My Vax Is Better Than Your Vax! Mine is Better Than Yours!!!
Who Moved My Life? Sniff, Scurry, Hem and Haw.

The Criminalization of Dissent

Self Defense AdAn important read, thanks to Laura Hayes for the heads up:  The Criminalization of Dissent by CJ Hopkins

One of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems is the criminalization of dissent. Not just the stigmatization of dissent or the demonization of dissent, but the formal criminalization of dissent, and any other type of opposition to the official ideology of the totalitarian system. Global capitalism has been inching its way toward this step for quite some time, and now, apparently, it is ready to take it.

Germany has been leading the way. For over a year now, anyone questioning or protesting the “Covid emergency measures” or the official Covid-19 narrative has been demonized by the government and the media, and, sadly, but not completely unexpectedly, the majority of the German public. And now such dissent is officially “extremism.”

Yes, that’s right, in “New Normal” Germany, if you dissent from the official state ideology, you are now officially a dangerous “extremist.” The German Intelligence agency (the “BfV”) has even invented a new category of “extremists” in order to allow themselves to legally monitor anyone suspected of being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” like … you know, non-violently protesting, or speaking out against, or criticizing, or satirizing, the so-called “New Normal.”

Naturally, I’m a little worried, as I have engaged in most of these “extremist” activities. My thoughtcrimes are just sitting there on the Internet waiting to be scrutinized by the BfV. They’re probably Google-translating this column right now, compiling a list of all the people reading it, and their Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and professional associates, and family members, and anyone any of the aforementioned people have potentially met with, or casually mentioned, who might have engaged in similar thoughtcrimes.

You probably think I’m joking, don’t you? I’m not joking. Not even slightly.  Read more here. While you can.

Comments

Morag

https//www.christian.org
The Christian Institute
School Chaplian reported to anti-terrorism unit after sermon
3 days ago .

Runrig- Healer in your Heart- Lyrics YouTube

M2021

How does China treat vaccine exposing?

What is Japan’s response to vaccines?

Barry

We need an army of cartoonists and comedians who will take on those who insist on illegal mandates and vaccine passports.

BTW, did you hear the one about Gov Cuomo who said he was "flattening the curve" when caught with a picture of his hand on the backside of a fetching staff assistant.

Emmaphiladelphia

@Bob Moffit

And where did Saul David Alinsky get those ideas?

Cheryl Chumley of the Washington Times writes this:

"Stay-at-homers ought to take the stay-at-home time to read a bit of Alinsky, through the veins of these modern crushing times. The applications of then-to-now, of words-to-wings of reality, will prove eye-opening. Eye-opening and rousing, hopefully.

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which),” Alinsky said, “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

It’s not just a fight for our civil rights.

It’s not just a fight for the Constitution and country.

It’s a fight of good versus evil."

Coronavirus and the smell of Saul Alinsky
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/18/coronavirus-and-smell-saul-alinsky/

Alinsky fails to mention that Jesus Christ has overthrown Lucifer/Satan's kingdom:
John 16:33 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016%3A33&version=KJV;NKJV

Cia

Criminalization and criticism are not the same thing. I read what was posted here, and criminalization, meaning prison or fines, or physical punishment or force, for peaceful expression of dissenting opinions was posited as a possible future event which has not happened yet. I doubt it ever will, at least with regard to Covid. Not in the First World, anyway. Legally they might make the vaccine compulsory for everyone, that legal point has been long established, but I don’t think they will. They are going to reach at least 70% vaccinated voluntarily, and that should be enough to control the disease.

Look at this Worldometers chart for Covid deaths in the US: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

From its high peak of over four thousand deaths a day in January, deaths have plummeted to a couple of hundred a day now. Partly probably from the increase in natural immunity but mostly from vaccine immunity. About half of Americans have now gotten at least one dose of vaccine and about 30% have gotten both. Most people want that immunity. Some have died from the vaccine, and everyone should be aware of that when deciding whether or not to get the vaccine. Most people may have reactions for a few days, then recover and do not get Covid. It looks as though First World countries will soon have Covid under control, which is worth a lot.

Also look at the Worldometers charts for cases and deaths in India. In just one month, from the middle of March, the lines have shot up vertically, straight up, to completely new levels. Most sick Indians are never officially recorded and many believe that over ten thousand a day are dying there of Covid. What should they do? Should they ref...?

Visitor

To borrow and adapt a past leaders words it may be that; ,“The future of the United States will depend on how many people are mature enough to be nonconformist,” Poland was in the original quote, not the USA, but I find it seeming applicable to our present time. Pope John Paul II said this.

The following is a portion of a wrting called: The Church and Totalitarian Democracy
JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.

"However, such was the confusion of forces that led to the Revolution, and such has been the legacy of ambiguities left by it, that pamphleteers and polemists and even serious historians have long differed in their interpretations of this new element. Walsh calls it “nationalism, a revolutionary force, impatient of all traditional and venerable ideas of the essential unity of European thought and culture.”2 More specifically, he defines the political essence of the new phenomenon as “state absolutism,”3 founded on “the doctrine which Rousseau had so firmly inculcated into the minds of the French people, the absolute unity of the state in all its aspects.”4 This monistic theory

[p. 526]

of sovereignty, as Portalis, Napoleon’s Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs, made dear to the French legislature, entailed a firmly asserted supremacy of the political power over the spiritual, in such wise that the final sovereignty even in “mixed matters,” which concern both Church and State, indisputably fell to the State.5

All this is true, as far as it goes. What Msgr. Spina, the representative of the Pope for the negotiation of the Concordat, met in Paris was a fierce trend towards the omnipotent state, towards an indivisible sovereignty within the state, towards the politicization of the whole of French social life, towards the enclosure of all institutions, including the Church, within the single framework of the nation under the single control of the public authority. But this multiple trend was not wholly new, save in its fierceness. It had already manifested itself in the absolutism, Gallicanism, and nationalism of the ancien régime, under which the freedom and spiritual independence of the Church had grievously suffered, and her international (better, supranational) authority had dashed with the claims of national sovereignty. Leo X had met the trend in its origins when he negotiated the Concordat of Bologna with Francis I. As Alexis de Tocqueville was the first to see, in respect of this absolutist trend the Revolution was in complete continuity with royal absolutism:

Even while Ranke was confirming to the King of Bavaria that the fundamental problem of the day was the conflict of monarchic with popular sovereignty, a keener mind than his saw in the politics of the time a deeper reality, a more pervasive trend. Alexis de Tocqueville saw the conflict of thrones and peoples as an incident, and underlying it all the relentless march of the centralized state towards the realization of its omnicompetent claims and the establishment of an irresistible government apparatus. He re-examined the history of the first French Revolution, and in 1855 published in a monumental work his conclusion that the revolution had not broken with the policies of the kings but had rather fulfilled them. Not popular sovereignty but centralization had been the achievement of revolutionary France; and as he looked out upon the Europe of 1855 he observed the same movement everywhere underway . . . . 6

The thrust of this movement had long been dearly directed towards the obliteration of all distinction between state and society, and to-

[p. 527]

wards all the tyrannies that inevitably follow when this distinction is obliterated.

Absolutism and nationalism, and their historical accompaniment, a state-church, had long been a problem for the universal Church. But it was not an insoluble one until the Revolution added the really new element, by carrying the very foundations of the state to a new plane and claiming for it not only that measure of national and political autonomy which had made relations with the Church difficult during the era of royal absolutism, but also an entirety of spiritual and moral supremacy which made relations with the Church impossible. From the days when Francis I inaugurated what came to be known as the ancien régime, the Church had pushed the adaptation of her principles to the point of compromise, and had even pushed compromise to the point of scandal, notably in her consent to the absolutist demand for a national state-church, placed under royal surveillance and acting (as all state-churches more or less must act) as instrumentum regni, a source of ideology in support of a political form, as well as a sort of spiritual police to insure the preservation of that ideology in its purity.

But there comes a point beyond which concession and compromise cannot go; and it was reached early in the course of the Revolution. Since this is not properly an historical essay, it will suffice here to put the historical turning-point in the words of the “two essential affirmations” which Latreille accepts from the thesis of the great Jacobin historian, Mathiez: “The Revolution was not in its origins an enterprise of religious transformation directed against the national cult; but at a given moment in the course of the great crisis of the Terror the Revolution opposed to Catholicism new religious conceptions in irreducible antagonism to it.”7 To the absolutist program of the politicization of all social life, including religious life (begun with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy), was added a program of the dechristianization of France, its “laicization,” as the Jacobin phrase had it. In addition to being the embodiment of an absolutist political theory, the state became the active vehicle of a secularist ideology that assumed the character of a religious faith, a faith as exclusive, as universal in pretension, and as exigent of total devotion as any religious faith. The Revolu-

[p. 528]

tionary purpose ceased to be purely political and undertook to be totally redemptive of man. And the One Indivisible Sovereign of Rousseauist theory assumed the messianic task of propagating his one true religion, first by a program of persecution and later, more insidiously, by a program of education."

https://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/murray/1952a

greyone

Re the article: the-unvaccinated_question,
as a point of language, since we are now our own press, non-vaccinated implies a choice, un-vaccinated implies a lack of pharmaceuticals.

Bob Moffit,
thank you for Alinsky's Rules.

Angus Files

Ok to be a nonce though..
Dr A Andrews who worked on the Bill Gates male contraceptive caught with kiddy pictures.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-scientist-funded-bill-gates-24042552

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

M2021

Why do so many young people (including college-aged neurotypicals) support vaccination?

Bob Moffit

Read the Biden administration is seeking or creating "private corporations" .. much the same as "contact tracers" .. to help government agencies .. FBI, DOJ, DOD, EDUCATION, PUBLIC HEALTH, etc .. "monitor" all social networking systems to identify and target INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS who dare post opinions or data that conflicts with well-established government "agendas" on a wide scale .. compliance or non compliance with COVID EMERGENCY PROTOCOLS … vaccinations being high on the list ..

The "Criminalization of Dissent" appears to be grounded in the principles espoused in Sol Alinsky's "EULES FOR RADICALS" .. such as:

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

PLEASE READ RULES 5 AND 12 … AS THESE TWO ARE BEING USED AGAINST US EVERY DAY FOR DECADES

drymeadow

I have awakened my friend, somehow transformed from anguished parent to auntie vackser to dissident in a few short years. It makes no sense and I find comfort in Christian radio.

Pfizer will make 350,000,000 while Hank Aaron dies.

The vaccine creates Ab to platelets and/or PGF. Low platelets usually means bleeding. So why all the clotting ? Makes no sense.

What does a little clot in the brain look like ? Does that person just forget the name of every elementary teacher they ever had ? I mean, it's easy to recognize a massive blood clot in the brain, but what about a little one ? It seems like only an expensive image would pick that up, besides, what can you do about it ? not much. No, after a "little clot" I imagine most people just go on about their lives as best they can, joining the walking wounded. They don't get imaging and pricey meds. They get a souvenir from the covid hoax of 2020. A nice little clot to remind them not to take vaccines or believe Anthony Fauci.

It makes no sense, it's not rational. The flood is here.

Laura Hayes

Another excellent article by CJ Hopkins:

https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/the-unvaccinated-question

Gerardo Martinez

We need to wake up!! The slow boil begins. Sadly most of the world believes that as long as me and my family are safe from Covid-19, these liberty killing extreme measures are okay with me. I am a good citizen. God help us.
Blessings
G. Martinez

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)