Saturday, May 28, 2022



Here is something to think about.
This firearm (pictured below) is legal in California under their "Assault Weapon" restrictions.
Are flash hider, pistol grip, adjustable stock and magazine capacity restrictions really designed to keep people safe?

I believe that is an absurd proposition. Is it not true that a homicidal maniac could easily use the below weapon for an evil purpose and yield horrific destruction? Obviously yes and if such is the case then the proposition that the restrictions mentioned above truly pertain to public safety is clearly absurd.
The practical reality is that such restrictions are simply part of the ongoing piece-meal strategy purposed to get the general public used to the idea of increasing firearms regulation. Here a little and there a little.
Those with an agenda to ultimately restrict all firearms cannot come out and openly state their true intention which is why a piecemeal approach is needed. Each piece doesn't objectively increase public safety but it does lure the general public further towards the objective of a total restriction on all firearms.
The question the public ought be asking when faced with each restriction or new regulation is "what then?
None of the proposed or implemented additions restrictions or regulations will solve the underlying cultural problem which is at fault thus necessitating the ongoing proposal and implementation of further restrictions and regulations.
Restrict certain features on rifles... are criminal acts prevented? Therefore what then? What's next?
So national background checks on all private sales are mandated... will that prevent criminals selling firearms to each other? Therefore what then? What's next?
A national registry of each firearm designed to prevent people bypassing private sales without a background check...Will that prevent an illicit trade in firearms? Do drug bans prevent illicit use and access to drugs? Therefore what then? What will be next?
Restricting more kinds of firearms to "get them off the street." Will criminals still use firearms? What then? What will be next?
Heavy restrictions on all semi-automatic rifles. Consider that the maniac who murdered 16 students and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland used a pistol and a revolver. Consider that the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 students with two handguns. So what then?
Strict restrictions on all handguns and on and on we go...
See how it works? It has to eventually end in the total restriction of ALL firearms, a situation where the state and criminals have a total monopoly on the use of lethal force. It has to end there because people will NEVER be completely safe in a FREE society, hence the ultimate outcome must a form of societal open prison, a society where people are no longer free. Is that what people really want?
Did Australian's and New Zealander's intend to grant their governments the authority to mandate medical procedures, home lockdowns, forced business closures, protest bans and even the power to arrest people for critical Facebook posts that encourage protesting? I don't think so but that's what can  happen when people empower the state with unrestricted arbitrary power. What then? What will be next? Is there any limit to gradually increasing state power? 
Do people really want to grant the state a total monopoly on the use of lethal force. Is it wise? Historically, how does that often work out?

Wednesday, May 25, 2022

The U.S.A. has a culture problem, not a gun problem.


The U.S.A. has a culture problem, not a gun problem.
Declining family and moral structure breeds an increase in disaffected and aimless youth. It really comes down to a rejection of godliness which in turn results in social destruction.
Consider that the Dunblane massacre in Scotland left 16 students and their teacher dead. The assailant used a pistol and a revolver. [1] The Nice truck attack left 87 people dead, the assailant used a Renault Midlum cargo truck. [2] The Kyoto Animation arson attack in Japan left 36 people dead. The assailant used gasoline. [3] The Kerch Polytechnic College massacre in Russia left 20 people dead. The assailant used a shotgun and a knife. [4]
It's not the tool that is at fault, rather, it's the mind/spirit/motive behind the user of the particular tool. It's also the influences that shape that mind/spirit/motive. Healthy food and exercise produces good physical health, healthy parenting, godliness and personal responsibility produces a healthy and functional society.
The reason the USA has a Second Amendment is to serve as a deterrent to governmental tyranny because an armed populace decentralises the available use of lethal force away from a government monopoly. Historically speaking, it is governments which have been the greatest mass murderers of all. [5]
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Limit government power and promote a culture that teaches love for one another, empathy, forgiveness, personal responsibility and encourages good parenting.

Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Consider an Alternative


Just imagine if a proportion of the capital and wealth destroyed due to the authoritarian restrictions in Australia had instead found its way into funding an increase in hospital capacity.

In a free market an increase in demand bids up the price of that which is demanded creating the incentive for an increase in supply due to higher prices. As the supply increases an equilibrium will eventually be found between supply/demand with the result being that more people will get what they want with more people willing to provide it, all without some bureaucracy trying to figure out such complexities and issuing orders.

This is a proven historical fact.

Whether it be in medical, construction or automotive, an increase in demand incentives an increase to supply that demand. In medical care that demand can be for doctors, nurses, equipment, beds and drugs. An increased demand will naturally create an incentive for an increase in supply.

Unless of course you have a centrally planned bureaucratic medical system which has eliminated "price" as the means of rationing thus destroying the profit/loss incentive as it pertains to human behaviour and how people organise themselves.

Australia, to a significant degree, has a centralised beaucratic healthcare system run by the state. Thus money is "appropriated" by both legislative and executive fiat to "medical care" as opposed to being appropriated by a free market in conjunction with supply/demand principles.

You'll NEVER hear the Australian professional class in media/politics/health discuss such a topic because the Overton window has completely shifted into a centrally planned mindset. If one central plan fails it is only to be replaced with another central plan.

Good luck with that.

Thursday, July 29, 2021

The Danger of Centrally Planned Medical Dictates

It is very disingenuous for both the medical and political establishment to COMPLETELY IGNORE ANYTHING that has to do with healthy lifestyle choices, like the things we choose to eat, exercise, being outside in the sunlight, in the fresh air, things which go towards developing and maintaining a strong immune system.

It is also very disingenuous for both the medical and political establishment to COMPLETELY IGNORE ANYTHING that has to do with an unhealthy lifestyle, like the consumption of sugary drinks, junk food and processed low nutritious food, a lack of exercise, a lack of exposure to sunlight and fresh air, as well as things like stress, fear, and anxiety, all things that are deleterious to the human immune system.

The reason the average age of death is around 80 years of age for people whom are diagnosed as being Covid positive is because older people's bodies are generally in more of an advanced state of functionally breaking down. This is why older people generally suffer more health issues than younger people. This is obviously common sense and a well known fact.

Those with robust immune systems, generally speaking, have no issue with Sars-CoV-2 infection.

We live in a society where many people make very unhealthy lifestyle choices which clearly makes them more vulnerable to virus outbreaks like Sars-CoV-2. Yet both the medical and political establishment put ZERO EMPHASIS upon these lifestyle choices as it pertains to Sars-CoV-2 and that is certainly very strong evidence that what is going on today has NOTHING to do with human health.

What is going on today has EVERYTHING to do with corralling a population into centralised medical care, a system where "puboic health" is at the whim of a medical bureaucracy wherein the people's medical choices are dictated to them. It's both a tyrannical and dangerous approach to people's health.

Why is it dangerous? It is dangerous because it forces a "one size fits all" plan on every single human being. Thus if, God forbid, there is an error in the plan, then that error is forced upon all.

It's the same principle as to why centrally planned economies have historically proven not to work. In the U.S.S.R. there was no inbuilt error correcting mechanism for erroneous central dictates on production and thus economic efficiency was severely handicapped. Under a free market economy the error correcting mechanism is found in profits and losses. The inefficient and those producing what people do not want simply go out of business in favour of the ongoing successful business of efficiently producing what is desired.

The same principle applies to health. When individuals are free to determine their own behaviour according to their own risk/reward assessment the outcome of that behaviour will serve to indicate which behaviour is better and which is worse. That indicator which can be utilised for error correction is completely destroyed under a centrally planned medical system.

What happens when every human being is forced to be vaccinated as it relates to a particular threat, Sars-CoV-2 being the present example? Well, vaccine obtained immunity becomes the new default having eliminated any competition with natural immunity. This is of course a wonderful thing financially for Big Pharma, but it is also a situation in which a fundamental error correcting mechanism for erroneous central dictates has been destroyed.

I don't think many people realise the danger of this. A medical dictatorship cannot result in a positive outcome for overall human health because of this. It's not just the danger of financial incentives and corruption which can substitute good intentions, it's the fundamental danger of a lack of an inbuilt error correcting mechanism which only freedom of choice can bring.

Think about it.

Monday, July 26, 2021

Immunity - to vaccinate or not to vaccinate?


Israel has a very high vaccination rate (58% -80% depending where you look). The vast majority of the population vulnerable to Sars-CoV-2 has been vaccinated with a corresponding drop off in Covid fatalities.

A couple of things I find of interest though.

<<<More than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave starting in May, but just 72 of the confirmed cases were reported in people who were known to have been infected previously – that is, less than 1% of the new cases.

Roughly 40% of new cases – or more than 3,000 patients – involved people who had been infected despite being vaccinated.

With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.>>>[1]

<<<Analyzing the government’s national health statistics, researchers estimated that the Pfizer shot was just 39 percent effective against preventing infection in the country in late June and early July, compared with 95 percent from January to early April. In both time periods, however, the shot was more than 90 percent effective in preventing severe disease.>>> [2}

Preliminary data strongly suggests that the Pfizer vaccine does not prevent transmission and even may make the vaccinated more likely to be infected, not withstanding the chance of severe illness being reduced.

The recent example of a group of fully vaccinated Democrat politicians whom fled Texas to Washington D.C. to avoid a vote, with at least 6 of them subsequently testing positive for Sars-CoV-2 and going on to further infect other staff is good supporting anecdotal evidence of this. [3]

This all suggests to me that Sars-CoV-2 will continue to spread in spite of vaccination rates and despite the media promulgating a message that "vaccination prevents the spread." Yet is this really a concern? I don't think so simply because, here in Tennessee, deaths attributed to Covid-19 (ie. with or due to the virus) have remained stable even with a spike in new detected cases. [4]

Testing has correspondingly increased with the recent increase is positive tests. No real surprise there.

Yet the media, health authorities and political leaders continue to spread fear among the people in an attempt to persuade everyone to get vaccinated, even those whom are already have natural immunity and those at extremely low risk due to robust immune systems.

There is still ZERO emphasis as it pertains to actual lifestyle choices which either enhance or retard one's immune system. The entire approach is one of a "central plan" where the so called "experts" know what is best and that anyone objecting to "their plan" and therefore CHOOSES to not get vaccinated is stupid and misinformed.

The arrogance of these people is both astonishing and dangerous.


Saturday, July 24, 2021

Is Big Pharma Milking You?

Below is a very good interview with Rand Paul pertaining to why the medical establishment appears to completely ignore natural immunity to Covid in people.

Ran Paul is posed the following pertinent question...

""Why doesn't the science, the NIH recommend or recognise natural immunity if it's the same as a vaccine?"

Rand's answer...

"I think because they are led by people like Dr. Fauci, whom are the ultimate elitist, they don't want to individualise medicine, they want to have a general blanket edict because they aree afraid that if too many people are thinking too much about it then the vaccination rate might go down. All they care is about the vaccination rate."

My reflection on that answer (please watch the whole attached interview) is quite nuanced. This is because it reminds me of the eczema that I suffered in my early twenties. I had severe eczema and I was put on cortizone steroids as the treatment. I took those drugs for a significant amount of time until a chance conversation with a friends mum, whom was a nurse, revealed to me that I ought look up and consider the side effects of such medication.

Upon realising the long term side effects I became very reluctant about the drugs and significantly reduced my use. It wasn't long after that I came across information, in the waiting room of an accountants office of all places, in a small book that discussed natural therapies to various symptoms. Eczema was covered and the prescription was an increased intake of water and a good diet.

I took the advice, incentivised by the extreme discomfort wrought by eczema flareups, and I have NEVER suffered ezzema symptoms since. This incident served as a very powerful lesson in my life as to how the situation of a modern medical establishment defaulting to a drug/symptom treatment approach at the expense of an underlying holistic health preventative approach is not a good thing.

When taking the cortizone skin steroid I was certainly a cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry. When cured I was not.

I think the same modus operandi is extant with Covid. The default is simply drugs whilst an underlying holistic preventative approach is all but ignored.

This is why there is ZERO mention by political elites and the health establishment as it pertains to a healthy diet, exercise, sunlight and fresh air as a means to strengthen and maintain a robust immune system. NONE!!! Turn on the news if you don't believe it. It's the FACTUAL elephant in the living room.

The pharmaceutical industry obviously has an invested interest in NOT promoting alternatives to the products they sell. Politicians, many of which are funded by the pharmaceutical industry, also have an incentive to support the pharmaceutical industry to keep the funds flowing. Likewise, the advertsing dollars provided to the media serve to incentivise a default support of the pharmaceutical industry agenda. "Follow the money" so to speak.

Therefore is it any surprise for MSNBC to come out yesterday stating that natural immunity is far less effective than vaccine induced immunity?

Are Unvaccinated Covid-19 Survivors Protected Against Re-Infection?

Is it any surprise that both vaccine manufacturers and political leaders are now declaring the likely necessity for ongoing booster shots for the vaccinated in order to deal with waning antibodies and new variants?

<<<As the Delta variant continues to drive a fourth wave of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S., Biden officials see a booster shot among at least some vaccinated Americans as increasingly likely.

Why it matters: Another round of shots — beginning as early as late fall — could not only boost the level of protection against the virus among the vaccinated, but also help curb its spread throughout the population.

Between the lines: The amount of neutralizing antibodies a person has following their first two doses of Pfizer and Moderna's coronavirus vaccines appears to drop over time, which is a very normal thing to happen with vaccines.>>>

<<<While protection against severe disease remained high across the full 6 months, a decline in efficacy against symptomatic disease over time and the continued emergence of variants are expected. Based on the totality of the data they have to date, Pfizer and BioNTech believethat a third dose may be beneficial to maintain the highest levels of protection>>>

It appears very clear to me, upon reading different studies and releases, that the future is one where the public is to be continually milked by these vaccine manufacturers with both the government and media being their chief marketers. All with a continual NON EMPHASIS WHATSOEVER on any alternative holistic approach to building and strengthening of the immune system via a healthy diet, exercise, sunshine and fresh air.

This above context also explains the suppression of alternate medical therapies such as Ivermectin.

"For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1Timothy 6:10

Are you going to be a cash cow for Big Pharma?

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

Mandatory Vaccination Inevitible in Australia?

Lockdowns result in mandatory vaccination? The thought came to my mind as I reflected on the study linked at the bottom of this article. Such an outcome just seems inevitable to my mind.

Suppression of infection through hard lockdowns all but guarantee followup waves upon a vulnerable population. Why is this so? Well because hard suppression strategies prevent natural immunity developing among the least vulnerable of the population which in turn leaves them very susceptible to followup waves due to lack of any development of herd immunity..

If a strategy of protecting the vulnerable whilst allowing those less at risk to carry on as normal was implemented, one would expect herd immunity to develop at a faster rate than hard suppression strategies. Under hard suppression strategies vaccination is the only means via which enough people can be exposed to a means by which immunity develops.

I see the past 18 months of a zero virus suppression strategy in Australia as evidence of this. Due to Australia having suppressed themselves into a bubble the nation has become ripe for followup waves in which the general population has no immunity. So long as the government keeps pushing the same strategy, I think it leads to the conclusion that mandatory vaccination is simply inevitable as the means to deal with this lack of natural immunity. To steer away from a mandatory vaccination approach would force the government to admit that a zero virus suppression strategy was erroneous from the beginning and that would be political suicide. The government will NEVER admit that, the incentive is to double down and steer public opinion via fear metrics to support mandatory vaccination.

Perhaps not mandatory in the sense of a specific law, but with the cooperation of corporations and businesses, the non-vaccinated will be find themselves completely marginalised from society. This is where it is going.

Also, once Australia succumbs to this inevitability I would expect the people will find themselves perpetual cash cows for followup booster shots as new variants naturally arise in the future. The people will have dug their own hole and jumped into it through allowing themselves to having been so easily manipulated by fear and apathy and they'll be baffled as to how it all actually happened.

Australia will be a medical surveillance state with a population perpetually being milked by Big Pharma. Not a conspiracy, just an inevitability in my opinion.

The vast increase in government power over the individual won't end there either due to the negative consequences resulting from government intervention which will be argued as grounds for more government intervention.

It reminds me of when you let the plug out of a sink full of water. At first the water is circling nice and slow but as it drains down it speeds up around the drain and then, bam, all gone. The water is individual freedom in Australia.

I hope I am wrong

<<<Stronger interventions, however, are associated with suppression of the infection such that a second wave is observed once the interventions are lifted. For example, adding place closures to case isolation, household quarantine, and social distancing of over 70s substantially suppresses the infection during the intervention period compared with the same scenario without place closures. However, this suppression then leads to a second wave with a higher peak demand for ICU beds than during the intervention period, and total numbers of deaths that exceed those of the same scenario without place closures.
When the interventions are lifted, there is still a large population who are susceptible and a substantial number of people who are infected. This then leads to a second wave of infections that can result in more deaths, but later. Further lockdowns would lead to a repeating series of waves of infection unless herd immunity is achieved by vaccination, which is not considered in the model.>>> Effect of school closures on mortality from coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions. October 2020