Has COVID Backlash Sparked a Movement?
By: J.B. Shurk
Friends of freedom generally agree about four points:
(1) Protections for expansive individual liberty and respect for limited government are essential for the promotion of human rights, self-determination, and prosperity.
(2) Over the course of American history, the U.S. government has strayed far beyond the original limitations of its enumerated powers as set forth in the Constitution.
(3) Globalism, international government, plutocracy, rule by the “elite” experts, unchecked bureaucracy, and the steady erosion of inalienable rights all work to maximize the power of centralized authority while minimizing the power of individual citizens.
(4) The most important conflict raging today is between individual liberty and coercive State control.
Where defenders of liberty disagree is in their assessment of the future. Some believe that so much ground has now been lost in humanity’s centuries-long struggle for freedom that centralized government control over each individual is all but certain. Technology’s rapid intrusion into the private sphere, the exponential expansion of the national security surveillance State, the rise of government-directed mass censorship, the successful efforts of multinational corporations and banks to influence national government directives, and the Intelligence Community’s vast programs for manipulating public opinion on a global scale all lend support to this admittedly pessimistic point of view.
On the other hand, there are those who see the ebb and flow of human liberty as a natural occurrence, technology as a set of instruments that can just as ably expand freedom as curtail it (conquerors and liberators use the same weapons, after all), and encroaching totalitarianism as a necessary precursor for sparking popular revolt. From this vantage point, the darker things get, the more likely real change is afoot. I fall into this latter camp, and I will repeat a couple truths I hold dear: (1) before any system can be overhauled, there must first be a revolutionary shift in social consciousness, and (2) transformational change often occurs when people least expect it.
This age in which we live — although remade again and again over the last century through the introduction and rapid dissemination of once unimaginable technologies — would still be strikingly familiar to all the liberty-seeking generations that came long before us. Our struggle, like theirs, is one between a great majority being ruled against its will and a small minority insisting on ruling. Monarchs, emperors, international governments, and World Economic Forum–type clubs are all the same. And if you think today’s technocracy is more immune to being overthrown than in the days when dissenters were summarily burned, hanged, impaled, or beheaded, then you are giving too much credit to today’s tyrants and too little credit to the great freedom fighters of the past.
For great change to commence, all you need is one domino that strikes another and another until all the marble prisons built to constrain human freedom come crashing down. You’ll notice two things about that analogy: first, it implies that most of totalitarianism’s structure is built before people think to tear it down, and second, once the cascading demolition begins, totalitarianism’s once-impressive column of dominoes falls fast. As the old proverb goes, it really is darkest just before the dawn.
As an important example of how quickly social revolutions can upend entire systems, I encourage you to take a look at a recent article on The Conservative Treehouse in which intrepid intellectual warrior Sundance has asked his readers a simple question: if you did not take the COVID-19 shots, why not? The impetus for his inquiry comes from an informal poll he had conducted showing that 85% of CTH’s Twitter followers remained un-jabbed. Even though his readers have always had a healthy skepticism of government, Sundance was surprised that such a high percentage would have withstood the years-long pressure campaign for universal “vaccination” from the combined efforts of government, news media, medical authorities, and corporate proselytizers. What he got in response to his question is nothing less than stunning.
Thousands of commenters took the time to answer, and their words alone could serve as ample testament to how confusing, oppressive, heart-wrenching, and ultimately revelatory these last three years of life with COVID have been. It is entirely clear that enduring the government’s reaction to the virus has been much more difficult and exhausting than surviving the virus itself. Again, if only as a form of mental camaraderie and emotional catharsis from our shared struggle, I encourage you to spend some time reading through the myriad comments. It is obvious that people everywhere have been desperate to express themselves free from the bounds of government-controlled censorship.
There are stories of loss from illness but also stories of lost loved ones separated from their families for no rational reason. There are stories of Americans who at first trusted the government’s COVID warnings only to become vehement critics of authorities’ mountain of lies. There are those who once thought highly of the CDC and America’s medical professions who now see both the bureaucrats and “scientists” as mere political pawns. There are those who did not believe that totalitarianism was overtaking America until they witnessed firsthand the government-directed censorship of their health-related Tweets and Facebook posts. There are those who did not believe that freedom was under serious attack until they experienced lockdowns, arbitrary rule-making, and the imposition of a police State under the banner of a medical tyranny established for the “greater good.” In short, there are a lot of people who are now wide awake about just how rotten and corrupt the American government has become.
Whether expressing sorrow, frustration, or rage, the commenters’ explanations for ultimately refusing the various jabs reflect the triumph of common sense over deferential respect for authority — or what Sundance lauds as “intellectual discernment.” In the end, even though everyone in any position of power demanded the public submit to forced experimental injections, the government’s constantly changing narratives, nonsensical directives, flagrant backtracking, unscientific reasoning, and authoritarian insistence just didn’t pass the smell test for a stubborn few. From my point of view, I think the thousands of responses reflect a deep-seated American instinct to scream, “Don’t tread on me!”
Now, whether you got the shot is not the point. There may have been good reasons for you or a loved one to be treated, despite the government’s and pharmaceutical industry’s intimidation strategies, fear campaigns, and outright lies. This was always a personal medical decision that should have been made voluntarily with informed consent and free from all forms of coercion. To force such medical treatments on people, without a reasonable understanding of the long-term effects, however, is not only patently unethical, but also a crime against humanity (as all forced medical experimentation has been recognized as such for over a century). And for those crimes, I do hope the perpetrators are made to answer.
What Sundance revealed with his question to readers is that an energetic movement of Americans is rising. In watching how the American Deep State (Uniparty politicians, social media censors, Department of [in]Justice, and Intelligence Community) had worked to take down President Trump, many Americans were well aware of the government’s capacity for treachery. Still, in enduring that treachery up close and personal under the fear-inducing tyranny of COVID-1984 — in which their lives and livelihoods, as well as those of their children and grandchildren, have all been affected in painfully intimate ways — Americans have gained a rebellious self-awareness forged in the fires of experience.
The government’s determination to censor Americans’ COVID experiences has only strengthened their resolve. As Sundance concludes, the “issue is percolating in the background right now — like a powder keg in search of a spark.” Or like a wobbly domino, one little flick away from crashing everything down.
The above article (Has COVID Backlash Sparked a Movement?) originated on American Thinker and is republished on this TLB site under “Fair Use” (see project disclaimer below) with attribution to the articles author J.B. Shurk and the website americanthinker.com.
TLB recommends you visit American Thinker for more great articles and information.
Image Credit: Graphic in Featured Image (top) – Pixabay License
Also by this Author:
Read more articles by J.B. Shurk
Click Here to Visit the TLBTalk.com Site
Welcome to the TLB Project Neighborhood
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.