» New to the show? Get up to speed on 2023 by listening on Apple or Spotify. «

Imagine being arrested.

Not because you are a criminal, not because you’ve stolen something that wasn’t yours, not because you’ve physically or emotionally abused somebody—no, imagine being arrested because you left your house without permission. Imagine being arrested because you failed to finish the full nine months of state mandated “medical treatment” for some disease they deemed to be dangerous.

As difficult as it is to imagine, this is happening right now to a woman in Tacoma, WA. There is a warrant out for her arrest, and if she refuses to submit to the demands of the State Health Department, if she refuses to remain isolated for months on end and undergo involuntary medical treatment—if she refuses to comply—she’s going to be arrested, thrown in jail, strapped down, and FORCED to comply.

If she doesn’t comply, she will be declared to be a threat to public health and safety. As such, she loses her rights as an individual and must be punished by the collective.

Sit with that for a bit. Consider the precedent. Really think it through.

If the state can force you into isolation, if they can force you to receive medical treatment against your will, if they can arrest and imprison you if you don’t comply, then there are no longer limits to the state’s authority over your life. They own you.

They will take your money and tell you what you can or cannot do.

They will force you to comply, and threaten or punish you if you don’t.

They will tax your food, your fuel, and your fun. They will tax your car, your house, and your stuff. They will tax your business and your paycheck. You will have to pay the state fees to drive your vehicle, fees to walk in nature, fees to go camping, fees to do business, fees to go to concerts, fees to participate in pretty much every area of life.

And people will go along. This will become the norm. In fact, it already is.

So, just to be clear, the state threatens you, takes your money, and tells you what to do. They will arrest you, imprison you, and destroy your life if you don’t comply. This is the reason that people go along with it—because they’re scared of punishment.

Am I wrong?

Is this right?

Now think about that lady, the one who’s trying to lay low, trying to escape the fate of involuntary “treatment” and isolation, who is trying to outrun the state agents who are trying to track her down. I bet she’s scared too—and she should be—and so should you.

I’ve often said what a government does in one place, it can do in another. This is key to understand in the age of global governance, as the world waxes on about global democracy and Our Common Agenda. What they do in one place, they can do in another, and it doesn’t really matter whether you agree with it or not.

Many people think, “Oh, that would never happen here.” But they’re wrong, and here’s why: Governments are just an organized group of people. This organized group of people then governs, which is to say, they guide and direct public affairs. This is all well and good, until the government decides to start making rules for everybody else.

There is an important distinction between managing public funds, say for fixing pot holes, and making the rules for everybody else. Serving the public in a leadership role is stewardship. Threatening the public with arbitrary rules is dictatorship.

We’ll deal with the dictators in a moment, but first I want to drill down on group dynamics. It’s important to think it through, reducing society’s complex social dynamics to simplest terms. This allows us to better understand the forces at play. Again, the government is just one group of people. What happens when one group of people try to start telling other groups of people what to do? Naturally, there is disagreement. If the disagreements cannot be settled, there is conflict.

That’s pretty straight forward right? Maybe even a Lefty would agree?

Think about what’s happening in Ukraine right now. It’s a perfect example of different groups of people fighting to the death over their differences. Think about gangs, corporations, and political parties. These groups battle it out over competing interests just the same—and they too sometimes kill each other in the process.

The point is that this is all perfectly natural. It’s been happening since the dawn of time, and it is going to continue to happen, forever, without fail. I say that confidently, because I believe this is a natural pattern that exists in the natural world. It’s not just human nature that organizes into groups that then compete and have conflict. Based on direct observation, this is a perfectly predictable natural phenomenon.

Indeed, I believe it is an inseparable aspect of Nature itself.

The importance of this fact could not be overstated. Though the truth may at first appear subtle, the weight of this reality is the wrecking ball with which one can shatter the various illusions of collective thinking. Nature itself organizes into groups. These groups compete. Some groups win, some groups lose, and the battle goes on.

Am I wrong? Would anybody argue with that fact?

Governments are just organized groups of people. By extension, governments will naturally form and compete. Some forms of government will win, some forms of government will lose, and the battle goes on. This is reality, is it not?

Of course, when we think about governments forming and competing, we’re really talking about people getting together in groups and competing with other groups. Because governments, just like all groups, are really just people, right? If you think, “I must talk to the government,” or “I must deal with government,” then you are going to be talking or dealing with people, correct?

(Side note: The motive behind the push toward digital governance is to remove this human element from the equation, and that is a very, very dangerous proposition.)

Now let’s circle back to the lady who’s ducking for cover so she doesn’t get arrested and locked up in a state facility where she’s forcefully “treated” by the authorities.

Is it the state that’s doing that to her? Is she running from the government?

Or, is she running from the people who are representing the government?

Who are these people who represent the government? Are these individuals not human just like the rest of us? Regardless of the role—say, head of the health department, chief of police, the officer who arrests her, or the nurse who forcefully sticks a needle in her arm—aren’t these individuals just people too? Each of them have to eat, sleep, do their business and navigate life like the rest of us, right?

State officials are humans too. What gives them the right to treat people differently? What gives them the right to grab you, throw you in a padded room, strap you down and inject you with whatever they want? The answer is nothing.

There is no such right. No such right exists—not now and not ever.

BUT, that does NOT stop people from believing that this right does exist.

In society at large, it is safe to say the majority of people assume the state does have the right to arbitrarily make up rules, take your money, force you to comply, and punish you if you don’t. If you recall, this is what Larken Rose called “The Most Dangerous Superstition,” as we discussed in TR 170 - The Threat of Authority.

Of course, just because the majority of people believe it, doesn’t make it so.

BUT, understanding all of this doesn’t solve our problems.

Let’s get primitive.

You’re hungry, so is everyone else, and you’ve got the only food for miles around.

The group surrounds you and suggests that you share your food with everyone else.

Looking around, you realize your measly portion won’t be able to feed the group—not even close. Instead, if you start to pass around your food to share as the group suggests, your food will quickly get gobbled up by the group and there will be nothing left. Not only will not everyone get food, now you won’t get any food either.

And it’s your food mind you, harvested by your own hand, procured by your own expenditure of individual effort, using your own time and energy. You had invested this time, energy, and effort to get this food so that you didn’t starve to death.

But, unfortunately, no matter how you try to explain this to the group, the group does not care. They claim you are being selfish. They start to call you names. They start shouting about how it’s not fair if you don’t share. The more they shout, the more excited the group becomes. Pretty soon, their friendly suggestion starts to take the form of an ultimatum: Give us your food, or we will take it from you by force.

By now the group is convinced that you are being selfish and unwilling to share, and that you do not have a right to just keep your food for yourself and not share. You must share. They will make you share, because that’s what’s best for the group. They must now take your food by force, because you are selfish and unwilling to share.

This, they claim, is for the greater good.

It’s their right to your food, vs. your right to survive.

Where does their right come from? It comes from the belief that they have the right. But where does this belief that they have this right come from? Someone suggested it.

The right to take your food does not exist, but this hungry group of people believe that it does, precisely because someone suggested it.

The right to take your money does not exist, but plenty of needy, greedy people believe that it does, precisely because someone suggested it.

The right to take away your freedom does not exist, but different groups of people believe that it does, precisely because someone suggested it.

There is a small group of people who believe they have the right to take your money and force you into compliance, even forcefully cover your face, restrict your breathing, stick a needle in your arm, censor what you can say, limit where you can go, and even tell you what you can and cannot think—and though no such right actually exists, they believe that it does, precisely because someone suggested it.

The government believes they have the right to control you. What do you believe?

Do you believe the government has the right to control you? There are many groups who do—regardless of what you believe—precisely because someone suggested it.

This right to control people does not exist in Nature.

The right to defend yourself does.

Thus, the true threat of tyranny lies not in the tyrants themselves, but in the belief that they rule by right, and their ability to convince people to agree. Whether out of fear or ignorance, when the majority falls prey to this suggestion—that their group has the right to control any other group or individual by force—tyranny soon follows.

At this point, the majority have been fooled. They believe the suggestion.

Prepare to defend yourself.

Share

The Torch Report

TR 315 - The True Threat of Tyranny