At what point do I say enough?

Melbourne, Saturday.

Alan Burns

Indeed it is logical to want to avoid being bashed by the cops. It’s foolhardy to go up against those goons. The chief problem, though, of this perspective is that the thinking is fixed on the individual’s situation, rather than adopting a group solidarity approach. It takes a few individuals to do the defying, initially, and the more pissed off others get, the more likely they are to follow suit.

From Australia Awakens at Telegram.

Simply, someone has to take the risk to begin with. Preferably several people standing together, and even better if it’s a huge crowd. But the tragedy of any situation of unfair oppression is that people behave exactly as the tyrants want them to – as atomised individuals. The ‘power’ of the speed camera, for instance, lies in the idiocy of everyone behaving as if they individually are going to be a victim of the government. It’s not an ‘us and them’ mindset so much as a ‘me and them’ perspective …. and this can be an inaccurate reading of the situation.

The main factor that allows government tyranny is that they aggressively maintain a monopoly on privately-mongered communication and information dissemination, The people are not permitted to communicate with each other along private lines (as for instance governments, police etc are allowed to conduct their machinations against us behind closed doors) and just see what happens if you try to create some sort of citizens’ assembly, the design of which is to exclude the prying eyes of the authorities. They will blow a dozen valves, and go after the organisers on the assumption they are insurrectionists.

This is the main problem: the means to directly communicate with authorities who lord it over us simply do not exist. Without the ability to feed back to the government on all decisions they make – especially the tyranny by fiat they are abusing at present – and without the mechanisms in place for the media or other agencies to challenge tyranny, it will continue unabated. Time and again, throughout history, this same scenario has played out … and it always ends the same way. Massive state repression of the people. It matters not what the motives are for instituting this or that policy …. the point is that if decisions are made and restrictions are imposed outside of, and without even the pretense of adhering to democratic principles; then it’s wrong every time.

So, do we just suck it up and hope the authorities will come to their senses, or until events transpire that make it so obvious that people are being harmed more by lockdowns than living normally in society and taking sensible precautions ‘gainst covid that the wooden-heads feel they have to knee-jerk the other way? This is the way people seem to be thinking. Just as long as it doesn’t come at any cost to them. Selfish and cowardly stasis; individually practiced by millions, as if it’s the individual against the whole of the state and its violent goons.

Sooner or later there has to be a push against the endless nanny-statism, else it will go on without end, and increase in severity. So, the question we all ask ourselves is, “Hmmmm, so how much repression is too much for me? At what point do I say enough?” History shows us that context and severity don’t seem to matter that much. People in power will just go on becoming infinitely crueller, and the masses will comply. Do you want to go on living like this, wherein you only have half the rights you had last year, and diminished increments thereof in perpetuity? Is living on your knees a life really worth living?