“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

Mark 8:36, New King James Bible

(Malone News)—Have you ever spent time really thinking about the shared business model underpinning the explosive profit and capitalization of Amazon, Google/Alphabet, and Facebook/Meta?

Most reflexively respond that these three leading new economy companies have different business models, and in a superficial way, that is true. But at a deeper level, they are all based on the same core business model – Surveillance Capitalism. Many are familiar with the phrase, “If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.” This observation has become a common meme, suggesting that when a service is free, the user’s data, attention, or behavior becomes the commodity sold to third-party advertisers or companies. This concept is often applied to many online platforms, including social media, search engines, and content websites. This is really an oversimplification.

Surveillance capitalism is a business model based on the unilateral claim of human private experiences as free raw material for translation into behavioral data. These personal data are then extracted, processed, and traded to predict and influence human behavior. Specific data concerning individuals is the commodity. In this version of capitalism, the prediction and influencing of behavior (political and economic) rather than the production of goods and services is the primary product.

This truth has more to do with the metaphor underpinning The Matrix movie series rather than classical market capitalism. In The Matrix, human beings are cultivated as batteries and harvested for their energy, which serves to fuel the Matrix itself. The concept of humans as batteries is a metaphorical representation of their enslavement and exploitation by machines.

In the Surveillance Capitalism business model, you are enticed and cultivated to obsessively participate in the platform, and then your thoughts, emotions, feelings, and beliefs are harvested from all available sources, including platform-based interactions. The extracted value of these items is then algorithmically processed to yield predictive both individual and collective “futures.”

In contrast, Murray Rothbard considers capitalism to be a “network of free and voluntary exchanges” where producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others (ergo: “Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges…”). According to Rothbard, true sources of wealth are:

1. Individual Entrepreneurship: Innovation and risk-taking by individuals drive economic growth and wealth creation.
2. Voluntary Exchange: Free markets and voluntary trade allow for efficient allocation of resources and wealth creation.
3. Gold Standard: A monetary system tied to gold or a similar commodity-based standard restricts the money supply and prevents government manipulation.

In “The Anatomy of the State,” Rothbard argues that there are two means of producing wealth:

Economic Means refer to producing and exchanging goods and services through voluntary human effort, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Economic means are additive, generating wealth for all parties involved.

Political Means refers to using force or coercion to seize wealth from others. Political means are reductive, distorting incentives and undermining long-term prosperity. Taxation is a form of theft in which political means are used to seize wealth from others. Reasoning by analogy, Surveillance Capitalism is a form of theft in which accumulated personal wealth in the form of fundamental, personal, and proprietary aspects of your soul is extracted and commodified without your permission.

Under Surveillance Capitalism, theft by commodification is practiced by machines acting on behalf of a small subset of humanity to involuntarily extract (or seize) value (wealth) from other human beings. Under Rothbard’s logical formulation, this is fundamentally a political rather than an economic transaction. Once reformulated, repackaged, and marketed, this value generates wealth for the Surveillance Capitalist by removing and thereby diminishing the personal wealth of the individual who is typically (and intentionally) uninformed of the loss.

In the case of the Facebook and Google versions of Surveillance Capitalism, behavioral and emotional futures are repeatedly auctioned off to third parties who use the information for various economic and political purposes. In most cases, the extracted value is repeatedly resold to multiple buyers. Amazon does the same but is more vertically integrated. Like Facebook and Google, Amazon extracts the information from you and processes it to yield predictive futures. However, rather than selling to third parties, Amazon uses this information internally to support the direct marketing of its products and those of third-party vendors.

Under the Surveillance Capitalism business model, you are not the product, but rather, your thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and knowledge are the natural resources being mined to yield the raw materials that are then used to build predictive “futures” products. This goes far beyond the 20th and even 21st-century analysis concerning the psychological basis for totalitarianism described by Hannah Arendt and Mattias Desmet. The commodification of your thoughts, feelings, emotions, and needs via the Surveillance Capitalism business model is what enables and powers the expanding daily reality of globalized techno totalitarianism.

What is Commodification, and How Does It Differ from Commoditization?

Commodification transforms inalienable, free, or gifted things (objects, services, ideas, nature, personal information, people, or animals) into commodities or objects for sale. It means losing an inherent quality or social relationship when something is integrated by a capitalist marketplace. Concepts that have been argued as being commodified include broad items such as the body, intimacy, public goods, animals, and holidays.

Intangible, non-produced items (love, water, air, Hawaii) are commodified, whereas produced items (wheat, salt, microchips) are commoditized. Karl Marx extensively criticized the social impact of commodification under the name commodity fetishism and alienation.

In Marxist economic theory, prior to being turned into a commodity, an object has a “specific individual use value.” After becoming a commodity, that same object has a different value: the amount for which it can be exchanged for another commodity. According to Marx, this new value of the commodity is derived from the time taken to produce the good, and other considerations are obsolete, including morality, environmental impact, and aesthetic appeal. In a sense, the value of a commodity reflects both the intrinsic value of an item or service and the value added by extrinsic factors (scarcity, marketing) that increase its perceived value.

Before the term was even created, Marx predicted that everything would eventually be commodified: “the things which until then had been communicated, but never exchanged, given, but never sold, acquired, but never bought – virtue, love, conscience – all at last enter into commerce.”

Where Does This Go from Here?

Once you have understood this, please go ahead and explore it further.

Many adjacencies, corollaries, and derivatives are associated with the fundamentals of Surveillance Capitalism. Take a moment to consider the interface between the Surveillance Capitalism business model and the Censorship-Industrial Complex business. Or Surveillance Capitalism and Politics – with Cambridge Analytica Ltd. being an early embodiment. Or Surveillance Capitalism and the Biodefense-Industrial Complex business. Or Surveillance Capitalism and Transhumanism. Or a thousand others.

All of these economic models and domains recognize no boundaries. All exist in a sort of Wild West, actively rejecting and deflecting all legal and ethical constraints on economic, political, and medical activities. These are treated as unacceptable boundary conditions to advancing “innovation,” market domination, and capital accumulation. Ethical, moral, religious, and legal constraints must be disregarded or circumvented in the name of progress and profit.

Overriding all of this is what is essentially an emerging suite of marketing technologies consisting of military-grade psychological warfare tactics and strategies; PsyWar. Surveillance Capitalism provides the economic model, logic, extracted data, and value that fuel and guide modern psychological warfare deployment.

I am deeply troubled by the many observable interactions between modern psychological warfare technologies, tactics, and strategies, the observations and predictions of Hannah Arendt and Mattias Desmet concerning the psychology of totalitarianism, and Surveillance Capitalism.

I fear the further development of feedback loops between these fundamental social, political, and economic forces. I sense that these feedback loops will enable and drive human society toward the dark collectivist and globalist transhuman future with which the World Economic Forum seems so enthralled.

By deploying PsyWar capabilities on top of these other business models, which are being expanded and enhanced by the predictive “futures” products of Surveillance Capitalism, humanity will be driven towards a new surrealist reality in which all feelings, beliefs, morality, and behavior will be a synthesized product in which wealth accumulation will become the exclusive right of a small controlling elite who no longer recognize the existence of their own souls, but rather exist at the interface of man and machine, and seek to birth a new species of man/machine fusion. Turning and turning in a widening gyre, disassociated from the falconer. Intentionally and unthinkingly giving rise to a slouching rough beast.

In the short term, I am also deeply troubled by the challenge posed by all of this to my faith in free market capitalism and my fascination with the logic of the Austrian School of Economics and its modern “Anarcho-capitalist” embodiment. I worry that when capitalist absolutism becomes decoupled from fundamental Judeo-Christian ethics, and everything becomes commodified all the time, then all remaining human souls become at risk of being crushed into dust under a globalist techno totalitarian millstone.

About the Author

Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr.

When Democrats with “daddy” issues find their way into power, they force their own psychological deficiencies upon the broader populace.  Why?  Because they try to play “father” to their constituents but have no idea how a good father is supposed to behave.  They scream and shout because they confuse insults and tantrums with masculinity.  They reimagine the ideal male leader as someone who would enjoy wearing make-up and behaving like a teenage girl.  They demand that male “allies” relinquish any say over the healthy delivery of their unborn children.  Instead of taking personal responsibility for missteps in life, they blame their problems on the nebulous “patriarchy” — or rather, the failed fathers of the past!

After punishing all the good men as stand-ins for all the weak men who never properly parented them, Democrats are left with the wimpiest, least wise leftovers of the sorry lot.  Then some angry, man-hating leftist with zero self-awareness uploads a video onto social media demanding to know where all the good men have gone.  Well, you chased them away, you trans-obsessed, insult-spewing, sniveling punk!

Greg Gutfeld made this point on a recent episode of The Five when discussing the exodus of black and Hispanic voters from the Democrat party: “They’ve alienated men in order to please miserable activists, and men are like, ‘Hey, we know when we are not wanted.  We will see ourselves out.  We know what a woman is, right?  We know what is best for our kids.  We know what it takes to protect our cities and our families, and we are tired of apologizing for laughing at funny jokes and having natural testosterone.’”

Because the Democrat party is filled with fake men and phony fathers, it continues to shove real men and fathers away.  Then, when Democrat voters find that their trusted “authority figures” have squishy backbones, too, their “daddy” issues spiral out of control.  They need more laws, more mask mandates, more punishments; they become desperate for some governmental “daddy” to tell them what they can and cannot do.

This hits at a major distinction separating Democrats from the liberty-loving conservatives whom leftists naturally resent.  Liberty-lovers do not confuse the government for their own parents.  Government is, at best, a nuisance and, at worst, a thuggish bully.  It does not exist to keep you safe at night, to put food on the kitchen table, to teach you right from wrong, or to furnish you with love.  Government is a bureaucratic machine that specializes in using the threat of force and the application of actual violence to coerce strangers into doing exactly what the State wishes them to do.

Depending on the government to behave like a loving parent is like depending on one of James Cameron’s cybernetic Terminators for a soothing hug.  Both have the kind of uncaring programming that makes most embraces fatal.  Still, for Democrats with “daddy” issues, those bureaucratic Terminators are the closest things to family that they’ve got.  They’d gladly put their trust in a brutal and dogmatic State that occasionally pats them on the head and promises to take care of them.  It’s psychological abuse disguised as “caring government.”

This fraudulent parent-child construct produces nothing but servile citizenry.  In a healthy family, parents nurture their children until they become competent, self-sufficient adults.  Good parents supervise what their children learn, keep them from harm, and guide them along their journey to adulthood.  The love and respect between a parent and child never go away, but the relationship is not meant to produce lifelong juveniles stuck in a permanent state of dependency.  Children grow to become capable adults; those adults have children of their own; and the cycle promotes a strong, healthy society.

When governments act as false parents, however, they are not interested in transforming juveniles into adults.  They do not seek to create competent citizens who are capable of taking care of themselves.  They do not want to produce a population strong enough to think for itself.  Because a citizen’s self-sufficiency eliminates his dependency on government, bureaucrats must infantilize grown adults for the rest of their lives.  The State is not equipped to be a parent, but it is an ideal machine for mass-producing slaves.

I suspect that part of President Trump’s popular appeal comes from his refusal to treat adults as if they were still children.

Parents sometimes have to “pretend” around their young children.  To keep them safe from the terrors of an often dark world, they “bend the truth” here and there.  When a family seeks shelter during a tornado, or a parent is laid off from work, or a relative is diagnosed with a scary illness, parents will look into their children’s eyes and say, “Everything will be all right.”  That’s what good parents do when the best that they can do for their children is to soothe their worries with fearless love and steady support.

Adults, on the other hand, should be able to speak bluntly to each other without concern that an unvarnished truth will “trigger” another adult to melt into a trembling, catatonic puddle of tears.  Trump told NATO countries that they should pay their full financial commitments to the alliance if they really fear for their own security, and the fainting class screeched, “How dare he tell the truth so publicly?”  Trump (allegedly!) pinpointed Haiti and other unstable nations as “S-hole countries,” and celebrities came out of their mansions to pretend Haiti is just as luxurious as Hollywood.  Trump told Americans there is a dangerous invasion of foreign nationals crossing our open borders, and the corporate news propagandists denounced his accurate assessment as intolerably “racist.”

Time and again, the pundit class has insisted on treating American adults as if they were children too young to understand harsh realities.  President Trump is the first national leader in most Americans’ lives to show them respect by plainly speaking the truth.

A lot of people did not quite understand how long their government had been treating them like toddlers until Donald Trump’s frank speech jolted them awake.  He questioned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, excoriated globalism’s destruction of America’s middle class, and refused to search for the constantly shifting line denoting what is “politically correct” to say out loud.  He called out “journalists” for spreading fake news, criticized monetary policies that have transferred Americans’ wealth to foreign adversaries, and rebuked “allies” that facilitate illegal immigration into the United States.

When threatened by foreign regimes, he threatened them back in direct and unequivocal terms.  When speaking of rising crime in the United States, he did not worry about the criminals’ feelings.  When his enemies used the Intelligence Community, Department of Justice, and politically partisan judges to threaten his freedom, he never hesitated to call out the abuse and corruption taking place.  At first, a lot of Americans thought, “He can’t say that!”  Over time, however, a lot of those same Americans wondered, “Why shouldn’t he be able to say that?”

Why must we censor our own speech and pretend that untrue things are true simply to avoid the possibility of feeling uncomfortable?  Are we not all adults?  Are we not capable of speaking to one another candidly?

One of the most important things President Trump has done for our country is to stop pretending that things are fine when they clearly are not.  Pretending is for young children.  Facing hard truths head-on is for adults.  Childish Americans must grow up because the government can never be their “daddy.”

What do you think? Leave your thoughts at The Liberty Daily Substack.

The document explains how governments used an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people basic human rights and freedoms and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.

The authors of the Legal Brief maintain that had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of International Human Rights Law and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.

There is also deep concern that this was just a trial run and that the imminent promulgation of the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) “Pandemic Treaty” and amended International Health Regulations will take these tyrannical measures to an entirely different level.

The World Council for Health (“WCH”) has published a ‘Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies’ in response to these concerns.

This document explains how governments used the declaration of an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people their basic human rights and freedoms and to grant themselves extraordinary powers.

The critical question that should have been addressed at the time was whether the threat posed by COVID-19 represented a public health emergency that threatened the life of the nation. The Legal Brief presents four criteria to be used to determine if a state of emergency should be declared. These criteria state that the threat should:

• be actual or imminent;
• involve the whole nation;
• place the continuation of the organized life of society at risk of extinction; and,
• be so extraordinary that ordinary measures for protecting public health and order are clearly inadequate.

The arguments presented in this document show that the COVID-19 event never met any of these criteria. Thus, as it did not meet the legal conditions of an emergency ‘threatening the life of a nation’, all derogation measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, school and small business closures, travel restrictions, and harmful vaccine mandates, were illegal breaches of International Human Rights Law (“IHRL”).

All States have a legal obligation to enact public policy that protects, respects, and ensures fundamental human rights. Furthermore, certain norms and fundamental human rights exist that can never be violated, not even during a declared state of emergency. Instead, during the COVID era, governments around the world chose to follow the recommendations of WHO, ignore the rights of citizens, and enact oppressive public health actions. It is also of huge concern that human rights organizations failed to hold governments to account for their abuse of emergency measures.

The authors of the Legal Brief maintain that had people across the board been properly informed about the requirements of IHRL and the prerequisites necessary to declare a legitimate state of emergency, these gross violations of fundamental human rights would not have been possible.

To prevent future public health emergencies resulting in similar human rights abuses, the Legal Brief therefore recommends the following actions:

• to educate the public regarding the criteria to declare a legitimate state of emergency;
• to establish panels to monitor adherence to IHRL and communicate violations; and,
• to establish activist groups to take necessary proactive legal action.

You can listen to Dr. Tess Lawrie explain this in the 5-minute video embedded in her Substack article.  You can read the Legal Brief HERE.

It is not always easy to have a society where people are allowed to say whatever they want.  People say things all the time that deeply, deeply offend me.  And there are some that have said things about me that are tremendously hateful and untrue.

But if we are going to have a free society, people have got to be free to say whatever they want.  So we should never support freedom of speech being taken away from anyone, because once we start going down that slippery slope it is just a matter of time before they come after our freedom to say what we want.

That is why what is happening in the state of Washington is so alarming.  A new law would allow private individuals to collect up to $2,000 every time they report someone to the new “hate crimes and bias incidents hotline”…

Senate Bill 5427, after it is signed into law, would allow private individuals (note: this is not limited to American citizens) to report “bias incidents*” (see definition below) to the State Attorney General’s Office, with the possibility of receiving up to $2,000 of taxpayers money for this noncriminal incident. The bill was very clear: this is a non-crime which they will then forward to local law enforcement to investigate. What’s to investigate? No crime, no investigation.

The Progressives & Marxists who sponsored this bill say it is intended to help “victims of hate crimes” before a crime even happens. Say what? In reality, SB 5427 would create a “tattletale hotline,” undermine legitimate criminal investigations, and freeze, not just chill, speech & the press in Washington State. People will stop talking to others and writing to others except very close friends & relatives, for fear a greedy “Karen” will report them to Washington’s version of the Gestapo.

This is crazy.

Do we live in East Germany now?

It has been pointed out that those that use social media could make a fortune reporting their fellow citizens to the new “tattletale hotline”…

“Spend five minutes on Twitter on any given day and I assure someone would say something offensive under this law that we could call a ‘hate crime’ and collect $2,000 from the attorney general,” Conservative Ladies of Washington Founder and President Julie Barrett told the Senate Ways and Means Committee at a Feb. 20 public hearing. “It potentially target[s] people for actions they don’t like, but are not actually hate crimes. In collaboration with bills like HB 1333, this would create sort of a ‘tattletale hotline’ to report people one doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like.”

Of course we have seen similar efforts in other states.

In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul intends to massively expand the hate crime laws in her state…

Governor Kathy Hochul today highlighted her groundbreaking State of the State proposal to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes and announced grant funding to strengthen safety and security measures at nonprofit, community-based organizations at risk of hate crimes or attacks because of their ideology, beliefs, or mission.

“The rising tide of hate is abhorrent and unacceptable – and I’m committed to doing everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe,” Governor Hochul said. “Since the despicable Hamas attacks of October 7, there has been a disturbing rise in hate crimes against Jewish and Muslim New Yorkers. In recent years we’ve seen hate-fueled violence targeting Black residents of Buffalo and disturbing harassment of AAPI and LGBTQ+ individuals on the streets of New York City. We will never rest until all New Yorkers feel safe, regardless of who they are, who they love, or how they worship.”

And in Michigan, last year a bill was introduced that would have made it a felony if someone felt “terrorized, frightened, or threatened” by your words…

Last month, the Michigan House passed Bill 4474—legislation that would expand the state’s existing Ethnic Intimidation Act beyond current protections for religion, ethnicity and race, to categories including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. HB 4474 would make it a felony hate crime offense to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened” with words—deliberately misgendering someone, for example—subject to a potential penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The Left has been pushing its “words are violence” premise for some time. But Michigan’s willingness to go the extra mile and criminalize gender-related speech has summoned a ghoul from some dystopian fever dream.

I certainly do not like hate speech.

Every day, people say things that are horribly offensive to me.

But I support their right to say those things, because I don’t want my freedom of speech to be taken away.

And the leftist elite will never be satisfied until they take things as far as they possibly can.

For example, a new law in Canada allows courts to put people in prison for the rest of their lives for “hate crime offenses”…

It also amends the Criminal Code to create a new standalone hate crime offence that would allow penalties up to life imprisonment to deter hateful conduct, as well as raise the maximum punishments for hate propaganda offences from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.

“I’m the father of two youngsters and, like parents and grandparents around Canada, I’m terrified by the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children,” said Justice Minister Arif Virani Monday, as the Liberals unveiled the bill.

“I’m also a Muslim. The hatred that festers online is radicalizing people and that radicalization has real world impacts for my community, and for so many other communities,” added Virani.

So what constitutes a “hate crime” in Canada?

Well, over the years the rules have been written so vaguely that they could be used to go after just about anything.

As a result, many Canadians are now deeply afraid to say anything that is even remotely “offensive”.

Now this new law which is being pushed by Justin Trudeau will make things even worse.  If you can believe it, this new law would actually allow authorities to take certain kinds of actions even before a hate crime has been committed…

Trudeau’s bill is called Bill C-63, and it’s a “hate crime bill” that primarily affects “social media” and essentially “criminalizes a human emotion.”

“If you have quote ‘fear of hate’ … you can get a judge to issue a kind of restraining order against your enemy before he does anything, before he says anything, and that restraining order can include house arrest, giving up any lawful firearms, limiting who he can talk to directly or indirectly, limiting the places he can go, and requiring him to to take urine and blood tests – just because you are quote ‘afraid’ he might in the future say some hate speech,” he explains, adding that the so-called perpetrator “doesn’t have to have done anything in the past” to be required to go through the process, making it “a pre-crime bill.”

What in the world has happened to Canada?

Once upon a time, it was such a nice place to visit.

The laws that seek to restrict how we express ourselves are never enforced uniformly.

Instead, we have seen example after example where conservatives are specifically targeted.

Here in the United States, the left believes in being very soft on violent criminals, but they will go after pro-life activists with all the fury they can muster.

Right now, a 59-year-old grandmother is probably going to spend the rest of her life in prison because she was attempting to convince women not to go into an abortion clinic…

In prison, every move an inmate makes is controlled. Ms. Idoni, 59, is getting used to that. She must, because she is facing more than 41 years in prison—the rest of her natural life.

Her sentence is expected to be the longest in the United States for someone charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a 1994 law that prohibits interfering with anyone obtaining or providing “reproductive health services.” It was seldom used until the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reversed Roe v. Wade in June 2022, which returned abortion regulation to the states.

Her crime: sitting near or in front of the doors of abortion clinics to give sidewalk counselors a few moments to talk to women before their abortion appointments and potentially change their minds. Nine women out of 10 give them the middle finger and keep walking, Ms. Idoni said. But some women do change their minds, and sidewalk counselors say the life of every baby saved is worth the risk.

More than 60 million babies have been killed in the United States since 1973, but those responsible for the killing are not being held accountable.

Instead, those that are trying to do something about the relentless slaughter are being viciously targeted by authorities.

We really do live in an upside down society.

Good is being called evil, and evil is being called good.

And if you try to speak out about what is happening, you could find yourself in an enormous amount of trouble.

They intend to completely crush all dissent, and they will never stop until they have achieved their goal.

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

Such is the sorry state of the “woke” West that the “thinking class” moronically obsesses over trivialities, while ignoring everything that is disastrous.

This somewhat regurgitated “white rural rage” thesis comes from a “journalist” and an “academic” who have written a book explaining why white, patriotic Americans who just want to live their lives free from government interference are actually responsible for everything wrong in the country.  Just when I think my white-hot contempt for closed-minded toffs couldn’t burn more brightly, a couple nitwits ratchet up my “rage” to eleventy.  Dang, they got me.  Turns out that if you scapegoat rural Americans long enough, some will get angry.  Uff da.

Of course, anyone who lives in or near rural America knows that the brain-dead professor and reporter tag-team responsible for this drivel never spent any time meeting the people whom they disparage.  If they had, it would have been impossible for them to write so dishonestly (even for people paid to lie for a living).  Rural America is where authentic democracy flourishes.

People still gather in churches and town squares to discuss their communities’ hardships and successes.  Law enforcement and firefighting depend on the efforts of volunteers.  Local papers tell stories of next-door neighbors and follow the adventures of townspeople far from home — many risking their lives in combat overseas.  When someone isn’t seen in the grocery store or at the bank for any length of time, people notice.  Before a sheriff’s deputy has time to investigate, local residents are on the case.  When snowed-in roads need clearing, family trucks turn into plows.  When farmers need extra hands to harvest crops, familiar faces arrive in droves.  At the deli, town market, or local watering hole residents debate the issues on their minds.  There are no timeouts because some topic has been declared “politically incorrect” or because some intervening listener declares the conversation riddled with “hate.”  Rural America is where free speech thrives.

If saving American “democracy” were really the goal, New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., would be sending delegations out to “flyover country” as part of fact-finding missions to see how it’s done.  Umm, interesting, these residents can disagree with each other without burning down each other’s businesses?  I did not know that was possible!  Yet it is possible.  It is normal!

Rural Americans can scream at each other one night and make up before church service the next day.  You mean nobody is around to police their speech?  Nope, rural Americans recognize the same basic truth that our political forefathers understood — that no king or parliament has the power to tell an adult what he may think or say.  But how does anything get done without a strong central government providing for their every need?  It might sound amazing, but ordinary people are quite capable of protecting their neighbors and providing for their towns’ survival.  During an emergency, they don’t wait for the “authorities” to arrive.  Outside of Almighty God, they are the authorities.  As rational adults with responsibility for their own lives, they know what needs to be done.  And they do it.  If you want to see “democracy in action,” visit one of the tens of thousands of small communities that dot the country from coast to coast.  They are where strong, caring, and resilient people work and live.

The real fear of the “white rural rage” Chicken Littles is not that rural Americans are a threat to “democracy” but rather that they provide an immovable bulwark against the Deep State’s “master plan” for a totalitarian super-State.  All over the West, politicians and pundits continue to extol authoritarianism as “democratic” and denigrate self-government as “populist.”  It’s absurdly Orwellian, of course, but since we live in the age of censorship, propaganda, and linguistic chicanery, these word games will continue.  Somewhere in the pits of Hell, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao are eager to remind Klaus Schwab and all the other Western globalists how “democratic” their “rules-based international orders” are, too.

The globalist authoritarians have instructed the commoners to stop eating meat.  Rural Americans have said, “Nah, we’re good.  We like steak.”  The “new world order” folks have insisted that a great deal of speech must be censored in order to protect fragile adults from experiencing outbreaks of unapproved “hate.”  Rural Americans have responded, “Suck it up, Buttercup.  Maybe try listening to an opposing point of view sometime.  It might just vaccinate you from the plague of groupthink.”

The globo-Marxists have demanded that consumers hand over their keys to any car with an internal combustion engine.  Rural Americans have laughingly replied, “Not only are we keeping every truck and tractor from the last century in a barn out back but also we can’t wait to buy some new all-terrain vehicles to ride through the backcountry.”

Officials who betray their oaths to the Constitution have told law-abiding Americans that they have no right to own a gun.  Rural Americans have calmly loaded their weapons in preparation for self-defense and whispered back, “Come and take it.”  In disposition and beliefs, rural Americans are the natural “Minutemen” guarding American liberty.

It is no wonder, then, why the World Economic Forum’s tawdry tyrants wish to incarcerate Americans in “fifteen-minute cities.”  Cities are hotbeds of censorship, economic coercion, and social control.  They are where freedom goes to die.  In rural America — where everyone knows how to hunt, fish, farm, and defend their properties — a strong and self-sufficient culture exists that teaches people how to live.  The last thing the WEF’s depopulation fanatics want is an American society capable of taking care of itself…and thriving.  How could intelligence agencies, central banks, and unaccountable regulators maintain power if they had nobody to control?

Ultimately, attacks against rural Americans — like the left’s attacks against Christians — are a wretched form of bigotry designed to spread the insidious idea that people who live outside city limits are subhuman.  Because rural America is filled with resilient people who adamantly defend the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, it represents an antidote to the cancerous form of Marxist globalism killing cities across the country.  Because rural America is filled with faithful people who are obedient to God’s will — and not D.C.’s — it remains a natural refuge for those immune from institutional brainwashing.  Because rural America is blessed with an abundance of self-sufficient families, hard workers, and freethinkers, it provides a welcoming home for human liberty.  For these reasons, aspiring totalitarians must destroy rural America if they are to have any chance at erecting a new system founded on censorship, surveillance, oppression, and tyranny.  The problem for the Deep State is that rural Americans know what to do when the SHTF and, in fact, have been preparing all their lives.

Mass psychological programs that dehumanize groups of people always precede State-engineered genocides.  It is how cognitive warfare specialists pepper society with a preemptive rationale for why some people must be loaded onto boxcars and sent away for “re-education.”  Newt Gingrich is certainly right: any nuclear war would be catastrophic.  If we’re being honest, though, Americans must also worry about how the totalitarian left is following in the footsteps of Hitler’s Germany.  Prepare your mind accordingly.

The latest version of the government takeover of food is happening in Pennsylvania where Amos Miller is being attacked for supplying his friends and neighbors with fresh food. According to famed attorney Robert Barnes:

Let me explain what the #AmosMiller case is about after a court conference. The @PAAgriculture claims ALL food is “illegal” — as illegal as illegal drugs — unless it was made by a government-approved facility, and they can destroy it at will.

Let me explain what the #AmosMiller case is about after a court conference. The @PAAgriculture claims ALL food is "illegal" — as illegal as illegal drugs — unless it was made by a government-approved facility, and they can destroy it at will. See brief:https://t.co/FXvjc1yJmP

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) February 26, 2024

Miller is the Amish farmer who sells products like raw milk. This is a threat to the monopoly on what we digest that government and their cronies are trying to establish, so they’ve gone full-blown police state on him.

According to left-leaning Newsweek:

Representative Thomas Massie, who called the raid “shameful” last month, told Newsweek in a Wednesday statement, “It’s a shame that small farmers have been pushed into these situations by overbearing government regulatory agencies and lawmakers captured by corporations and monopolies.”

The Kentucky Republican continued: “I support all small farmers and consumers who wish to engage in voluntary transactions. It’s imperative that Congress take up my PRIME Act to ameliorate the plight of small farmers like Amos.” Massie’s bill seeks to exempt meat products from federal inspection after slaughter and preparation at a custom facility.

Donald Trump Jr. also weighed in on last month’s raid, writing in a post on X (formerly Twitter), “Imagine what law enforcement could accomplish if they went after oh I don’t know, say, members of elite pedophile rings rather than farmers selling to their neighbors??? Can I be the only person sick of this s***?”

He is scheduled to appear in court on February 29th. A GiveSendGo has raised over $240,000 so far.

Editor’s Note: It has never been more important for Americans to take control of their food security. It isn’t just the attacks by governments and multinational corporations. It’s all of that plus a multitude of attacks against farmers, ranchers, and anyone who believes in the food God has provided us.

Grow your own food if you can. Stock up on long-term storage food. We encourage working with companies like Prepper All-Naturals to stock up on as much as possible. They are an America First company that helps people secure premium beef that is shelf-stable for up to 25 years. Take advantage of promo code “veterans25” to get 25% off at checkout.

Sound off about this story on The Liberty Daily Substack.

Last Thursday, the Pennsylvania State Police could be seen serving a search warrant at the all-natural farm, which is situated in the village of Bird-in-Hand. A state police spokesperson said they were there to help with scene security and that the search was part of a DOA investigation.

Dozens of items were seized as part of the search, including everything from ice cream and chocolate milk to eggnog and sour cream.

Authorities claim that they were investigating whether Miller’s farm was the source of a few cases of foodborne illness in the area and that Miller “never licensed his retail operation.” The farmer has been involved in litigation with the government about the safety and inspection of his food for several years.

Miller does not sell his products to the public in grocery stores, instead catering to private clients who wish to avoid the dangers associated with corporate farming practices.

His attorney, Robert Barnes, said: “Today, the Department of Agriculture of the State of Pennsylvania suddenly came, without notice, raided Amos’ farm, and detained everything Amos had in the farm’s freezer. They did so in a lawless manner, without appropriate authority, in violation of their own rules and regulations, despite never objecting to the prior resolutions reached with the federal government, and despite a complete failure by the state to even reach out to Amos’ known counsel.”

Outlining the ways in which the raid was illegal, Barnes said that authorities were required to provide advance notice, show their credentials, and conduct their inspections within reasonable time frames. He blamed “false statements in an affidavit by a high-ranking state official in an agency with a known grievance against independent farmers like Amos” for being the source of the search warrant and complained that after authorities failed to find proof of wrongdoing, they “illegally ordered detained every item of food in one of Amos Miller’s coolers, including buffalo meat not even subject to federal regulation.”

He added that Miller will continue to do everything possible to provide food to his patrons legally.

Miller has used his sovereign citizen defense to push back against federal overreach in forcing him to comply with food safety rules as he sells a range of food including raw milk, grass-fed cheese and beef, fresh produce and organic eggs to more than 4000 buyers. For his farming operations, he does not use petroleum products, chemical fertilizers, electricity or vaccines.

Government should be focused on more pressing matters

Donald Trump Jr. expressed outrage over the raid on X, writing: “Imagine what law enforcement could accomplish if they went after oh I don’t know, say, members of elite pedophile rings rather than farmers selling to their neighbors???”

Upon hearing about the story, Representative Thomas Massey (R-Kentucky) commented: “Looks like Amos Miller’s farm is being raided. With all of the problems in society today, this is what the government wants to focus on?”

He added: “A man growing food for informed customers, without participating in the industrial meat/milk complex? It’s shameful that it’s come to this.”

Massie is the co-author of the PRIME Act bill, which seeks to protect smaller farmers and ranchers from federal overregulation.

Sources for this article include:

• ZeroHedge.com
• DailyCaller.com
• FoodSafetyNews.com

Yes, these stickers are still everywhere. I recall when they first went up, sometime in April 2020. They seemed oddly uniform and appeared even permanent. At the time I thought, oh, this is a huge error because within a few weeks, the error of the whole of this idiocy is going to be known by all. Sadly, my worst fears came true: it was designed to be a permanent feature of our lives.

Same with the strange arrows on the ground telling us which way to walk. They are still everywhere, stuck on the floor, an integral part of the linoleum. If you walk this way, you will infect people, which is why you have to walk that way, which is safe. As for masks, the mandates keep popping up in strange places and strange ways. My inbox fills with pleas for how people can fight this stuff.

The essential message of all these edicts: you are pathogenic, a carrier, poisonous, dangerous, and so is everyone else. Every human person is a disease vector. While it’s fine you are out and about, you must always create a little isolation zone around you such that you have no contact with other human beings.

It’s so odd that no dystopian book or novel ever imagined a plot centered on such a stupid and evil concept. Not even in 1984 or The Hunger Games, or The Matrix or Equilibrium, or Brave New World or Anthem, was it ever imagined that a government would institute a rule that all people in public spaces must stand six feet away in all directions from any other person.

That some government would insist on this was too crazy for even the darkest imaginings of the most pessimistic prognosticator. That 200 governments in the world, at roughly the same time, would go there was unimaginable.

And yet here we are, years after the supposed emergency, and while governments are not enforcing it, for the most part, many are still pushing the practice as the ideal form of human engagement.

Except that we are not doing it. In this train station, no one paid any attention to any of the signage. The exhortations were entirely ignored, even by those who are still masked up (and, one presumes, boosted seven times).

When the moment arrived for people to get into the elevator, a crowd began to pour in, quickly beyond four, then eight, then 12. I stood there shoulder to shoulder with fully 25 other people in one elevator with a sign that demanded only four people get in at any one time.

I sort of wanted to ask the crowd if they saw the sign and what did they think. But that would have been absurd, because, actually, no one even cares. In any case, one guy asking a crowded elevator such a question would have raised suspicions that I was deep state or something.

It was never clear in any case who was enforcing this. Who issued the rule? What are the penalties for not complying? No one ever said. Sure, there was in the past usually some flunky bureaucrat or Karen who yelled at people and said do this and don’t do that. But those people seem long ago to have given up.

It’s not even a thing anymore. And yet the signs still exist. Probably they will stay forever.

There is an enormous disjunction that still persists between what we are told to do and what we actually do. It’s as if incredulity toward official diktat is now baked into our daily lives. My first thought is that it doesn’t make much sense at all, even from the point of view of those who aspire to control our lives, to issue commands to which no one listens or obeys. On the other hand, there might be some meta-rationale for this, as if to say, “We are nuts, you know we are nuts, we know you know we are nuts, but we are in charge and can continue to do this anyway.”

In other words, edicts to which no one complies serve a certain purpose. They are a visual reminder of who is in charge, what those people believe, and the presence of a Sword of Damocles hanging above the whole population: at any point, anyone can be snatched away from normal life, made a criminal, and be forced to pay a price.

The nuttier the edicts, the more effective the message.

Thus do we live in insane times. There seems to be a huge and widening gulf separating the rulers from the ruled, and this gulf pertains to values, aims, methods, and even vision for the future. Whereas most of the population aspires to live a better life, we cannot shake the sense that someone out there who has more power than the rest of us aspires for us to be poorer, more miserable, more afraid, more dependent, and more compliant.

After all, we are just barely shaking off the most grandiose experiment in universal human control in the historical record, the attempt to micromanage the whole of everyone belonging to the human race in the name of gaining control over the microbial kingdom. The effort petered out over time but how in the heck does anyone with ruling-class power expect to maintain any credibility after such a destructive experiment?

And yet there is a reason we have heard precious few concessions that it was all bogus and unworkable, and why there is still a dripping sound of papers telling us that the whole scheme worked pretty well and that people who say otherwise are disseminators of disinformation. There are still publishing opportunities out there to trash repurposed generics and praise the shots and boosters. The power is still with the crazy people, not with those who question them.

And the people who threw themselves into Covid controls as the greatest years of their lives are still at it. Hardly a day goes by when there is not a freshly written hit piece on the resistance and efforts to trash those with enough sagacity to see through all the baloney. Far from being rewarded, those who protested and opposed are still living under a cloud that comes with being an enemy of the state.

We all know that it is not just about these dumb stickers and these virus controls. There is more going on. Coincident with the pandemic restrictions came the triumph of woke ideology, the intense push for EVs, and wild ramp-up in weather paranoia with the discovery that climates change, a rampant gender dysphoria and denial of chromosomal reality, an unprecedented refugee flood that no one in power is willing to mitigate, a continued attack on gas including even stoves, and a host of other inane things that are driving rational people to the brink of despair.

We long ago gave up the hope that all of this is random and coincidental, any more than it so happened that nearly every government in the world decided to plaster social distancing signs everywhere at the same time. Something is going on, something malevolent. The battle of the future really is between them and us but who or what “them” is remains opaque and too many of “us” are still confused about what the alternative is to what is happening all around us.

Noncompliance is an essential start regardless. That crowded elevator, assembling spontaneously in open defiance to the blasting signage, is a sign that something in the human longing to be free to make our own decisions, still survives. There are cracks in the great edifice of control.

About the Author

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

(Mercola)—Children’s Health Defense (CHD) recently released a four-part documentary called “COVID Unmasked.” Part 4 is featured above. The trailer and previous three episodes can be found on CHD.TV.

Parts 1 details the problem. The medical system is destroying health; lawyers destroy justice; psychiatrists destroy minds; scientists destroy truth; major media destroy information; religions destroy spirituality; and governments destroy freedom.

Part 2 reveals how the COVID pandemic — which was sold to us as a fight against a novel and deadly zoonotic virus that had jumped species at a Chinese wet market — was merely the first part of a pandemic for-profit business model, where mass vaccination is a tool to gain more control, more power and, of course, more money.

In Part 3, the big picture is revealed, showing how the COVID pandemic was a convenient opening act of a “Great Reset,” at the end of which regular people will “own nothing and be happy.”

The interests behind the COVID “plandemic” and the global coup are documented, how long this plan has been in the works and, in Part 4, above, how we can stop it, before we lose our country, our liberty, and our humanity.

Understanding Our Constitutional Rights

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, the right to be left alone and to make our own decisions. Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t create the right to privacy; it secures it, thereby limiting government interference with it.

The Bill of Rights precede the existence of the U.S government, and are based on basic principles inherent in humanity itself, i.e., “Natural Law.” The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded or nullified by any other law. As stated in Article IV:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Any law that violates the Constitution is null and void, no matter who makes it, and an unconstitutional law “imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” That’s a quote from an 1886 Supreme Court case (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425¹).

Quoting further from that decision, “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Yet, during the COVID pandemic, unconstitutional rules and mandates were not only issued but in most cases also upheld. Without a trace of shame, government officials even called for barring the unvaccinated from society at large.

Constitution Cannot Be Suspended Under Any Circumstance

These actions were justified on the basis that we were in “an emergency” that required some basic rights to be temporarily suspended. However, no matter how dire the emergency, the Constitution may not be suspended or violated.

In a 2020 fact check,² Reuters tried to debunk the claim that constitutional rights cannot be suspended by citing the 1988 Stafford Act, which grants the president the authority to declare a major disaster and empowers the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate the nation’s response — completely missing the point that no law can supersede the Constitution and is void if in violation with it.

… the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. ~ U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV

As noted by U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV, in a September 2020 ruling in the case of County of Butler et. al. v. Governor Thomas W. Wolf et. al., “the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency.” As noted in the film, dozens of court rulings have affirmed this basic fact.

The Last Line of Defense Against Government Overreach

Over the past three years, we’ve seen countless examples of local, state and federal officials granting themselves unconstitutional powers and suspending people’s rights under the auspice of a “public health emergency.” It would seem there’s no office left to rein in these power hungry despots. Or is there? Yes, fortunately there is, and it’s your county sheriff.

The County sheriff is one of the most important elected officials we all have the opportunity to vote for, so making sure they understand their role in protecting your Constitutional rights is crucial.

Ultimately, your local sheriff is in charge of actually enforcing whatever rules and regulations are laid down by state lawmakers, your city or county councils, and executive orders from city mayors or governors.

Contrary to what some people think, mayors and governors don’t make laws — the state legislatures do that — but they can influence city and state legislation as well as invoke executive orders under certain circumstances.³

Sometimes sheriffs and local and state police may be asked by their mayor or governor to enforce an executive order. However, sheriffs can refuse if they believe the executive order is unconstitutional.

For example, during the pandemic, county sheriffs in Michigan,⁴ Texas,⁵ Ohio,⁶ even California,⁷ informed their governors they would not enforce mandatory mask orders since they weren’t actual laws. The sheriffs of Pinal County, Arizona,⁸ Douglas County, Illinois,⁹ Snohomish County and Klickitat County, Washington,¹⁰ and many others also refused to enforce their states’ stay-at-home orders.

Lincoln County, New Mexico, Sheriff Michael Wood even issued a cease-and-desist order to Gov. Michelle Grisham when she tried to order stores to close in January 2021, and one rural Oregon sheriff single-handedly ended the business closures simply by declaring the closures unconstitutional.

These are actions that every sheriff, in every county across the nation could, and should, have taken, because mask mandates aren’t laws (and would be unconstitutional if they were made into law) and government does not have the constitutional right to decide who can work and make a living, and who cannot.

These sheriffs understood that forcing people to wear masks and stay at home is something government does not have the power to do under the Constitution, and they protected their citizens from what was obvious overreach and abuse of power. And, importantly, no government agent or agency in the land had the authority to overrule their decisions.

No One Can Tell the Sheriff What to Do

We owe this to Richard Mack, a retired sheriff and current president of Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers (CSPOA),¹¹ who sued^12,13 the U.S. government over the Brady Bill, also known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,¹⁴ signed into law by President Clinton in November 1993.

For the first time in U.S. history, the Brady Bill conscripted county sheriffs to enforce federal law, in clear violation of the Constitution. Mack sued to protect state sovereignty, and had it not been for Mack winning this lawsuit, sheriffs would not have had the legal ability to stand against tyranny and protect Constitutional rights today. They’d by just another arm of the federal government.

In winning this Supreme Court case, Mack pushed the federal government back and reaffirmed the rights of states and the people. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the decision, and several quotes from that decision are featured in “COVID Unmasked.”

Scalia noted that the Constitution “protects us from our own best intentions” and “prevents the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” And the COVID-19 pandemic was just that. The crisis of the day.

Now, the WHO is trying to seize the authority to make decisions about all future crises, and we can be sure there won’t be an end to crises when the power to rule is tied to there being one.

Does Your Sheriff Understand and Exercise His Power?

Unfortunately, many sheriffs are as clueless about the Constitution — and their unique role in upholding it — as the average person is. But as noted in the film, “the county sheriff is the last line of defense against a government gone rogue.” The sheriff has “an obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of the citizens,” including “the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to bear arms.”

In the summer of 2022, I interviewed Mack (video above) about the crucial role of sheriffs when it comes to safeguarding your Constitutional rights and protecting your civil liberties against unlawful government overreach. As explained by Mack:

“This is a crucial time in American history, and we actually have a peaceful and effective solution to it. The only thing that needs to happen is your local officials, especially your sheriff, keep [their] oath of office … The sheriff is here to protect your civil liberties, your God given rights.

As the founding fathers put it in the Declaration of Independence, ‘The laws of nature are nature’s God.’ Either way, you don’t have to believe in God to appreciate this or to be a part of it. You don’t, because these are the rights you were born with.”

The End of Government Tyranny Starts With You

There are more than 3,100 counties in the U.S., and each of these counties has a sheriff, who is elected by the local community. Three states — Alaska, Hawaii and Connecticut — do not have sheriffs, so their laws are enforced by other officers such as marshals or deputy sheriffs.¹⁵

Some large cities also have their own sheriffs, including Denver, St. Louis, Richmond and Baltimore. Many large-city sheriffs also typically have several hundred to a couple of thousand full-time personnel.

As explained by Mack and detailed in “COVID Unmasked,” county sheriffs are the best solution to the problem posed by tyrannical despots. Here’s what you can do to help put an end to government overreach, which is growing by the day. This list is a compilation of the recommendations of both sources.

1. Look up who your local sheriff is. States will typically have a “State Sheriff’s Directory” website listing the sheriffs of each county in that state.
2. Find out where your sheriff stands on the subject of Constitutional rights and the need to protect them, as evidenced by actual record, not just talk.
3. If your local sheriff proves to be a puppet for those who would enslave us, initiate an immediate recall petition, and persist until he or she is replaced by someone who is willing and able to fulfill their sworn duty to protect the Constitutional rights of residents.
4. Forward a copy of “COVID Unmasked, Part 4,” to your sheriff, so he or she can fully appreciate the scope of their powers and responsibilities.
5. If your sheriff is not already a member of the CSPOA — the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association — ask them to join and become a recognized Constitutional Sheriff. The CSPOA educates sheriffs about their constitutional powers and responsibilities, and it’s the only organization out there that does that. The training CSPOA offers is crucial, as the traditional training sheriffs receive is fairly inadequate with respect to the understanding and appreciation of their oath, which is to protect and uphold constitutional rights. Many get distracted or confused by the belief or idea that they must enforce things that really are not within their scope of duty.
6. Join the SCPOA yourself. Funding for the CSPOA’s educational programs comes from private donations and member dues. Joining the CSPOA is really one of the most highly leveraged investments you could make to secure your personal liberties. All funds go directly toward the education of sheriffs. The organization doesn’t even have paid employees.
7. Support your constitutionally-minded sheriff any way you can.
8. Get friends, family and neighbors to take these steps as well.

If you want to get even more involved, inquire whether your sheriff allows residents to be deputized, and if the answer is yes (and you fulfill whatever requirements there might be), you can become a deputy sheriff.

Taking Back America, County by County

The next step is for Constitutional sheriffs everywhere to make it known that, from this point forward, they will prosecute those who use drones, helicopters and other surveillance means to spy on law-abiding residents, those who construct and operate illegal checkpoints and detention camps, those who install 5G towers against the will of the local residents, and every other violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Ignorance of the law — and in this case, that’s the Constitution, the supreme law of the land — does not excuse you from prosecution or legal liability.

That includes police officers, security guards, military personnel, alphabet-soup agency agents, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, school principals, school board members, government officials of every stripe, and everyone else you can think of who violate people’s Constitutional rights by following unconstitutional (null and void) orders. The sheriff can prosecute them all.

If enough people get involved and engage their sheriffs in this fight, we can create constitutional counties and take back America, county by county, one sheriff at a time. Eventually, all the police forces will be on the same page as well, and will no longer enforce unlawful, unconstitutional orders, whatever they might be.

As noted in “COVID Unmasked,” “without the military or the police to do their bidding, the tyrants are powerless against us.” That’s how we take back America without raising so much as a fist.

• ¹ Justia Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
• ² Reuters May 14, 2020
• ³ National Governors Association
• ⁴ Detroit Free Press July 13, 2020
• ⁵ Fox 6 NOW July 9, 2020
• ⁶ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 15:50
• ⁷ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 15 minutes
• ⁸ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 16:30
• ⁹ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 17:30
• ¹⁰ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 17:57
• ¹¹ CSPOA Website
• ¹² Oyez.org Printz v. United States
• ¹³ Cornell Law School Printz v. United States
• ¹⁴ Congress.gov HR 1025, Brady Handgun Control (PDF)
• ¹⁵ National Sheriffs’ Association

(Article cross-posted from Brownstone Institute)

The dirty secret is this: Masks don’t work by controlling the virus. Masks work by controlling the people.

If we’re talking about stopping the spread of the virus, masks simply don’t work.

But if we’re talking about stoking fear, instilling blind obedience to state authorities, sowing discord between citizens, and publicly “outing” skeptics and dissidents – in other words, creating an authoritarian, even totalitarian system of public health – then masks work very well indeed.

MASKS DON’T WORK AT CONTROLLING THE VIRUS

By this late date, it has been established beyond honest scientific doubt that masking is ineffective at stopping the contraction and spread of COVID-19. This is true both at the microscopic level and at the population level.

The early mask mandates regarding COVID-19 were largely “justified” on the assertion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was not prone to airborne spread. However, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has since been proven to be an airborne virus (like influenza), meaning it can remain circulating in room air for extended periods of time, and spreads in this manner. SARS-CoV-2 viruses have also been proven to be much smaller in size than the holes in cloth and surgical masks.

Therefore, at a microscopic level, Harvey Risch is correct: trying to block the SARS-CoV-2 virus with a surgical mask is quite literally like trying to keep mosquitos out of your yard by erecting a chain-link fence.

At a population level, the latest Cochrane meta-analysis of the available randomized, controlled trials surrounding masking and respiratory viruses concluded that “Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks.”

(It should be noted that as the mask debate has been resurrected, Cochrane has been under intense pressure by pro-mask entities to addend and modify their comments about this study, to which the organization has capitulated.)

Furthermore, this study is only one in addition to the hundreds of other studies that clearly outline the epidemiologic ineffectiveness and real harms of masks, many of which have been known since at least 2021.

To summarize: at the microscopic level, masks do not stop the exit or entry of the virus into human bodies, and at the population level, mask use has not been shown to provide any benefit, and has been shown to have numerous harms.

MASKS DO WORK AT CONTROLLING PEOPLE

The entire Public Health^TM enterprise in the West has a strong political and authoritarian impulse built into it from its very conception. While a detailed review of this is beyond the scope of this article, it harkens back at least to the figure of Rudolf Virchow, the preeminent 19^th century German physician, opponent of Semmelweis and Darwin, and founder of so-called “social medicine,” who famously wrote that “Medicine is a social science, and politics nothing but medicine at a larger scale.”

The attitude that Public Health^TM should possess the power to dictate national and local political policy for the “public good” (as they, the “experts,” unilaterally determine it to be) has increased over the past century, especially in the United States. Around it there have grown vast, lucrative industries, from which (since at least the Bayh-Dole Act), Public Health^TM officials often profit handsomely. The vaccine industry is only the most obvious of these.

During the COVID era, the authoritarianism of Public Health^TM morphed into totalitarian mode, with the unprecedented lockdowns, school closures, travel restrictions, vaccine mandates, etc. that we all endured. The most visible and most easily enforceable symbol of this power grab were masks.

Masks, even the comically useless ones made of old handkerchiefs, or the filthy, week-old paper surgical ones seen on countless chins, signaled compliance and submission. For the very real Public Health^TM purpose of unquestioning obedience, masks work very well indeed.

Masks are effective at instilling fear in people. Fearful people more readily submit to authority, particularly when that authority promises a solution to the cause of their fear.

Masks are effective as virtue signals of compliance, bolstering the submissive person’s ego. Masks also impose a very strong peer-pressure effect, which pushes uncertain persons toward following the crowd.

Masks are effective at humiliating people. They are uncomfortable, ugly, dirty, and unnatural. They truly are “face diapers.” In a word, masks are degrading. If the ways of the old Eastern bloc taught us anything, it is that the systematic degradation of individuals, especially for patently stupid reasons, is highly effective at promoting totalitarian ends.

Masks are also extremely effective in exposing dissidents. Who dares to stand up against the state? There’s one, right over there. Shame on them. Shun them. Arrest them.

That’s how masks really “work”, and that’s why the Public Health^TM types love them.

That’s why they’re trying to bring them back.

Sound off about this article on the End Medical Tyranny Substack.

About the Author

C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.