed to be entitled to something to which the seller had no legal right to sell in the first place.
            We should neither commit theft, nor become its beneficiaries, nor be party to theft in any way. We must follow our pledge to oppose the use of violence to achieve not only political goals, but economic and social/moral goals as well.
            If we accept the receipt of public taxpayer funds, for the purposes of funding the Libertarian Party, then we will not be able to defend that position, without "losing our soul" by abandoning our principles.
 

            The Libertarian Party should not only promise to refuse, decline, and return all taxpayer funds eligible to be disbursed to them in accordance with the law; it should advocate for the repeal of the law that allows private political parties to receive public funds before they are elected to office.
            It would be profoundly immoral for the Libertarian Party to choose to receive public funds long before acquiring the power to eliminate forms of tax revenue acquisition which are collected in manners other than voluntary donation and "fee-for-service" or "use-based system" models.

 

            We, in the Libertarian Party, must send the message that campaign funds are supposed to be earned fairly and freely; that is, through free, unpressured requests, made by either paid campaign workers, or volunteers who work unpaid but volunteer their labor enthusiastically.

            To refuse public funding would be the least that the party could do; to relieve the taxpayers of the burden of paying for us to exist, and to give the public a reason to like us, and see us being consistent.

            To promise to refuse public funding, could serve as a sort of “consolation prize”, providing voters with a new reason to vote for us. Or, at the very least, it could serve as a new reason for voters to see us as consistent and principled, rather than hypocritical and opportunistic.
            Many of us (myself included) have steadfastly opposed, on free speech grounds, having regulatory limitations upon the rights of private individuals and groups to donate money to political campaigns. This position is very unpopular in a nation in which some four in five voters disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C..
            The Libertarian Party must send the message that it supports some form of limitations upon campaign donations. To accept voluntary donations from private sources, while refusing to accept funds received through extortion and expropriation, would communicate, very clearly, that we do have limits, in regard to campaign finance.
            Being less opportunistic, by refusing public funds, will help convince the public that we are not as greedy and selfish as the public sees us, but merely rationally self-interested (as Ayn Rand sometimes clarified).

            If the Libertarian Party receives more than five percent of the vote, then it should decline to receive funds extorted from the taxpayer.
            The party should immediately make it clear that it does not intend to perpetuate the cycle of legitimized violence and theft, by electing to receive those funds.
            It should, as soon as possible, undertake a mission to find candidates for office who will promise to author (and run on) new legislation which will afford equal opportunity for all parties, while providing stolen funds to none.

            It's just the right thing to do.

 


Update (added on November 13th, 2022):

            Early results, posted to the Libertarian Party of Illinois group on Facebook on November 13th, indicate that Scott Schluter received about 2.9% of the vote, just under 110,000 voters.

Written on November 8^th, 2022

Published on November 8^th, 2022

Updated on November 13th, 2022

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a box.

     The box can be any size, as long as the square piece of card stock used for the top of the box is one half-inch larger than the piece used for the bottom of the box. These instructions assume a 6-inch square for the bottom, and a 6 1/2 -inch square for the top.
     [Note: If you make the box out of regular paper, then you may wish to make the box fit together more tightly. You can do this by reducing the size of the top piece of the box to something less than a half-inch larger than the size of the bottom piece.]

     The large images show instructions, and are actual size. The smaller images are actual size as well, and can be printed easily.

     Key
     Black Lines = Cut with scissors. [Note: Cutting is optional, as long as you know how to fold the box without cutting.]
     Red Lines = Fold outward / back.
     Blue Lines = Fold inward.
     Green Fields = These show where the inside design will be.
     Yellow Fields = These show where the outside design will be.

     Click here to see how to fold a version of this box that was created without cutting:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8p_MIq4ngU

     After familiarizing yourself with how to fold the box, and where the yellow and green fields are located, you can fill-in the two images at the bottom of this article with designs that you come up with by yourself!

     To see these images in full resolution, click on them, open them in a new tab and/or window if necessary, save the images, open them, and zoom in if necessary.

Bottom of box - cutting and folding instructions

Inside of bottom of box

Outside of bottom of box

Top of box - cutting and folding instructions

Inside of top of box

Outside of top of box

6.5-inch top square;
download in full resolution and print actual size

6-inch bottom square;
download in full resolution and print actual size

Based on a technique shown to me

by my great aunt Serena

in 1997 or 1998.

Based on designs I created

using Microsoft Paint in 2003.

Images created on May 31st, and June 1st, 2022.

Written and published on June 1st, 2022.

In 2018, A Child Was 123 Times More Likely to Be Molested or Raped Than Shot in U.S. Public Schools

 

Sources:

Sexual violence reports rise drastically at schools, Education Department data shows - POLITICO

School Shootings in 2018: How Many and Where (edweek.org)

Created and Published on May 30th, 2022.

Political Infographics, 2015-2018

 

"Georgist (and Basic Income) Alphabet Soup"
2014

"Freed Markets"
2015

"Left-Wing Market Anarchism vs. Right-Wing Market Anarchism"
2017

"Now When You Say Socialism...?"
(detailing eighteen different ways to define socialism)
2017

"How Libertarian Socialism is Possible"
2018



Click, and open in new tab or window, or download
in order to enlarge / see in full resolution




Created by Joe Kopsick between 2015 and 2018
Compiled and published on April 19th, 2022

Reaction to the News of Late February 2022: The Death of Jean-Luc Brunel, the End of Covid Mandates, and the Russo-Ukrainian War (Part 2 of 2)

 

Reaction to the News of Late February 2022:
The Death of Jean-Luc Brunel, the End of Covid Mandates,
and the Russo-Ukrainian War (Part 2 of 2)

Table of Contents

[see the previous post to read the first four sections:]

First Introduction: Message to My Readers
Second Introduction: Worse Comes to Worse (Covid-19 and Ukraine)
Part I: The First Rule of Coronavirus is That You Don’t Talk About Coronavirus
Part II: Stop Suffocating Your Kid, and Stop Being Obsessed with Other People’s Bodies


[in this post, coming soon:]

Part III: What American Sex Scandals Have to Do with Ukraine
Part IV: Jean-Luc Brunel
Part V: The Russo-Ukrainian War
Part VI: Conclusions

Reaction to the News of Late February 2022: The Death of Jean-Luc Brunel, the End of Covid Mandates, and the Russo-Ukrainian War (Part 1 of 2)

 

Reaction to the News of Late February 2022:
The Death of Jean-Luc Brunel, the End of Covid Mandates,
and the Russo-Ukrainian War (Part 1 of 2)

Table of Contents

First Introduction: Message to My Readers
Second Introduction: Worse Comes to Worse (Covid-19 and Ukraine)
Part I: The First Rule of Coronavirus is That You Don’t Talk About Coronavirus
Part II: Stop Suffocating Your Kid, and Stop Being Obsessed with Other People’s Bodies

[see the next post to read the remaining sections of this article:]
Part III: What American Sex Scandals Have to Do with Ukraine
Part IV: Jean-Luc Brunel
Part V: The Russo-Ukrainian War
Part VI: Conclusions

Content

First Introduction: Message to My Readers

            I apologize to my readers for going nearly three months without publishing any new articles. Make no mistake; The Aquarian Agrarian is not going anywhere.

            But recent circumstances in my personal life have made it necessary for me to place several goals ahead of writing about ongoing matters in politics, namely:

            1) struggling to decrease my current level of socializing to a level that’s acceptable and allows me to write more;

            2) re-arranging and cleaning my apartment;

            3) organizing plans related to my non-political hobbies;

            4) making plans to complete old and unfinished writing; and

            5) re-arranging the order in which I will complete the articles and chapters which I will need to write, in order to complete my upcoming book Rapists Defending Rapists.

            That book will be about the child abuse which I endured at the hands of my father, and my ongoing attempts to get criminal charges filed against him for those crimes.

            You can read more about that – and child abuse in Lake County, Illinois – by visiting the links at the following page:

            http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/07/links-to-all-of-my-articles-and-videos.html

            That book should, hopefully, come out before the end of 2022.

            I am also planning to launch a new website, JoeKopsick.com, which is currently under construction. That site can be viewed at http://www.joekopsick.com.

            Additionally, I am planning to transfer the nearly 200 articles on my blog which deal with government sex scandals, onto a new blog called PizzaFake or PizzaFact?. That blog (empty as of February 2022) can be seen at http://pizzafakeorpizzafact.blogspot.com.

            I have also launched a new YouTube channel since my old one was taken down. That channel can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_sq2Ku0ZpWiGeQetFGa_wg.

            You can expect more videos to be uploaded to that channel soon. The channel will be up, unless and until my video commentaries (regarding the coronavirus pandemic, government sex scandals, and/or communism) get flagged as too controversial to remain on YouTube.

            I am exploring alternative modes of video storage, to prevent problems like this from occurring in the future.

            Given that my blog contains twenty incomplete articles, and about forty articles which need small amounts of editing and expansion, it will be impossible for me – for the remainder of this year - to weigh-in on current events as often, and in as much detail, as I would like to.

            But I am writing this article – beginning on February 25^th, 2022, the day after my thirty-fifth birthday – in order to, at least, provide my readers with something.

            What follows is a reflection upon the news of late February 2022; focusing on the Russo-Ukrainian War, the death of Jean-Luc Brunel, and their relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, other government sex scandals, and the end of many government mandates related to the Coronavirus pandemic.

 

Second Introduction: Worse Comes to Worse (Covid-19 and Ukraine)

            Many Americans still believe that “World War II helped get America out of the Great Depression”.

            It could be argued that that is true. And those who believe that the government should increase military spending in order to promote economic growth, are called Military Keynesians.

            But if it’s true that “World War II helped get us out of the Depression”, then it’s only true because, during the war, what Eisenhower later called the “Military-Industrial Complex” (essentially, war profiteers) took control of the economy, and of large amounts of money, by becoming employers of large numbers of people (women included).

            It becomes a lot easier to organize economy once everyone has the same goal (namely, blowing-up the enemy). In 1947, the grip which war profiteers held on the nation’s post-wartime economy, made it possible to orchestrate a large re-organization of the president’s security powers, without much public awareness or objection.

            This re-organization caused the executive branch – and the American national intelligence sector (which made use of many of the same computer technologies which I.B.M. supplied to the Nazis) - to grow to totalitarian proportions.

            The government prints and taxes huge amounts of money – much more than it needs – in order to be able to finance wars. And then – especially during wartime - the government’s monopoly powers (assisted by the citizens’ ignorance about how to maintain the limitations on their government) allow the government to nationalize whole industries and sectors of the economy.

            Control over these industries is handed-over to the president as executive, gradually more and more, as Congress and the formerly free business sector hand-over more of their wealth and property to the national government. Thus, the president benefits from the growth of the government’s monopoly powers, and, indeed, the unitary executive is the chief beneficiary of the growth of the government’s powers.

            As government’s control over the economy grows, the government’s political monopoly leads to a “regulatory capture” of business; that is, the businesses come to be “regulated” by lawmakers who recently worked for or invested in the same businesses (or who still do).

            The government assists businesses to become monopolies, by picking winners and losers; not only in the arms industry, but in other industries as well. This occurs through subsidization, and the protection of the property claims of wealthy companies and individuals (who are often corrupt and do not deserve to have most of their property claims enforced).

            And, in authoritarian regimes, government officials invade businesses in order to hassle them with threatening, intimidating inspections, subtle demands of money in exchange for leaving the owners alone, and even theft from businesses by officers.

            When government’s “regulation” of businesses involves subsidies, property protection, and taxes – and doesn’t involve threats of harm – the subsidies and protection usually serve as consolation, to the business owners, for the fact that they are being taxed. But overregulation, overtaxation, and government protecting too many unpopular property claims, can all lead to the kind of civil unrest which can result in revolution (and even war).

            But the promise that businesses will be taxed and regulated, causes the people and the workers to be complacent with the welfare state, instead of something more long-lasting and permanent, which would be their own (such as property, guaranteed economic freedom, a jobs guarantee, or some variety of a collectivistic economy, or any kind of economic system that actually produced something instead of acquiring value through destruction, environmental devastation, and wartime plundering).

            And satisfaction with the state of affairs of business is what causes the people to become placated enough with their material well-being, that they are not willing to criticize the expenditure of their tax money on killing people overseas.

            Thus, If World War II helped get America out of the Depression, then it’s because wartime made it necessary to ramp up production and militarize the economy.

            And also, because World War II was a problem that was large enough to force Americans (and the rest of the world) to re-orient their priorities towards the future, in the wake and aftermath of the Depression. The war re-oriented Americans’ thought process from “How are we going to endure this depression?” to “How are we going to get out of this depression?”.

Memes not created by the author of this blog.

            It is in much the same way that World War II “helped us get out of the depression”, that the now-erupting Russo-Ukrainian War (which, many are concerned, could escalate into World War III) is “helping us get out of the coronavirus pandemic”.

            My hope is that it will force us to re-focus our priorities towards how to create a peaceful and stable future for our planet, without creating unreasonable travel and work conditions for people who are being treated like criminals just because they got sick (or might get sick).

            I say that, of course, not because the war in Ukraine is helping to cure anyone of Covid-19, but because what’s going on there is not directly related to Coronavirus. And we need something – anything – to talk about, besides Covid-19, because we have been obsessed with it for the last two years.

            And not just to the point where the droning voices of media have echoed on about the many different facets of the story for months and months. But also to the point where we’ve ignored other very important stories, like what China has been doing to the Uyghur Muslims, the time war almost erupted between India and China over mining rights, the looming possibility of war between China and Taiwan.

            Sure; talking about the possibility of China going to war (with Taiwan, America, India, or whomever) may be a non-starter. That’s because – while it does serve to change the subject away from Covid – most of the people who want to talk about a China-Taiwan war, probably want to start such a war.

            But other news stories which we could be discussing include what’s in Hunter Biden’s laptop, the ongoing torture of Julian Assange, and the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Israel-Palestine.

     Numerous critics of U.S. foreign policy have noted in recent days that, if the neo-liberal American media had responded to any of these wars with anywhere near such visceral outrage as has been outpoured over Russia's attack on Ukraine, then these wars would have ended a long time ago.

            But most importantly – for the purposes of this article – we have been ignoring the deaths of Jeffrey Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel, and the guilty verdict in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell.

            Some people my age have posted on social media recently that we should be talking about the trucker protest in Canada (which is coming to the U.S. soon, beginning in California) instead of worrying about Ukraine.

            But there are two problems with that: 1) talking about the truckers doesn’t help us stop talking about coronavirus; and 2) people were saying that before reports emerged that the Russian military had taken out 83 above-ground Ukrainian military bases, annihilated the country’s air defenses, and bombed  the capital of Kiev and numerous other cities.

            And so – at least for now – I’m going to focus on the looming possibility of escalation in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict over the Donbas region, and what it has to do with Coronavirus, Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, and sex scandals which involve the U.S. and Russia and/or Ukraine.

Part I: The First Rule of Coronavirus is That You Don’t Talk About Coronavirus

            If we all stop talking about Covid-19, it will go away.

            Of course, I don’t mean that literally.

            When I say “it will go away”, by “it”, I mean the authoritarianism. The mandates. The unreasonable restrictions on our work and travel and immigration, which are being enforced in the name of science.

            But it might actually be true in a literal sense as well.

            What I’m saying is that we should do what the government of the Netherlands has been saying we should do since the pandemic began: We should learn to live with the virus.

            I say that because (as podcaster and comedian Jimmy Dore has been saying) everyone is going to get the virus. N.I.A.I.D. Director Anthony Fauci, and former Medicare administrator Andy Slavitt have admitted that. And Rochelle Walensky, director of the C.D.C. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) admitted in January that coronavirus vaccines are no longer effective at preventing transmissions.

            http://www.audacy.com/kmox/news/national/cdc-director-says-vaccines-are-not-preventing-transmission

            And I’m saying that if large numbers of people stop communicating a demand for coronavirus-related products and coronavirus-related news coverage, then the Big Pharma -controlled mainstream news media will stop pitching more government controls, more vaccine mandates, and more health insurance mandates (which will inevitably result in higher medical prices, despite what politicians claim) as the solutions.

            And the sooner that happens, the sooner people will begin to consider taking generic medications, and demanding the right to buy themselves more medications without prescriptions as long as they are informed of the ingredients and potential risks. And the sooner they will begin to pay attention to their own dietary and exercise and rest habits, and admit to themselves that the government could not realistically take care of all of us even if it wanted to.

            The sooner all of this happens, the sooner we will realize what Dutch medical scientists have been telling us from the start of this pandemic; that natural immunity can help us, as long as we do not all get exposed to the virus at once, because that would cause hospitals to be overwhelmed with patients.

            Coronavirus is essentially just a new variant of S.A.R.S. (which is why it’s called SARS-CoV-2). It has symptoms so similar to the flu and pneumonia, that avoiding it forever will be practically impossible, and distinguishing a Covid-related death from a Covid-caused death will be just as difficult (and the confusion about these numbers will be used to confuse and scare us).

            Now, doctors are increasingly saying that exposure to the latest strain of the Covid-19 virus – the mild Omicron variant – can confer a type of natural immunity which is safer than vaccines (or, at least, safer than getting vaccines and multiple booster shots). But then, of course, it only confers natural immunity when it does not result in the death of the patient.

            If you have lungs, getting respiratory diseases is just a part of life.

            Of course, these diseases is a part of death, too, which is a problem. The problem, in fact.

            But the government should not compound that problem by merely hinting that taking Vitamin C could help you recover from an immune illness. Our government will recommend taking vitamins, but it will not explain why, and it will not remind us that Vitamins C, D, E, and Zinc are all helpful. Jimmy Dore has mentioned D3 and K2 as helpful as well.

            In fact, there is a medical trial that's going on right now, which will not be complete for another two years, regarding what's called “Quintuple Therapy”. This involves treatment with Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Zinc, hydroxychloroquine sulfate, and Azithromycin (Z-Pak). I predict that these trials will find this combination of drugs more effective against coronavirus than not. If that happens, then it will likely vindicate those who recommended the use of hydroxychloroquine sulfate (distinct from the fish tank cleaner hydroxychloroquine) early-on in the pandemic.

            That the government and the mainstream media have completely failed to bring these trials to Americans’ attention, is an act of medical negligence that ought to be criminal.

            Additionally, the government couldn’t keep it straight, early on, whether we needed “social distancing” or “physical distancing”, or both. Government made little effort to distinguish staying apart from people physically, from ceasing communication with others.

            And so – due to that lack of clarity - people who shouldn’t have stayed indoors, stayed indoors, isolated from other people, in rooms that weren’t well-ventilated. And in doing so, they shielded themselves from other people’s opinions about the virus and the mandates which followed it.

            The government was evidently too busy trying to sell us vaccines, to bother to remind us that diseases remain longer in rooms that are not well-ventilated, or that practicing distancing doesn’t mean you can’t go outside. Nor does it remind us that staying inside all the time means we aren’t getting enough Vitamin D from the sun, which is essential to building our immune health.

            The government doesn’t want us to know just how much vitamins can assist our immune response. And that’s because “our” government is in the pocket of Big Pharma, and the federal health laws are unconstitutional and written by politicians who are involved in insider trading (in the medical device and pharmaceutical industries).

            We all know that air can – and does - get into our noses and mouths through the corners of the masks.

            And the government is just waiting for us to walk into the trap of the false solution to this problem: the pro-vaccine politicians in the national and state governments want us to beg them to mandate that we wear masks or respirators which even more securely fasten onto our faces, creating air-tight seals. Seals which, incidentally, make it difficult to breathe (if what you want to breathe is fresh air). We should not fall for this.

            Who is to say that this level of protection is really necessary for anybody except for medical workers? Certainly not the national government of the United States, which operates under the auspices of the Constitution, which does not contain the word “health” or “medicine” even once. The fact that these words are not mentioned, means that any and all positive laws, regarding the health of people who do not belong to a specific class of federal subjects, should have never been allowed to come into existence in the first place. These laws eventually will be (and ought to be, as soon as possible) declared null and void, as soon as some citizen insists on defending his right, in court, to refrain from obeying that so-called “law”.

            Just because a procedure should be strongly recommended, and followed, by health workers (for example, federal health workers employed by the Veterans’ Administration), that doesn’t mean it should be forced upon the general public. Yes; our health is interconnected with other people’s, but the fact that the virus spreads more quickly in highly-populated concentrated urban centers than more sparsely populated states, should show us that we need to spread out. We need to make use of small and medium-sized towns, start new towns in sparsely populated areas (where it wouldn’t be environmentally unsound to do so), and put unused western lands to a purpose.

            And just because something should be an advisory guideline, doesn’t mean people should have to go to jail (or get fired) for not wearing a mask or not getting a vaccine.

            The only way to reduce political violence is to use peaceful administration instead of violent enforcement to achieve political goals. To say otherwise is to commit oneself to terroristic statism, being that the definition of the state includes the legitimization and threat of violence.

            That is why it is most ironic that those who are protesting the government’s unconstitutional (read: illegal) actions, are being branded as terrorists (especially in Canada and Australia).

            Despite the perception of the right-wing, that the Biden Administration is pro-immigrant, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke in Guatemala in 2020, and cited the pandemic (and the risk of Covid spreading due to free travel) to justify telling immigrants “do not come”.
  http://www.npr.org/2021/06/07/1004074139/harris-tells-guatemalans-not-to-migrate-to-the-united-states
     So instead of taking Doctors Without Borders and putting them on the border, we are putting in place the same kinds of international travel restrictions which were the reaction to the 1900s-10s Mexican typhus epidemic, and the 1930s typhus epidemic (which affected Eastern Europe, and many of the Jews who died in the Holocaust), complete with travel restrictions.

            Who knew that our right to travel comes from our bosses? I don’t remember agreeing to that. It certainly isn’t in the Constitution. Our freedom to travel comes from the fact that we are human, cannot help but travel, and must travel in order to work and other things. Amendment IX to the Constitution acknowledges that we have rights which are not mentioned in the Constitution. Travel is one of these rights.

            Any limitation upon the freedom of movement must be voluntary, and – if it causes someone to incur a financial responsibility – compensation at fair market value.

            Just the same, the fact that breathing is not mentioned in the Constitution, does not mean that it is not one of our rights.

            The national government has no business restricting the flow of air and oxygen in and out of our lungs, just as it has no business restricting the free movement of people. We cannot live without breathing, and anyone who is not being coerced and bullied would say that they prefer to breathe unrestricted rather than restricted.

            The mask is therefore an unreasonable restriction upon the freedom to breathe, and the enforcement of mask mandate laws should be challenged by anyone willing to go to court (and risk jail time) to assert their rights.

            No jury should be instructed, by any judge or any law, that they must convict if the person committed the offense; juries must be informed that they have the right to decide both the facts and the law. Any American who could become a juror in such a case, should resolve to never help enforce such laws, and say “not guilty” by reason that the law is unconstitutional, and should not have been allowed to come into existence, or be enforced, in the first place. And no matter how obviously guilty a person is.

            It is a sad statement that the people who took to the streets to protest the murder of George Floyd, agreed to wear masks while marching. They were, in effect, partially suffocating at the time, while protesting a choking death at the hands of police.

            To add insult to injury, many of those who protested Floyd being choked to death, while masked, are African-American, and many African-Americans suffer from sickle-cell anemia, a disease characterized by low oxygen levels in the blood. Therefore, these people – who are fighting for our freedom by protesting in the streets against a government that knows how to do nothing except violence – are the last people who should ever be masked.

            Being that African-Americans are also disproportionately anti-vaccine as compared with the rest of the American population, it is a small miracle that African-Americans have not been arrested en masse for refusing to wear masks or get vaccinated.
     Two months before George Floyd was murdered, a black man named Daniel Prude in Rochester, New York suffocated to death after a bag was placed over his head to prevent him from spitting on police.

     http://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/nyregion/daniel-prude-rochester-police.html
     When that murder happened, about three African-Americans were murdered by police every day in America. No matter how many are being murdered today, no amount of lessening of the violence and racism inherent in our law enforcement system should cause us to forget the horrors which people suffered during arrest in the year of 2020 (nor any other year).

            We must not allow politicians to convince us that we should obey health laws at the threat of force. If the police are willing to use physical force against us, in order to get us to obey these laws, then we know that these measures were never really about protecting our health in the first place.

            Moreover, in the early 2010s, some American health care workers were bullied, by their employers and health insurers, into giving up their smoke breaks, and even their right to smoke at home on their own time (without paying for that privilege). Non-health workers, too, were bullied with threats of higher insurance rates.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/health/policy/smokers-penalized-with-health-insurance-premiums.html

            http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/06/04/188631885/that-employee-who-smokes-costs-the-boss-5-800-a-year

            We’ve come a long way from letting nurses smoke inside of hospitals decades ago, but that does not mean that we need to allow the stigmatization of tobacco smoking to get out of control, and turn into something that is dealt with through force, harsh judgment, or excessive financial penalization.

            Some people, especially those who are left-leaning, seem to have the perception that people who smoke, and take on extraordinary risks to their own health, are or could become “free riders” on the public health system. But that perception is incorrect. The problem with making sickly people “free-riders” doesn’t stem from individuals’ choices to be irresponsible; the problem stems from the fact that taxpayers are made to foot the bill for the irresponsible health choices of people who are complete strangers to them (and have little in common with them, other than living in the same state or country).

            If we want to stop smokers (and other people who willingly take on extraordinary risks to their own health) from being “free riders” on the public health system, then the way to do that – which respects economic freedom and the need for public transparency – would be for the government to either increase people’s taxes specifically for the reason of helping them fund their own wellness care, or to exclude people from public health services who do not wish to be affiliated with the government. But then, we have to offer people the option of not being involved at all with a government they believe is irredeemably corrupt.

            Someone else smoking a cigarette does not kill you. If you don’t like it, then stay at least twenty feet away from them. Someone else potentially having a respiratory infection does not kill you. If you don’t like that someone isn’t wearing a mask, then stand at least six feet (at least) away from them.

            Walking around in public with a respiratory infection does not kill you or others. If you don’t want to get sick, then you can wear a mask, and you can get vaccinated. If you are worried about other people not getting vaccinated, and them transmitting the disease to you, then you are worried about the effectiveness about the vaccine that you received. So stop telling other people what to do; instead, do more research on medications before you take them.

            Stop telling other people what to wear, and stay away from people whom you consider dangerous or possibly sick.

            The censorship is out of control.

            A few months ago, while I was kicked off of YouTube, I was unable to watch videos on the channel that were deemed to be “adult programming” (which includes some comedy videos). So I had to figure out which of my YouTube accounts still worked.

            On the positive side, that made me get a new channel, and get back on YouTube. But I don’t appreciate having to prove my age in order to watch videos, when it is the responsibility of parents to make sure that their kids are not watching inappropriate things.

            I don’t appreciate Facebook Messenger and Microsoft Office replacing my curse words with asterisks when I dictate messages to friends. What if I get attacked in my own house, and the easiest way to record what happens to me is to turn on Office? Any curse words the burglar shouts at me would just get replaced with blanks. I’ll use Audacity to record the audio, I guess.

            But the point is this: The irresponsibility of children, becomes a responsibility unto parents, but modern parents derelict that responsibility, by transferring it to the government, which transfers it to the people who run YouTube (owned by Google) and Facebook. Facebook and Google, which are, respectively, contractors for the C.I.A. and the Pentagon, then transfers the costs of protecting parents from having to watch what their children are watching to make sure it’s appropriate, onto me (who has chosen not to have children), through these unreasonable age verification and security features.

            On the internet and off, health related and not, we are resorting to measures of social control which border on things seen in Brave New World, The Matrix, and the made-for-television movie The Boy in the Plastic Bubble starring John Travolta. [Note: If you’ve read 1984 but not Brave New World, you understand the mass surveillance dystopia, but you don’t fully understand the eugenics dystopia.]

            It is a shame that we have resorted to making hand sanitizer (which dries-out the skin on our hands, and often contains the toxic chemical wood alcohol) available in many public places, in order to prevent the transmission of disease. Maybe if the so-called “people of Wal-Mart” [a term referring to a website featuring photos of unacceptable behavior of the “unwashed masses” of Wal-Mart customers] had been told “cover your cough” – instead of being given a confusing combination of “vaccinate this”, “distance that”, and “you kind of need vitamins or something” – then maybe this all could have been solved without too many confusing rules.

            I know I’m in the minority on this – in terms of supporting physical distancing but opposing masking – but what is the point of wearing masks, if people are still free to come within one foot of each other in public and in businesses? What is the point of practicing physical distancing, when companies in the service sector aren’t even training their employees to stay six feet away from the customers? What is the point of wearing a mask, if an employee can’t hear what I’m saying through the mask without getting within six feet of me in order to hear my question?
     Moreover, if Coronavirus and the vaccine for it don't give you problems with your jaws, then having to grit your teeth behind a mask just might.
     http://www.keepsmilingsandiego.com/blog/could-covid-19-cause-tmj-dysfunction/
     http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/12/15/pfizer-moderna-covid-vaccine-trials-and-bells-palsy-what-it/3904994001/
     http://www.rochesteradvanceddentistry.com/blog/how-wearing-a-mask-can-cause-tmj-problems/
     http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/story/lifestyle/health-fitness/2020/12/17/ways-avoid-pain-wearing-mask-prevent-covid-19/3944950001/

            Mandating that human beings wear masks in public, has been almost completely pointless. Especially for children; it has increased their levels of stress, beginning at a time when the country was just beginning to recover from a large teen suicide epidemic.

            And the mandates have resulted in more online learning, which has led to more computer screen time for children, when staring at a computer screen for more than 15 minutes at a time can damage the eyes.

            Also, since parents and close relatives are more likely to molest children than teachers and strangers and the general public, the stay-at-home quarantine orders have likely resulted in more child molestation incidents than would have otherwise occurred without such stay-at-home orders.

            For adults, these mandates have resulted in a more stressful shopping experience, forcing people to speed-shop before the masks make their breathing uncomfortable. And it has led to the ridicule of people who object, whether they seem to have a valid health reason or not. It was hinted, to people with asthma, that they would not have to go masked in public. But now there is such a stigma against not wearing a mask, that asthmatics must live in fear of being labeled a Trump supporter if they go to a store unmasked. Not labeled sick, or a potential health threat, mind you; just a Trump supporter. As if that has anything to do with how transmissible the bacteria and viruses in your body may be.

            Covid-19 pandemic-related mandates have, thus, been ill-advised, counter-productive, and even deleterious to our health.

            Director of N.I.A.I.D. Anthony Fauci has admitted that, when sweat and breath mix inside of a mask, it creates an environment which is conducive to the growth of bacteria, which could fester in the respiratory system.

            The fact that the mask mandates effectively force people to wear certain articles of clothing - in exchange for the so-called “privilege” of walking around in public - reeks of Nazi-era yellow Stars of David for Jews (and red triangles for communists and people who might help Jews), has evidently been lost on the Biden Administration and its supporters.

            The pro-vaccine crowd loves to grand-stand, and ridicule people who refuse to get vaccinated and who don’t like wearing the mask. Vaccine enthusiasts ridicule such people as Nazis themselves, for comparing popular modern laws to authoritarian measures. Nevermind the fact that the “vaccine-hesitant” (or so-called “anti-vaxxers”) are comparing new laws to old Nazi laws in order to stop the government from issuing more authoritarian edicts. The sensitivity of some unknown Jewish people who might hypothetically object to this rhetoric, matters much more, to pro-vaccine voters and politicians, than people being able to breathe comfortably. The need to avoid mentioning the Holocaust outweighs the needs of the people of the State of Israel to go on, with their blood flowing normally, their cells uncorroded by the effects of the vaccine, and their veins not clogged with blood clots from the vaccine.

            The logic of the pro-vaccine politicians is that we have to vaccinate the Jews in Israel nearly to death, in order to stick it to the Nazi right wing of America, for trying to stop the government from becoming more authoritarian. It makes sense… if the punishment for not agreeing is imprisonment.

            Make no mistake; the mask wearing mandate is potentially as dangerous as forced wearing of red triangles and yellow stars. Remember two things: 1) the government does not have the power to tell us what to wear; and 2) Jews weren’t the only people who were told to wear certain articles of clothing.

            The power of the government to make us wear certain articles of clothing, comes from the same place as the power to prohibit us from wearing certain articles of clothing. I’d like to say that this power comes from nowhere, but it comes from the will of law enforcement officials to resort to force, to enforce what they believe are lawful orders, but which are actually unconstitutional.

            But more importantly, and to the point at hand, the power to decide what people shall wear, risks public disrobing for those who disobey. As the saying goes (sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson), “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”

            We must not forget that the Nazis pulled Jewish women out of their homes and stripped them naked, nor that a school boy in Texas had his right to ventilation, warmth, and human contact temporarily taken away as a punishment for not obeying all the rules.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3086106/Boy-nine-pictured-crying-locked-freezing-focus-room-90-MINUTES-Texas-school-misbehaved.html

            We are not even allowed to discuss what the vaccines might be doing to our DNA; it may do nothing at all, but any mention of such a concern prompts censorship (for example, on YouTube).

            It should be clear, now, that these systems of control want no less than total control over us. Not only over our health, but also what we shall wear, how we use our bodies, and (in the case of slaves, sex slaves, and victims of workplace abuse) whom we are allowed to deny the right to touch our genitals.

            While I cannot respect some of Michel Foucault’s opinions regarding sexuality, I’ll admit that Foucault was absolutely right to point out that the government has an interest in keeping people’s reproductive rates under control; namely, to prevent revolution, by keeping the population small, and easily controllable.

            Thus, we should not ignore the connection of political control to sexual control.

            What is not being taught, in schools today, regarding World War II, is that authoritarianism swept Western European countries along with nationalism, and athleticism.

            The rise of ultra-nationalism coincided with the enthusiastic cross-cultural adoption of new team sports by nations such as Britain, France, and Germany. This was justified by a need to compete against other nations, as well as an intense obsession of the public with the individual bodies of any given person who might eventually be in subservience of the given state.

            That athleticism comes hand-in-hand with grooming, narcissism, and aesthetic materialism; an obsession with looks, and looking “modern”, which trumps all other needs (except those directly related to health, strength, and ability to work, exert force, and do as you’re told).

            Those who do not understand the links between competition and sexuality and fascism, need look no further than the 1936 Olympics, held in Berlin, or observe the portrayal of male and female beauty (and nudity) in Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia, her 1938 documentary on the Olympics.

            All over the country, people are realizing that the mask mandate is not (and was never) so much as a health mandate, as much as it is a gesture of blind obedience to the government.

            This gesture indicates not only a faith that the masks are working, but a faith in taxpayer-funded and government-controlled medical science, and in the advice it gives, and in the often unconstitutional laws which are based on it.

            If the mask is not this generation’s Star of David, then it is this generation’s Nazi salute (“sieg heil” / “hail victory”). Like Seinfeld’s “Cosmo Kramer” character, supporting people with A.I.D.S. by marching but refusing to “wear the ribbon”, we are shunned who refuse to wear the mask, as if we have taken the side of the disease.

            Inevitably, those who appear to have “taken the side of the disease” eventually get compared to the virus itself, or described as “tumors”, and other dehumanizing names. Left-leaning people should be above using this kind of rhetoric, because to dehumanize your enemies in order to discredit and silence them, is to stoop to authoritarian behavior which does not respect humanity or unapproved human voices.

            Justin Trudeau, for example, has even spoken of those who protest the mandate as having “unacceptable” views. Fortunately, however, Trudeau has ceased demanding that emergency powers be invoked. This came after he was criticized for failing to justify why the current emergency requires passing new laws in addition to the governmental powers which are already in place.

            All of this makes it hard to deny that that the Covid-19 pandemic has been weaponized for legislative and political purposes.

            All of these incursions – into our freedom of speech, our freedoms to work and travel, our parenting rights, and our right to have privacy with our doctors - in no way achieves what I believe the societal goal should be in response to Covid-19; that is, the response to the pandemic should not be more harmful than the virus itself.

            http://www.local10.com/news/politics/2020/03/23/trumps-dilemma-how-to-protect-both-health-and-economy/

            http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/when-will-lockdowns-be-worse-than-covid19-by-peter-singer-and-michael-plant-2020-04

            http://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/europe/lockdown-skeptics-coronavirus-intl/index.html

            http://ihpi.umich.edu/news/coronavirus-quarantine-cure-not-worse-disease

            The only people who should be wearing masks are people who are at a high risk of contracting respiratory diseases (such as heavy smokers, people who already have such diseases, people who are obese, and people who are over 80 years old).

            And also, anybody who wishes to continue wearing a mask. Repealing mask mandates does absolutely nothing to stop people from wearing masks in public if they wish to do so. And people who continue to wear the mask, after the mandate expires, will be free to shame others for not wearing one.

            After the mask mandates and vaccine requirements go away, the only people left complaining will be those who obeyed the laws, and are angry, bitter, and resentful about the fact that other people were able to resist being coerced and pressured and guilt-tripped and demonized into obeying the same laws.

            The only people complaining will be those who want to force others to behave a certain way, because they don’t know how to leave other people alone.

            As tone-deaf as this may sound, I have to admit that I often wonder how the protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin would have treated Kyle Rittenhouse, if they had remembered that they are supposed to stay six feet away from other people in public at all times, as part of obeying the coronavirus restrictions which many of them (perhaps even most of them) support.

            Part of freedom is learning how to leave people alone.

            The only reason that the government should be recommending that people stay six feet apart, is because, if other people can’t come within six feet of you, then they can’t steal from you, mug you, or rape you. They can communicate disease, though, because according to some sources, air particles travel an average of twenty feet before they settle.

            But then, of course, pointing this out, risks getting us caught in the same trap, as with the masks. Are we really going to start demanding forced separation by twenty feet? How are we to expect people to obey such a law, when they can’t even handle staying six feet apart?

            And at what point does that forced separation begin to resemble segregation? After all, politicians such as Gavin Newsom and Justin Trudeau have not hesitated to hint at the need to separate the masked and vaccinated from the unmasked and unvaccinated. The unmasked and unvaccinated – and the insufficiently vaccinated ­- are being made into second-class citizens.

            What adds insult to injury is that we could have fixed or prevented a lot of the problems we are seeing now, for which mandates have had to correct, a long time ago.

            To accommodate a six-foot physical distancing rule, rebuilding and/or retro-fitting businesses (as well as public thoroughfares, sidewalks, bike lanes, public transit of all kinds, etc.), would be an ordeal enough of its own accord, without a twenty-foot mandate in place. But a six-foot rule might have been workable.

            Ten years ago, if cities across the nation had passed ordinances which would have required that any and all new businesses be environmentally sound, then that would have allowed architects to take a collective pause before they took on the task of designing buildings for the future. They would have been better able to avoid cramming large numbers of people into elevators, onto streets of cities that have few cars, and into crowded subways, which decreases the amount of air available for each person to breathe, risking transmission of respiratory illness in the process.

            While I support the existence of six-foot physical distancing inasmuch as they are optional guidelines, I feel that way not because they shouldn’t be obeyed, but because they shouldn’t be enforced (using physical force) by the government.

            I do not trust the government to do such a thing. I don’t believe it would be constitutional. And there will never be enough police officers to make sure everyone is masked (and obeying physical distancing, etc.), so I don’t even think it would be logistically possible to enforce, even if I believed that it were desirable.

            That is why I would like the freedom to “enforce” the six-foot-distancing guideline myself. Which I will do by punching anyone who comes within six feet of me.

            Of course, this will only work well if most people are aware that I am planning to do that. That’s why I’d like to get my website up and running as soon as possible, so I can sell custom-made “Watch This Motherfucker Get Within Six Feet of Me” T-shirts. If we can get enough people wearing shirts like that, then maybe mass voluntary obedience of the six-foot physical distancing ordinances, could someday become a realistic possibility.

            But also, people would have to be prepared to avoid each other sufficiently, to the point that few people would ever even consider coming anywhere close to six feet away from another person. Remember, it’s a six-foot minimum. There’s nothing that stops you from staying farther from other people than a mere six feet.

            Use your discretion, but be responsible, and remember that the government is (probably) never going to take your side, whether you’re on the right side, or the wrong side, or the legal side, or the illegal side. It all depends on which police officer is called to get involved in the dispute, how paranoid and/or violent the officer is, and which citizen looks the most unstable when the cops arrive on the scene.

            We have to be prepared to defend our rights to do as we please without hurting others. Notice that I said “without hurting others”; not “without potentially risking hurting others”. If there is no victim, then there is no crime. In order to do that, we have to know the law better than the police do. Or else we are going to end up getting choked to death by police, and charged with attempted murder for coughing in public.

            Federal health laws which claim to pertain to anyone other than federal health workers, do not have to be obeyed by the general public. Amendments IX and X to the Constitution mean that legal policy regarding health, being a topic not mentioned in the Constitution, is up to the states or the people, not Congress or any part of the national government.

            As such, the proper, legal, and constitutional way to fight unnecessary coronavirus-related restrictions, is to look for an incidence in which the president has enforced an unconstitutional “law” after the Supreme Court has already told him to stop doing so.

            Meanwhile, at the state and local levels, all state governors and mayors should be urged to repeal all mandates regarding masks and vaccines. This should be done in order to accommodate people who are “pro-vaccine, but anti-mandate” (such as the majority of the truckers protesting at the U.S.-Canadian border, who are vaccinated).

            We must repeal these mandates in order to respect the consent of the governed, and in order to obey the 13^th Amendment prohibition on involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. Bodily autonomy, and the informed consent of the individual, must be respected at all times - and victimless crimes must not be treated as felonies whose punishment include travel restrictions – or else we do not have a government that protects our right to be free from becoming subject to another person's control.

            We must also oppose unreasonable prohibitions, in addition to opposing mandates. That way, “pro-vaxxers” will not get confused into thinking that those who don’t get vaccinated are all against vaccination altogether. But then, of course, the problem is not that they are confused into thinking this; in fact, they pretend to be confused, because they want to believe the worst about their political rivals.
     Likewise, those who don’t get vaccinated, should not be free to stop people from getting vaccinated if they wish to do so. So infiltrating a pharmaceutical lab and throwing out hundreds of doses of vaccines, should still be a punishable offense.

            Your body is yours; stay over there with it. I’ll stay over here with mine. Don’t tell me what to do with my body, and I won’t tell you what to do with yours. This should not be a concept that makes us start arguing about Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have long track records of failing to respect consent.
     We must stop this failure to respect the consent of the governed, from turning into a race to the bottom; a race to placate the lowest common denominator.

Part II: Stop Suffocating Your Kid, and Stop Being Obsessed with Other People’s Bodies

            The time has come to stop being obsessed with each other’s bodies.

            I have seen enough memes and political cartoons, comparing people’s mouths to their genitals and assholes. My mouth is not my asshole. You are committing sexual humiliation. If you can’t distinguish my mouth from my asshole, then you need mental help or sex addiction therapy.

            If humans needed another flap, covering their mouths, then we would have been born with those flaps. In fact, we already have such flaps, because we have lips (which make our mouths closeable) and our noses can be pinched closed. We do not need additional flaps. We just need reminders to cover our cough.

            If you are telling me what I can and can’t wear, then you are either infantilizing me, trying to rape me, you’re a member of the cast of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on Bravo, or you’re a fascist. Stop controlling other people.

            Also, your children need to breathe.

            Forget about that for a second. A lot of you motherfuckers don’t even give your kids water. You give them drinks with fake sugar and salt in them, which makes them more thirsty. Then you dehydrate them further by covering their faces with masks.

            You know how the air is dry? Well, if you walk around breathing that shit for long enough, eventually you need a sip of water. It may surprise you, but being a child does not make you immune from this dilemma.

            You know how your kids are screaming all the time? They’re not just being disobedient, or doing it to piss you off. They want food, or a drink of something.

            Give them a bottle of water: 1) It will shut them up by literally allowing them to close their mouths around something; 2) literally 70% of their bodies are made of water, so they need it more than you think they do; 3) it prevents earaches, which decreases the chances that they’ll cry due to ear pain; and 4) it provides them with the water they’ll need to cry in order to cope with the next round of disappointment that life deals them.

            Corking your child’s mouth shut with a bottle of water is the most basic level of parenting, and yet many people fail to achieve this simple goal.

            Now that you understand that your children need water, let’s move on to air.

            First: The fact that the mask allows your child to breathe at all, means it’s ineffective at fulfilling its purpose; because bacteria can enter through the corners.

            Second: The fact that your child’s breathing is not totally restricted by the mask, does not mean that it is acceptable for you commit to more drastic measures, partially choking your child in the process. The fact that the government wants you to choke your kid, does not make it OK. The government is giving you Munchausen syndrome by proxy (M.S.B.P.); it is tricking you into thinking that you are going to help your child’s health by decreasing their oxygen level. You are prolonging the problem by doing the opposite of what’s necessary; which is letting your child run around outside to get fresh air and sunshine.

            Third: The fact that your kid doesn’t complain about the mask, doesn’t mean that adults don’t have the right to do so. How do I know? Maybe your child is especially submissive. And maybe the reason why he does everything that he is told, is that you abuse him.

            Your decision to order your kid around until he’s as submissive as a potential rape victim or kidnapping victim – and is too afraid of authority to resist adults who try to hurt him (including his teachers, and, potentially, his parents) – has nothing to do with my need to breathe fresh air, unfiltered, without a piece of fabric in front of my mouth.

            Stop conditioning your child to suppress their natural urge to breathe air freely, and their natural urge to question and challenge people who claim to have authority. Teach your child that, in a free society, authority which is wielded without the authorization of the subject, is illegitimate, and deserves to be questioned.

            The facts that children have certain needs, and medical workers have certain responsibilities, does not mean that I, nor any member of the general public, must give up our rights.

            If the government regulating your access to reproductive health needs, hasn’t tipped you off enough yet, the government wants to control your sexuality. If the Epstein-Maxwell scandal, and the Weiner scandal, and the Dennis Hastert scandal, and the Lawrence King scandal, and government scanning your body at the airport, and telling you what to wear, and public school teachers defending themselves with taxpayer money and involuntarily collected union dues to fund the legal defense of teachers who (collectively, in America) molest dozens of kids every school day, hasn’t tipped you off, the government want to fuck your kid.

            The government wants to make you look like a bad parent, for arbitrarily reasons (like that you smoke marijuana, or have unusual discipline techniques). Once your kid is in the state’s “care”, it can send your kid to a foster home (where he can easily be scooped up by an abusive foster couple, and even put in cages while the foster parents collect support money).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collingswood_Boys

            Then, after the abuse, your kid will become drug-addicted, and a criminal, where they can easily be arrested, and sent to a for-profit prison in “Kids-for-Cash” schemes.

            http://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2021/mar/1/no-sentence-reduction-former-pennsylvania-judge-who-was-caging-kids-kickback-cash/#:~:text=On%20August%2024%2C%202020%2C%20a,-for-cash”%20judge.

            And if your kid already got raped, then the government will help the rapist stay close to him.

            The Lawrence King, Dennis Hastert, Anthony Weiner, and Epstein-Maxwell child sex scandals were real. The government wants to fuck your kid. And depending on what race you are, and who you’re having sex with, it may even want to sterilize you, or subject you to unnecessary abortions.

            They sterilized Native Americans, the F.B.I. forced Lakota at Wounded Knee to give birth surrounded by a hail of gunfire. Don’t put anything past these people.

            My body doesn’t belong to you.

            We have to end the grooming, and establish a society based on consent. My health is my responsibility; and it only becomes the responsibility of others if they consent to take care of me.

            We cannot tolerate bullying people into accepting needles stuck into their arms, swabs shoved into their noses, masks put onto their faces, on the grounds that they are “scared” and “it’s not so bad”. The rhetoric used to “urge” people to get vaccinated, resembles the same rhetoric used by bullies (“stop hitting yourself”) and by Munchausen mothers and nurses.

[see the next post to read the remaining sections of this article:]

Part III: What American Sex Scandals Have to Do with Ukraine

Part IV: Jean-Luc Brunel

Part V: The Russo-Ukrainian War

Part VI: Conclusions

Written on February 25^th, and March 2^nd and 3^rd, 2022

Originally Published on March 3^rd, 2022,
as "Reaction to the News of Late February 2022:
The Death of Jean-Luc Brunel, the End of Covid Mandates,
and the Russo-Ukrainian War [Incomplete]"

Title changed on March 10th, 2022

None of the images nor memes included in this article
were created by the author.

Some images added on March 10th, 2022.