Below is a still from the video below “The Tipping Point – Infinite Waters” by After Skool, illustrated by Mark Wooding.
Notice that it contains a syringe, mask, smartphone, and surveillance camera as symbols of oppression. I think the cage is meant to represent the lockdowns.
It also illustrates lockdown depression: four times more people under 65 (in Canada) have died due to alcoholism, drugs, and suicide than from Covid-19.
It also shows a baby with a syringe hanging over his head, which implies the new Pfizer ‘vaccine’ (mRNA shot) for children – which is completely unnecessary and should not be allowed.
Commentary by Ungekrzte:
Generally speaking, there seem to be two types of people against medical tyranny: conservatives and classical liberals. They may disagree about many issues but agree when it comes to freedom of medical choice.
(i) Conservatives are dedicated to what could be called an Enlightenment and/or Judeo-Christian worldview that emphasizes individual rights and freedoms (though some I know are atheist or agnostic).
They view society as imperfect and incapable of being made perfect. In fact, efforts to do so by the state make matters worse. What’s important is to allow people to make their own choices and to practice basic decency towards one another.
At this time, that means rejecting the dehumanizing and coercive agenda of the emerging biosecurity state.
Conservatives are not typically idealists; they’re more realists who recognize the limitations of human beings and see the best system as one of checks and balances that allows as much individual freedom as possible.
This is distinct from a socialist or collectivist worldview in which an ever greater ideological conformity is demanded.
(ii) Idealists who reject technocracy in favour of a more holistic worldview, e.g., hippies, environmentalists, people who distrust vaccines and/or smartphones, who envision human liberation as Earth and animal liberation.
In other words, a bit more New Age, if you want to give it a label (though giving it a label is reducing it).
For instance: people who believe in holistic medicine and natural healing methods and reject or limit the use of pharmaceuticals and allopathic medicine. Also, people who distrust technocracy and the increasing invasion of privacy due to smartphones, computers, social media, digital currency, etc.
If you go to a freedom rally these days, you’ll see conservatives alongside old hippies. The desire for freedom from the emerging totalitarian biosecurity state and distrust of corporate media is uniting disparate peoples — especially those whose attitude is “live and let live” and those who believe in bodily autonomy.
Thus, for example, a freedom rally might have feminists who are pro-choice alongside Christians who are anti-abortion. On the question of abortion, they’ll strongly disagree but on the question of freedom of medical choice, they strongly agree.
Or environmentalists alongside climate change deniers: on that issue, they disagree but they both distrust the increasing technocracy. The cause of freedom makes for strange bedfellows.
I have written previously about transcending the limiting Right-Left binary here before. Admittedly, I use “Leftist” a lot in a pejorative way, but I mean the new Leftist, who tends to totalitarianism, not the old Leftist, whose ideals include free speech and with whom I’d agree on numerous issues – and even to an extent I identify with.
Right now, the greatest division we’re facing is the false divide between vaccinated and unvaccinated, resulting in institutionalized discrimination towards the latter. This is an entirely manufactured tribalism — and so unnecessary and stupid. It makes no medical sense, given that the unvaccinated do not transmit disease any more than the vaccinated. Do the so-called Covid ‘vaccines’ have any medical benefit? I’m skeptical.
The main version of SARs-CoV2 now is Omicron which is essentially the common cold in terms of symptoms. It’s not on par with the Bubonic plague, though the media would have you believe it is.
The video above is definitely in the second group: the holistic worldview. It sees human liberation in Roussauean naturalistic terms.
While I want to believe in that vision, I have to admit to being skeptical: I guess my inner conservatism and training in religious studies remind me that Utopian visions can often result in dystopian nightmares.
After all, Bill Gates’ vision has a Utopian vision — one that involves technological solutions. Look how that’s turning out. Hitler was a Utopian thinker as well. So were Pol Pot and Mao. At the same time, we must have social and political ideals and strive for them. We can’t be nihilists. That’s a dead end.
Kant came up with the solution to this problem: he thought it was good to be an idealist but also one who is aware that ideals, no matter how fine-sounding, can mislead us if we try to actualize them with shortcuts. As Gandhi and MLK said, the means and ends must be consistent.
The new Leftists have abandoned the idea of personal responsibility to act decently towards others: they are ideologues who place everyone on one side or other of an ideological line. This reduces human beings. It instrumentalizes them.
Instrumental reason is the enemy of the Good: it is using others as means to an end, rather than seeing them as ends in themselves and worthy of respect.
I like the way the illustrator has created a binary between a nightmare scenario of surveillance cameras and syringes, caging us, and the vision of as free, in harmony with nature.
I especially like the fact that he’s managed to sneak in a visual critique of medical tyranny onto a mainstream Big Tech platform (Youtube) in this way. He shows us that vaccine mandates are part of what’s enslaving and oppressing humanity at present. He also visually damns the mainstream media and growing surveillance state. It’s brilliantly done.
Notice that in the image below he states the oppression as “totalitarianism” rather than “capitalism” (below). I think the character on the far left is meant to be Bill Gates.
The word “disposable” could refer to the way in which human beings are now considered disposable as they’re usurped by machines in the workplace, and are losing jobs in record numbers.
The depopulation agenda seems consistent with that dehumanizing ethos. I don’t trust those who push UBI (universal basic income). Once we’re dependent on the state, we’re at the mercy of those who run it.
Why pretend they’re benign? They’re human, which means that there should be checks and balances put into place to ensure they don’t become tyrants. This is the idea behind a society based on individual rights and freedoms.
I am sending this video and article to my friends and family who took the jab and want me to take it, but who view themselves as pro-environment and enlightened.
I suspect they know, deep down, that imposing this experimental drug is not right – but at the same time, they feel compelled to conform to the general will, and pretend to themselves it’s for the common good. Sadly, it is not.
I believe, based on hundreds of articles I’ve read — many of them from peer-reviewed medical journals — that the mRNA injection has no appreciable medical value and is in fact a toxin. Some scientists predict that if you keep taking it, it will kill you eventually. Whether or not that’s true, it should not be imposed on us so forcefully. Why is this happening? People should be asking themselves that question.
Watching the video, I kept thinking, we don’t necessarily need a grandiose vision of humanity right now, as much as a return to times that were a bit simpler, pre-Internet — say 1980. I know that won’t happen, but confess to feeling a sort of nostalgia for that simpler time.
Yes, it wasn’t perfect, by a long shot, but it was better than now in many ways. We have brought a lot of problems on ourselves through computers and technology. Tyrants existed before but they never had the power they do now.
A thought experiment: if you could re-set the clock to any date you wanted, what would it be?
In a Doctor Who episode (“City of Death” pt 1, pt 2, pt. 3, pt. 4.), a villainous character, Scaroth goes back in time to stop life on Earth from evolving at all, and Dr. Who stops him. There’s a similar scene in an old Star Trek episode.
It recalls the old ethics question that illustrates utilitarianism: if you had a chance to kill Hitler as an infant, would you? The counter-view, from deontological ethics, is that the act should not be measured in terms of final results, but in terms of its intrinsic value, and by that measure, killing would be wrong. It’s an interesting conundrum.
I am ambivalent about the Industrial Revolution and the advent of modern science. On one hand, it gave us great things (the incredible breakthroughs of science, medicine, and technology), but on the other hand, it caused many problems.
The problems it caused are environmental, but also the application of industrial methods to genocide, factory farming, the mass extinction of species, and now medical tyranny. So would it be a good idea to prevent it from ever happening? Does the good outweigh the bad or vice versa?
Morally, I don’t think we’ve made a lot of progress over time. I don’t equate moral with technological progress.
Yes, there’s the idea of human rights now, since the 18th century, and that’s valuable, as it led to women’s rights, labour rights, ending slavery, etc. But evil has found other ways to install itself into our societies. Evil finds a way, as does good. They are locked into an eternal struggle.
So-called advanced civilization is not necessarily a better one. In any case, we have to live with what is, and can’t undo the past. But we can help shape the future.
Like the narrator, I’d like humanity to liberate itself and the natural and animal world from all forms of tyranny but am skeptical of our ability to do so completely without a huge crash in which even greater disparities will emerge.
If all technology disappeared tomorrow, good people would band together for common survival, but so would some very bad, predatory people. It would be a Max Max-like world, I’m afraid. Transitioning from what’s happening now to something better will probably have to happen at the local, individual level.
I suspect that it probably means increasingly getting off the grid, which is being used to monitor and control us. The WEF/CCP (World Economic Forum/Chinese Communist Party) envision of the world is one in which we are all subjects to a totalitarian global government run by elites and have to think, do and say as they desire.
As hard as it will be, getting off computers and cellphones and credit cards might be necessary if we’re to have any hope of freedom – because all those things are increasingly being used to enslave us. A lot of people just won’t be able to do it – probably most. But in the end, they may not have a choice if everything is shut down. The 21st century will see a sharp divide between haves and have-nots on a massive scale.
An early Christian perspective on this is that sin is ubiquitous and can manifest in myriad forms, so any kind of progressive vision for the world will necessarily fall short, and one is best to place one’s hope in the world to come, through Christ Jesus.
A more modern version of that faith incorporates some degree of progressivism in the form of the Protestant work ethic and the idea that a good society is possible through hard work. Interestingly, the very earliest Christians lived communally, of necessity.
Maybe the future is one of small rural groups with a shared vision trying to live in harmony, doing agricultural work, living off the grid? Like the Amish, for example.
It will probably take many forms, some terrible and some benign. Richard Heinberg, in the book Powerdown, envisions four types of response to the emerging resource and cultural crises:
- Last One Standing: the path of competition for remaining resources [i.e., hoarding]
- Powerdown: the path of cooperation, conservation and sharing [his ideal]
- Waiting for a Magic Elixir: wishful thinking, false hopes, and denial. [most people]
- Building Lifeboats: the path of community solidarity and preservation. [also an ideal]
The last – building lifeboats — is definitely worth thinking about and planning for. We all know some bad things are on the horizon. We all feel it. There are finite resources on this Earth and human beings tend to be selfish. At the same time, we have good in us too.
It is possible to live in a world that’s better than the one that’s emerging, at least within one’s small sphere of influence. I had to confess I am not as hopeful for society as a whole. I see how easily people are misled by the media, for example.
Ironically, Bill Gates and Charles Schwab are idealists in their own way. But their idealism involves a great deal of control over others, through technocracy. It’s too much like the CCP totalitarian vision for me to embrace it.
And they know most people won’t like it, which is why they’re implementing it by stealth, through a faux pandemic. I suppose their idea is that by the time we figure it out, it will be too late, and they’ll have the reigns of power.
But as the After Skool “tipping point” video illustrates, a lot of people see through this and can envisage a better way.
Right now, anything other than an authoritarian biosecurity state seems better. At the very least, let people figure it out for themselves. I resent it when their limited and limiting vision is pushed on me. I am an autonomous person and have the right to decide my own future.
Human freedom is an ideal that needs to be valued at this time. We’re in danger of losing it forever. I’d rather decide my future than let some would-be tyrant like Charles Schwab and his minions decide it for me.
Yes, that could be a more holistic, naturalistic life. It could take many forms. But it is my right to decide my own future and life — including what drugs I put into my body — and not theirs.
Individualism is bad-mouthed by many these days (they equate it with selfishness). But I see it in a far more positive light: as necessary for a good society. If we rely on collectivism, it just lays the groundwork for autocratic rule of the many by the few.
Earlier I mentioned the two rough categories of those who oppose medical tyranny: conservative and holistic. My own worldview straddles both ways of thinking.
Specifically, I’d call myself a conservative Christian who believes in 18th-century Enlightenment principles, which in my understanding points to the value of intrinsic rights not only for all human beings but for all sentient beings in the universe (a cosmo-centric expansion the rationalist philosophy of rights).
It’s a Jeffersonian perspective I suppose — though he was more of a Deist, but I see some value in that philosophy, in the sense that it aligns with a scientific ontology. Moreover, it balances rationalism and empiricism.
Natural Law and the idea of a universal moral law that can also be framed theologically underpins this worldview. Jefferson said, “Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature.”
Rationalism is an all but forgotten philosophy, though it reigned in men’s imaginations for centuries, influenced by the ancient Greek philosophers. The main point: think for yourself, called “autonomy of the will” and respect the rights of all others. It’s a supremely egalitarian worldview.
In contrast, I see collectivism as pretending to be egalitarian but in fact, being quite hierarchical and inegalitarian.
Unlike most rationalists (and most people in general) I also believe in animal rights, philosophically and theologically. It’s okay to have different ideas about things that matter. The autocrats of this world would have us all believe and think and act the same way.
While there is value in conformity in small things — for instance, we all have to obey traffic lights — independent thought and free speech are paramount for a good society. The more they’re restricted, the worse the society.
St. Paul’s understanding of human nature is a true one, I believe: we are all slaves to something, in the end, so it might as well be that which is best and most good. We can be slaves to sin or God (who is love); our choice. But importantly, that choice is ours to make.
Not even God presumes to make such a choice for us. He gives us free will. By what right, then, does Gates or Schwab presume to rob me of that God-given freedom? This is probably why Communists and globalists hate Christianity and try to contain it: there is something that frees us from their attempt to control us.
They are very judgemental but as Samuel Johnson reminded us, not even God presumes to judge a man until he’s dead. Jesus said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
At the same time, it’s hard not to judge. We were given the capacity to, and let’s be honest: everyone does it. The problem is when another man’s judgment goes too far and becomes a dictatorial imposition on me, or my judgment imposes on him. As Rodney King said, “can we all just get along?”
The globalists and CCP wish to put themselves into the position of being gods. But I reject their control over my life, absolutely. And that includes agreeing to their lies: I don’t do it.
The current medical tyranny is built on fear and deception — including self-deception. We’re all supposed to pretend this is a real pandemic for example.
Human freedom at this time is the ability to see through it, to see the truth, and declare it. Pilate asked Jesus, “what is truth?” For globalists, truth is relative. They make it up as they go along. But in fact, some truths are eternal and transcend us.
We are part of something larger than ourselves — something mysterious and beautiful – something more than the limited technocratic world. I suppose that’s what this video is trying to say. I just really appreciate the illustrations, so wanted to share them, plus a few thoughts.