The Sanitary State will not cede power. So I take it back. I don't need no doctor. Creeping tyranny can be fought personally by non-collaboration. Passive resistance is sometimes as much as a soul is up to doing. Waving the fist at the monitor maybe or shouting at a moving image all the way down to writing that letter or buttonholing at the re-election BBQ. Why not. My generation marched and waved signs.
Silencing medical dissent paycheck by paycheck is one method now favored in California by the Sanitary State. Misinformation must be stopped. Profits are at stake.
Sadly 50 States are not going to combine to take back citizen power..November is coming faster than fundamental change to a better politics. Only a worse politics is foreseeable. Citizens have opinions and if polled result in citizen opinions which clue us in to purpose of polling by the nameless legion of elites.
Citizens, a word out of use around the world!
Once holding some talismanic meaning about agency and political and legal rights, “Citizens” like everyone are expecting impatient Alexander to come untie the politics with his cutting sword or clean the Augean stables like Hercules Despite our civilization we are like babies thrown to the mercy of Moloch in the eyes of virus protectors and the politicians who back them.
To save mankind states and establishments inject we know not what and undertake genome level change and hack the human body in an experiment that is no accident. The balloon goes up and the plans triggered. War was first plan after Covid. Best way to keep power is through military emergency. Next from outcomes said to be a result of war go to world biological revolution for the power grab to succeed. Inject radiation eating micro machines that also prevent most illness no exceptions no matter outcome. Citizens you are needed for war. Fight for your vaccine being delivered by bug, lettuce, salad dressing, wound dressing, organ recitals or Chemtrails
There is a Big Yes with Covid Tyranny.
There is a very little no.
Populations obey. If mandated to inject, required, compelled not to spend a night in jail but the rest of vaccinated life jailed by a micro machine with a frequency neither you or the dog will hear or see is shaped by participation in the obedient community created after WW1. The Technosphere.
"On Security and Terror"
Giorgio Agamben, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 20, 2001
Security as leading principle of state politics dates back to the the birth of the modern state. Hobbes already mentions it as the opposite of fear, which compels human beings to come together within a society. But not until the 18th century does a thought of security come into its own. In a 1978 lecture at the College de France (which has yet to be published) Michel Foucault has shown how the political and economic practice of the Physiocrats opposes security to discipline and the law as instruments of governance.Turgot and Quesnay as well as Physiocratic officials were not primarily concerned with the prevention of hunger or the regulation of production, but wanted to allow for their development to then regulate and "secure" their consequences. While disciplinary power isolates and closes off territories, measures of security lead to an opening and to globalization; while the law wants to prevent and regulate, security intervenes in ongoing processes to direct them.In short, discipline wants to produce order, security wants to regulate disorder. Since measures of security can only function within a context of freedom of traffic, trade, and individual initiative, Foucault can show that the development of security accompanies the ideas of liberalism.
Today we face extreme and most dangerous developments in the thought of security. In the course of a gradual neutralization of politics and the progressive surrender of traditional tasks of the state, security becomes the basic principle of state activity. What used to be one among several definitive measures of public administration until the first half of the twentieth century, now becomes the sole criterium of political legitimation. The thought of security bears within it an essential risk. A state which has security as its sole task and source of legitimacy is a fragile organism; it can always be provoked by terrorism to become itself terroristic.
We should not forget that the first major organization of terror after the war, the Organisation de l'Arme Secrete (OAS), was established by a French general, who thought of himself as a patriot, convinced that terrorism was the only answer to the guerrilla phenomenon in Algeria and Indochina. When politics, the way it was understood by theorists of the "science of police" in the eighteenthe century, reduces itself to police, the difference between state and terrorism threatens to disappears. In the end security and terrorism may form a single deadly system, in which they justify and legitimate each othetrs actions.
The risk is not merely the development of a clandestine complicity of opponents, but that the search for security leads to a world civil war which makes all civil coexistence impossible. In the new situation created by the end of the classical form of war between sovereign states it becomes clear that security finds its end in globalization: it implies the idea of a new planetary order which is in truth the worst of all disorders.
But there is another danger. Because they require constant reference to a state of exception, measure of security work towards a growing depoliticization of society. In the long run they are irreconcilable with democracy.
Nothing is more important than a revision of the concept of security as basic principle of state politics. European and American politicians finally have to consider the catastrophic consequences of uncritical general use of this figure of though. It is not that democracies should cease to defend themselves: but maybe the time has come to work towards the prevention of disorder and catastrophe, not merely towards their control. On the contrary, we can say that politics secretly works towards the production of emergencies. It is the task of democratic politics to prevent the development of conditions which lead to hatred, terror, and destruction and not to limits itself to attempts to control them once they have already occurred.
[Translated by Soenke Zehle.]
If we don't figure out how to stop handing over power to unstable psychopaths it is all over. The sooner the general populace understands this is planetary FASCISM the better. In as simple terms as is possible. But the "general populace" does not seek information in our little shadow banned area of SS.