To whom it may concern
We are under a constant assault of statistical woes and “new” discoveries, to the point of information overload where the majority of us are simply confused; between the views of legitimate unbiased information, and quite biased advocacy cherry picked information produced with conscious intent to deceive, in order to gain an advantage.
The level of apathy and mistrust of our institutions and news agencies as a consequence, is becoming a real and dangerous problem, in terms of autonomous health reliant informed decisions, as well as the day to day provisions we would normally make, in search of stable personal economies in the maintenance of a reasonable standard of living. The perspective; all things may or must change as life progresses, offers us little hope of success in long term planning, of finding a stable or even reasonable plan for the future. Why this is important can be understood in review of civilizations of the past and examining how many survived and how many died out as a direct effect of instability from within. A disease, [or utilizing a more popular current term “a pandemic”] of truly civil society.
Traditionally family values were a stabilizing force which made the whole of society work. When families were considered sacred, those societies were protective of each other in balance, with a strong respect of parents who were trusted to establish the rules, according to their own interpretation, of which, among the rules they lived under as children, proved to be important in defining the successes or failures personally experienced, as life progressed. Ethics and religious mandates were reflective most often of those experience driven and evolved rules of the land. Common sense, relationships and precautions, all found direction in those evolved rules of life. No two parents saw things exactly alike, however the most reason, eventually evolved as the most reasonable within a process of selection over time.
Today the largest confusions are created in the destruction of traditional norms or common sense by promotions of those who will profit the most by timely adjustments. WE are becoming victims of the idea; “we can make things better” only by imposing choices, with more laws, more rules, more Police and more prisons, to the point we have to legislate out of existence every scraped knee and sniffle. We need more policing and fines to sustain a level of purity and protections from even an insult or legitimate criticism. An extreme level of oppression brought upon our selves voluntarily. A level which already exists and increases hourly in frequency, well beyond that, which was never known to exist in any civilization which survived.
When we relied on each other and trusted our selves, to do the right thing, we found more harmony in communities, with much less effort, and much more freedom for everyone. A furrowed brow, once had more power than an entire police force, when no one was confused and we instinctively knew the rules which guided our actions. Long before promotions convinced us there was ever any necessity to call 911 simply because someone lit a cigarette. People knew if that action was likely to cause them harm all they had to do was ask and witness, how manners and respect for others, would extinguish that cigarette. In place of talking, to resolve our issues, today we rely on telepathy, although few of us have that talent, to define the ignorance of others, who should know what every stranger is thinking although the rules have changed we should know if someone changed with them. A world in which only political correctness, as described in news reports can define virtue. When a United Nations agency The World Health Organization can be convinced to employ a deceptive process of domination strategy, such as we see defined in HIA health interventions, there is something very wrong with that agency, because it is promoting the virtues of greed and self service for a select few, over the needs of the very communities who gave them the trust of oversight.
People in communities are now brazenly defined as “human capitol” and in every description of the term, are now used as “human experimental test subjects” without informed consent or permission at all. In the absence of time or observation to determine the effect of most of their social experiments, they can not claim anything they are promoting can hold a candle to common sense as a legitimizing factor. So what have they produced, beyond divided communities and an extreme loss of confidence? The term “The World health Organization predicts” is heard so often now, to inspire community fears we can see the organization as promotional, of only division and bigotry to invent legitimacy, in any of the promotions they lend their name to. Screaming fire in the theater is not amusing or a legitimizing source of common good, it is a crime, and rightly so. Is coercion or Industrial Socialist policy making, within the mandate which created UN institutions? I would think not, although most of the Health Care “Authorities” who support public health as a virtuous or sustainable theology, would say I am wrong
The line-ups for bread in communist Russia or the McCarthy inquisitions draw the extreme perspectives, of defaming both political followings; however neither comes close to the devastation of confidences and the fear of simple human discussion we see today, By defiling both followings in claiming “the discussion is over” long before it ever had a chance to begin created smoking bans, fat pandemics and now global warming, all claimed victory and all were defined as promotional of extreme actions known to be necessary, prior to any attempt at public involvement, or a search for civil compromises. The public purse is being used to buy the loyalty of the media Social Marketing as defined at Health Canada is entirely consistent with the description of propaganda; Sustained needs were created only by eliminating the public from the discussion. Duly elected leaders exposed themselves as followers, in providing for the needs of the well heeled few and their lobbies, in spite of the many, those decisions would actually effect.
Community support was claimed, although it was only gained in a fictional sense seen in carefully worded poll results, announced daily in news releases. Progress was gained by attacking and coercing small disinterested communities, who did not understand the harm, most were confident the fanatics would never be taken seriously, regions were targeted second, consistent largely of surprise legislation without public discussion or demand, introduced shortly after elections, as the usual pattern, in hopes the electorate will have forgotten their initial repulsion, four years later. Declaring full approval third invented a reality which could de-legitimise all opposition, as pining over ancient history. Eventually most of us were convinced nothing could be done, with a majority opposed, we learned to ignore the controlled perspectives of politics, which affect others, more than ourselves. Industrial advocacy triumphed; just as they planned and just as they will continue to do, until the day, enough of us wake to the con game and demand investigations of those responsible.
Perspectives utilizing the extremely remote possibility are often used as evidence. The remote, claimed as rising to represent the norm, which produced many fears, as stepping stones, to progressive government policies. Paternalists and Nannies rely on “sustainable development” as a foundation principle, in defeating the views of anyone who would dare look back, in search of solutions, to a growing list of current problems, whether real, invented or imagined.
Weighing both sides, it seems progress through developed common sense, in grown efficiencies by civil evolution, far outweighs the credibility of the quick fix solutions, of progressive government policies, guided solely by an efficiency perspective of shortest possible timeline. What developed by “Health intervention” are band wagon and cult like witch burning campaigns, which claim; “protections” can only be achieved, by vilifying the autonomy of individual oversight and by denying traditional rights to private property.
Common sense is ultimately much more efficient than any form of oppressive government bureaucracy, in actually delivering protection, or in remaining consistent with traditional ethics, built over thousands of years.
Progress is one thing; destruction is something completely different and it is seldom the two could legitimately compliment each other. Theoretic association can never accurately define proportion, nearly as well as it defines biased opinion. Defining promotions of paternalism as progressive or progress at all is equally deceptive.
Kevin Mulvina
Kevin@leds.ca
