Stifling Your Individual Self/Soul

(Check out Joshua Stylman’s Substack — Great information and background on a lot of current concerns)

The Coward’s Bargain

How We Taught a Generation to Live in Fear

Everyone’s Afraid to Speak

Someone our family has known forever recently told my sister that they’ve been reading my Substack and that if they wrote the things I write, people would call them crazy. I got a kick out of that—not because it’s untrue, but because it reveals something darker about where we’ve ended up as a society. Most people are terrified of being themselves in public.

My sister’s response made me laugh: “People do call him crazy. He simply doesn’t care.” The funniest part is that I don’t even write the craziest stuff I research—just the stuff I can back up with sources and/or my own personal observations. I always try to stay rooted in logic, reason and facts though—I’m clear when I’m speculating and when I’m not.

This same guy has sent me dozens of private messages over the last 4 or 5 years challenging me on stuff I share online. I’ll respond with source material or common sense, and then—crickets. He disappears. If I say something he doesn’t want to hear, he vanishes like a child covering his ears. Over the last few years, I’ve been proven right about most of what we’ve argued about, and he’s been wrong. But it doesn’t matter—he’s got the memory of a gnat and the pattern never changes.

But he’d never make that challenge publicly, never risk being seen engaging with my arguments where others might witness the conversation. This kind of private curiosity paired with public silence is everywhere—people will engage with dangerous ideas in private but never risk being associated with them publicly. It’s part of that reflexive “that can’t be true” mindset that shuts down inquiry before it can even begin.

But he’s not alone. We’ve created a culture where wrongthink is policed so aggressively that even successful, powerful people whisper their doubts like they’re confessing crimes.

I was on a hike last year with a very prominent tech VC. He was telling me about his son’s football team—how their practices kept getting disrupted because their usual field on Randall’s Island was now being used to house migrants. He leaned in, almost whispering: “You know, I’m a liberal, but maybe the people complaining about immigration have a point.” Here’s a guy who invests mountains of money into companies that shape the world we live in, and he’s afraid to voice a mild concern about policy in broad daylight. Afraid of his own thoughts.

After I spoke out against vaccine mandates, a coworker told me he totally agreed with my position—but he was angry that I’d said it. When the company didn’t want to take a stand, I told them I would speak as an individual—on my own time, as a private citizen. He was pissed anyway. In fact, he was scolding me about the repercussions to the company. What’s maddening is that this same person had enthusiastically supported the business taking public stands on other, more politically fashionable causes over the years. Apparently, using your corporate voice was noble when it was fashionable. Speaking as a private citizen became dangerous when it wasn’t.

Another person told me they agreed with me but wished they were “more successful like me” so they could afford to speak out. They had “too much to lose.” The preposterousness of this is staggering. Everyone who spoke out during COVID sacrificed—financially, reputationally, socially. I sacrificed plenty myself.

But I’m no victim. Far from it. Since I was a young man, I’ve never measured achievement by finance or status—my benchmark for being a so-called successful person was owning my own time. Ironically, getting myself canceled was actually a springboard to that. For the first time in my life, I felt I’d achieved time ownership. Whatever I’ve achieved came from being raised by loving parents, working hard, and having the spine to follow convictions rationally. Those attributes, coupled with some great fortune, are the reason for whatever success I’ve had—they’re not the reason I can speak now. Maybe this person should do some inward searching about why they’re not more established. Maybe it’s not about status at all. Maybe it’s about integrity.

This is the adult world we’ve built—one where courage is so rare that people mistake it for privilege, where speaking your mind is seen as a luxury only the privileged can afford, rather than a fundamental requirement for actually becoming established.

And this is the world we’re handing to our children.

We Built the Surveillance State for Them

I remember twenty years ago, my best friend’s wife (who’s also a dear friend) was about to hire someone when she decided to check the candidate’s Facebook first. The woman had posted: “Meeting the whores at [company name]”—referring to my friend and her coworkers. My friend immediately withdrew the offer. I remember thinking this was absolutely terrible judgment on the candidate’s part, however it was dangerous territory we were entering: the notion of living completely in public, where every casual comment becomes permanent evidence.

Now that danger has metastasized into something unrecognizable. We’ve created a world where every stupid thing a fifteen-year-old says gets archived forever. Not just on their own phones, but screenshot and saved by peers who don’t understand they’re building permanent files on each other—even on platforms like Snapchat that promise everything disappears. We’ve eliminated the possibility of a private adolescence—and adolescence is supposed to be private, messy, experimental. It’s the laboratory where you figure out who you are by trying on terrible ideas and throwing them away.

But laboratories require the freedom to fail safely. What we’ve built instead is a system where every failed experiment becomes evidence in some future trial.

Think about the dumbest thing you believed at sixteen. The most embarrassing thing you said at thirteen. Now imagine that moment preserved in high definition, timestamped, and searchable. Imagine it surfacing when you’re thirty-five and running for school board, or just trying to move past who you used to be.

If there was a record of everything I did when I was sixteen, I would have been unemployable. Come to think of it, I’m way older than that now and I’m unemployable anyway—but the truth still stands. My generation might have been the last to fully enjoy an analog existence as children. We got to be stupid privately, to experiment with ideas without permanent consequences, to grow up without every mistake being archived for future use against us.

I remember teachers threatening us with our “permanent record.” We laughed—some mysterious file that would follow us forever? Turns out they were just early. Now we’ve built those records and handed the recording devices to children. Companies like Palantir have turned this surveillance into a sophisticated business model.

We’re asking children to have adult judgment about consequences they can’t possibly understand. A thirteen-year-old posting something stupid isn’t thinking about college applications or future careers. They’re thinking about right now, today, this moment—which is exactly how thirteen-year-olds are supposed to think. But we’ve built systems that treat childhood immaturity as a prosecutable offense.

The psychological toll is staggering. Imagine being fourteen and knowing that anything you say might be used against you by people you haven’t met yet, for reasons you can’t anticipate, at some unknown point in the future. That’s not adolescence—that’s a police state built out of smartphones and social media.

The result is a generation that’s either paralyzed by self-consciousness or completely reckless because they figure they’re already screwed. Some retreat into careful blandness, crafting personas so sanitized they might as well be corporate spokespeople for their own lives. Others go scorched earth—if everything’s recorded anyway, why hold back? As my friend Mark likes to say, there’s Andrew Tate and then there’s a bunch of incels—meaning the young men either become performatively brash and ridiculous, or they retreat entirely. The young women seem to either drift toward fearful conformity or embrace monetized exposure on platforms like OnlyFans. We’ve managed to channel an entire generation’s rebellion into the very systems designed to exploit them.

The COVID Conformity Test

This is how totalitarian thinking takes root—not through jackbooted thugs, but through a million small acts of self-censorship. ……

TO read the rest go to:  https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-cowards-bargain?publication_id=24667&post_id=166277693&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Government Officials & Migrants Exempt From Vaccine Mandates

Members of Congress, their Aides and Federal Courts are Exempt from Vaccine Mandate!

Unsplash
President Biden issued two executive orders requiring vaccination against COVID for federal workers and contractors who work for the federal government. He also asked the Department of Labor to issue an emergency order requiring businesses with more than 100 employees to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested on a weekly basis. But the mandates for federal employees do not apply to members of Congress or those who work for Congress, also not for the executive branch or the federal court system. Illegal migrants rushing across the border are not included in the order mandating Covid vaccines so, indirectly, they are exempt also. [It is fascinating how no one in the press corps asked the obvious question: “If the vaccines are truly safe and effective, why is anyone exempt?” Think about this matter for a moment, and it will become clear that Covid vaccines have nothing to do with stopping pandemics or protecting lives. You also will know who is to be spared and who is to be sacrificed.] -GEG

President Joe Biden‘s new vaccine mandates for federal employees do not apply to members of Congress or those who work for Congress or the federal court system.

Biden issued two executive orders on Thursday requiring vaccination against COVID for federal workers and contractors who work for the federal government. He also asked the Department of Labor to issue an emergency order requiring businesses with more than 100 employees to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested on a weekly basis.

However, Biden’s order on federal workers applies to employees of the executive branch. The House of Representatives and the Senate belong to the separate legislative branch, and the courts to the judicial branch of the federal government.

Read full article here…

Migrants at the border:

A Salmagundi of Things

Resistance to Vaccine Mandates Is Building + More

The Defender’s Big Brother NewsWatch brings you the latest headlines related to governments’ abuse of power, including attacks on democracy, civil liberties and use of mass surveillance.

The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It’s free.

Resistance to Vaccine Mandates Is Building. A Powerful Network Is Helping.

The Washington Post reported:

The Americans lodging complaints against coronavirus vaccine mandates are a diverse lot — a sheriff’s deputy in North Carolina, nursing home employees in Wisconsin and students at the largest university in New Jersey.

But their resistance is woven together by a common thread: the involvement of a law firm closely tied to the anti-vaccine movement.

Attorneys from Siri & Glimstad — a New York firm that has done millions of dollars of legal work for one of the nation’s foremost anti-vaccination groups — are co-counsel in a case against the Durham County Sheriff’s Office. They’ve sent warning letters to officials in Rock County, Wis., as well as to the president of Rutgers University and other schools.

Vaccine Mandate Unleashes a Mob in a Small Polish Town

The New York Times reported:

The mayor, a heart surgeon, had just finished overnight hospital duty when he received alarming news: a mob of protesters, some dressed in military camouflage, had gathered outside his home, screaming abuse through bullhorns and waving banners comparing him to Josef Mengele, the Nazi death camp physician.

The small but menacing rally this month followed a decision a few days earlier by the elected council in Walbrzych, a former mining town in southwestern Poland, to declare that vaccination against the coronavirus was mandatory for all adult residents.

What Is a Vaccine Passport, and Why Do Biden and 20 States Oppose It?

WSB Radio reported:

In the United States, the discussion about “vaccine passports” continues as well, but here it has gone to the state level with some 20 U.S. governors announcing their opposition to any requirement that Americans prove their vaccination status while traveling within their own country.

According to a story from The Associated Press, the European Union, some Asian governments and more than 20 major airlines are already working on some sort of vaccination passport system that would help kickstart international travel. How any international system would work is still up in the air.

One Year After Amazon, Microsoft and IBM Ended Facial Recognition Sales to Police, Smaller Players Fill Void

ZDNet reported:

Almost one year ago, at the onset of global protests over racism and police brutality, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM joined forces to announce either outright bans on the sale of facial recognition software to police departments or temporary moratoriums.

The technology has faced backlash for years due to its proven inaccuracy, particularly with identifying the faces of people with darker skin. The ACLU, MIT and even people within Amazon criticized the widespread usage of the technology, and before long stories began to emerge of people erroneously arrested based on mistakes made by the facial recognition software.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/resistance-to-vaccine-mandates-building/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=cedc445e-37c8-496b-9d98-f957aca1bb99

Questioning Vaccine Mandates

Teachers Sue LA School District Over COVID Vaccine Mandate

Groups representing teachers, counselors and employees say the Los Angeles Unified School District’s vaccine mandate violates federal law and basic human rights.

Employees of the second-largest school district in the U.S. filed suit last week to prevent the district from mandating COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of employment.

California Educators for Medical Freedom, with assistance from the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), filed a federal lawsuit March 17 against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

In a press release, HFDF said LAUSD’s vaccine mandate violates federal law and basic human rights by requiring employees to take an experimental vaccine in order to remain employed.

All COVID vaccines available in the U.S. — Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — are approved under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). By the FDA’s own definition, that makes the vaccines “experimental” until or unless the FDA licenses them.

School employees alleged in their complaint that the statute granting the FDA power to authorize a medical product for emergency use, 21 U.S.C. § Section 360bbb-3, requires that the person being administered the unapproved product be advised of the benefits and risks, and of his or her right to refuse the product.

The FDA issued a Fact Sheet for Health Care Providers and a Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers for each of the three vaccines approved for emergency use. The fact sheets state, among other things, that a provider must communicate information to the recipient prior to administering the vaccine — including that the recipient has the option to accept or refuse the vaccine.

In their lawsuit, employees allege that Section 360bbb-3 recognizes the “well-settled doctrine” that medical experiments, or “clinical research,” may not be performed on human subjects without the express, informed consent of the individual receiving treatment.

According to HFDF, the fundamental right to avoid imposed human experimentation has its roots in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which was later ratified by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, further codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations and adopted by the California Legislature. It says that “no person subject to this state’s jurisdiction may be forced to undergo the administration of experimental medicine without that person’s informed consent.”

Since adoption of the Nuremberg Code, free nations have recognized that forced medical experimentation of any kind is both inhumane and unethical. “There is no “pandemic exception” to the law or the Constitution,” plaintiffs stated in their complaint.

“This is a very important case for educators all across America and is likely to set a precedent for all of us,” said Michael Kane, New York City teacher and founder of NY Teachers for Choice.

“Sometimes all you need is someone to stand up and say ‘No’ to remind everyone that we are completely within our rights to resist government overreach. And that is what this is — government overreach.”

Kane said the LAUSD teacher’s union “definitely plays a role in all of this” and that LA teachers need to lobby their union and threaten to pull their money from supporting the union if it doesn’t support their right to choice. “Rank-and-file union members must hold their union leadership accountable and force them to represent those who are pro-choice for all medical procedures,” Kane said.

The complaint states that employees of LAUSD last month began to receive communications from Superintendent Austin Beutner and other representatives of LAUSD instructing them to make appointments to get vaccinated.

None of the communications to employees included the information from the fact sheet required by the FDA to be given to vaccine recipients under EAU.

On March 4, guidance from LAUSD human resources was given to employees that stated: “The Moderna vaccine is currently being administered by Los Angeles Unified nurses and other licensed healthcare professionals to Los Angeles Unified employees. You will schedule your appointment […]. You will provide proof of vaccination via the DailyPass for time reporting purposes.”

As The Defender reported March 10, Daily Pass is a COVID tracking system developed by Microsoft that will scan employees and students using a barcode before they can enter school each day. LAUSD is the first school district to announce that it will require every student and employee to get the Daily Pass, which school officials said will coordinate health checks, COVID tests and vaccinations. Data collected will be reported to public health authorities and other LAUSD healthcare collaborators.

According to the employees’ lawsuit, the process for developing a vaccine normally takes place over a period of years with many different stages of testing, as it may take years for the side effects of a new vaccine to manifest themselves. “No one knows the short, medium or long-term effects of this medical intervention over 1, 5, 10 or 50 years,” HFDF said.

By mandating experimental COVID vaccines, LAUSD is “forcing employees to choose between providing for their families and being the victim of human experimentation,”  said HFDF. “Forced vaccination is not only unethical, it violates the tenets fundamental to a free society and must stop.”

In December 2020, Children’s Health Defense published “Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights?” which examines the history and consequences of vaccine mandates, and what you can do to protect yourself and your family members. The Vaccine Mandates e-book can be downloaded here.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/teachers-sue-la-school-district-covid-vaccine/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8b7532c2-59f9-4a22-8058-653a2787f7b8

Some Things to Consider

‘This Week’ With Mary + Polly: You Can’t Sweep Deaths Under the Rug + Free Pot With Your COVID Shot? + More

In “This Week” with Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense vice chair and general counsel, and Polly Tommey, co-producer of “Vaxxed,” Mary and Polly discuss the growing reports of injuries and deaths from COVID vaccines … and more.

The Week’s Headlines-at-a-Glance:

  • Mainstream news is covering reports of deaths and injuries from COVID vaccines, including in Norway, Germany and California.
  • As The Defender reported, in the U.S., 66 deaths have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These haven’t been fully investigated yet, but clearly many people, mostly the frail elderly but also some younger (as in the 56-year-old Florida doctor) are reporting serious injuries, even death. “People are dying from these vaccines. That can’t be swept under the rug by mainstream media.”
  • China called for the suspension of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and California’s head epidemiologist called for the suspension of one batch of Moderna vaccines.  “That’s a big deal. Remember, the Moderna vaccine is a joint venture between Moderna and the U.S. government.”
  • Adverse reactions to COVID vaccines that are being reported “are similar to those we’ve seen from HPV vaccines, only worse.”
  • Some “fantastic” news: Massachusetts rescinded its flu vaccine mandate. “This is the power of the courts.”
  • More exciting news: A group of scientists convinced the National Institutes of Health to no longer recommend against the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID. “It’s very exciting that this cheap, effective treatment is no longer being withheld from patients.”
  • A new peer-reviewed study from Stanford University says there’s no benefit to COVID lockdowns. “There are lawsuits against these in virtually every state.”
  • Despite a big push to get nursing home workers to get the COVID vaccine, some are pushing back. A Wisconsin nursing home said it will lay off employees who refuse the vaccine. “We believe any attempt for an employer to mandate a vaccine that hasn’t been licensed by the FDA is illegal. Under federal and state law, no one can be forced to participate in this experiment.”
  • The Telegraph reported that Germany’s eastern state of Saxony says it could put people who violate COVID quarantine rules in detention centers. “Human rights lawyers say this won’t fly, but we have to be very concerned about these detention centers.”
  • Forbes reported this week that a group calling itself “Joints for Jabs” is offering free marijuana as an incentive to get the COVID vaccine. “What I find most disturbing about this article is this quote: ‘If you believe in the science that supports medical cannabis, you should believe the science that supports the efficacy of the vaccine.’ Science isn’t something you ‘believe,’ it’s something that’s proven.”
  • If you see something disturbing, as in evidence of “quarantine camps” or attempts to bully people into getting the vaccine, or if you or someone you know experiences an adverse reaction, please contact CHD@childrenshealth.org. “These messages don’t go into a black hole, we react to all of them.”

 

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mary-polly-covid-vaccines-free-pot/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bc006ef2-0e61-4afc-b2de-a5acbf10d00c

Kamala is Threatening Religious Exemptions

S593

S593 Not for Me! Senator Kamala Harris Sponsors Bill That Would Gut Religious Exemptions

S593From Autism Action Network’s John Gilmore:

Sen. Kamala Harris has a bill that threatens religious exemptions from vaccine mandates to attend school in every state. The “Do No Harm Act,” Senate Bill S. 593. prohibits people from refusing to comply with a law, regulation or policy because it would violate their religious beliefs. If passed it could be used in court to argue that exercising a religious exemption from vaccine mandates exposes other people to potential harm and “discriminates” against them. And if it can be used this way you know it will. It guts the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

“The Do No Harm Act clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is intended to protect religious freedom without allowing the infliction of harm on other people. It would amend RFRA in order to restore the original intent of the legislation by specifically exempting areas of law where RFRA has been used to bypass federal protections. Source: Human Rights Campaign.org” That’s the loophole in play, if you or I use the religious exemption to refuse a vaccine, the argument will be that we can not, because refusal will inflict harm on other people. The slope has been greased and you’re being pushed.

Click HERE to send a letter to your representatives. It’s easy, when you fill in your address, the system generates the letter for your location. You can use the stock letter provided, but we suggest you personalize the intro paragraph to share your unique point of view.  I just sent mine – Kim

Introduced in Senate (02/28/2019)

Do No Harm Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/593?s=1&r=81

This bill prohibits the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to specified federal laws or the implementation of such laws. Currently, RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest when using the least restrictive means.

Under the bill, RFRA is inapplicable to laws or the implementation of laws that protect against discrimination or the promotion of equal opportunity (e.g., the Civil Rights Act of 1964);
require employers to provide wages, other compensation, or benefits, including leave;
protect collective activity in the workplace;
protect against child labor, abuse, or exploitation; or
provide for access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service.

The bill prevents RFRA from being used to deny (1) goods or services the government has contracted, granted, or made an agreement to provide to a beneficiary; or (2) a person’s full and equal enjoyment of a government-provided good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation.

In order for a person to assert a RFRA claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, the government must be a party to the proceeding.

from:    https://www.ageofautism.com/