I was watching a recent interview with the now 92-year-old Noam Chomsky, and I was recalling a time in the late 1990s when I read the book Manufacturing Consent on the methods the establishment uses to control mass psychology and silence popular discourse. I was reminiscing because during Chomsky’s interview he went off the deep end and suggested that people who refuse to comply with vaccine mandates are similar to people who don’t comply with traffic lights and that we should be ostracized from society, possibly by force. When asked how the people forced out of the economy could be fed (how would they survive) he asserted “that is their problem.”
I was around 20 when I read Manufacturing Consent and I was not fully aware of a basic function of the political left and socialism that I am well versed in today: People claim there is a “spectrum” of political beliefs on the left and that there are those that support socialism or centralization while also supporting freedom, but this is simply not so.
Chomsky has long claimed himself to be a “libertarian socialist.” In the past, I have found that a classic misdirection of secretly authoritarian people is to tack the “libertarian” label onto whatever collectivist system they believe in. Con-men like Chomsky figure that most normies don’t actually know what libertarianism is, but they’ll assume it means that you support “liberty.” It’s a calculated abuse of the ideology designed to mask the collectivist’s true intentions.
I don’t even know that I fit into the libertarian framework, but I do hold some of its basic tenets as fundamental.
A core principle of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle, a foundational rule for society that says the use of force to impose one’s beliefs or political system on others is wrong, and the use of force, in general, is wrong unless it is in defense of yourself or the lives of others. The problem with socialists and collectivists is that they always find a way to claim that their brand of force is somehow in defense of the lives of others. That is to say, the “greater good” is the go-to excuse for all modern tyranny.
Chomsky’s argument in favor of the vaccine mandates has nothing to do with protecting the lives or safety of other people. This is evident in the lack of logical thought he puts forward. In fact, Chomsky never addresses the basic fallacies inherent in his claim that traffic laws and vaccine mandates are the same.
Firstly, COVID mandates are not laws; they are dictates that have never been voted on by a single legislature nor the American people. This means mandates are meaningless. At least with new traffic laws, the voters get some say in potential changes. The vaccine mandates are purely totalitarian in nature and completely circumvent all constitutional checks and balances.
Imagine if one day Biden assumed de facto control over all traffic rules, and then claimed the authority to deny all people who run red lights access to the majority of jobs and the overall economy? That would be absurd, right? Well, that’s exactly what Biden and his globalist handlers are doing with the COVID mandates.
Secondly, obeying a traffic light is not the same as allowing yourself to be injected. Traffic lights have been in existence for decades; we know a red light is not going to harm our health. The COVID vaccines have been in existence for about a year and have no long-term testing (that has ever been released to the public) to back their safety.
All vaccines in common usage today were tested for at least 10 to 15 years before being released for use on the wider population. The COVID vaccines were slapped together in a year’s time, at least according to the official story.
We have no idea what the implications of this experiment will be in the next few years.
Chomsky’s comparisons are obviously ridiculous, and one would think that the author of Manufacturing Consent would be able to easily discern the massive differences in terms of violations of public freedom. But for some reason, he can’t seem to grasp the foolishness at the heart of his debate. Or he is being deliberately ignorant because he thinks, like many globalists, that there is something to be gained in going along with the farce…
The root pillar of Chomsky’s position, and the position of all COVID cultists, is that unvaxxed people are a threat to the safety of others. The “greater good” theory is meant to either appeal to or silence conservatives and libertarians that oppose the vaccines on the grounds of the non-aggression principle. COVID mandates rely on the claim that the unvaccinated are an integral danger to society as a whole, and thus force is justified.
Now, I have been asking this question over and over again for the past year to any vax fanatic I come across, and not a single person has come up with a valid counter-argument:
If the vaccines work, then how are unvaccinated people a threat to vaccinated people? If the vaccines don’t work, then why take them in the first place and why mandate them?
What does Chomsky think the average death rate of COVID actually is? Is he aware that according to dozens of peer-reviewed studies the median Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of COVID is only 0.27 percent?
What about the fact that vaccinated people still transmit the disease to others, according to the CDC narrative?
Furthermore, new studies from countries with very high rates of vaccination have shown that natural immunity formed by people who have already had COVID (like I have) is superior in protection against future contraction or transmission of the COVID virus. Natural immunity is up to 27 times more effective than vaccines. It trumps the jab to an epic degree.
And what about all those breakthrough cases and deaths of fully vaccinated people? Over 60 percent of people hospitalized in Israel are fully vaccinated. Fifty-six percent of COVID deaths from April to October in Ireland were people who received at least one vaccination.
Chomsky is either ignoring this evidence for the sake of his biases or, he just hasn’t educated himself on the science. Either way, his mentality is destructive if not rather typical of socialists and leftists in general.
I am reminded of a radio show I did many years ago out of the UK which presented itself as a kind of liberty forum. As it turned out, the host was a hardcore socialist (and a fake libertarian like Chomsky) and he was anxious for a debate. I was a little annoyed with the ambush argument on the merits of socialism, but I went forward anyway, and I don’t think the host expected my position. It’s simple… if a group of people want to form a community or collective based on socialist values then they should be allowed to do so in peace, as long as all participation is voluntary, and they don’t try to harm anyone in the process.
At first, he appeared to agree with this idea, but his support of personal freedom proved superficial as the debate went on.
His argument was “What about all the people in society that need our help, such as those that are in poverty or are disabled? Don’t we need a centralized system in place to manage these kinds of problems?”
My response: By all means, go and help those people if you want to help them. Just don’t try to force me to do it. I might want to help them too, but I will do it in my way, not yours.
And here is where every single socialist shows their true authoritarian colors — the host then argued that while I might be a good charitable person the majority of people, in his mind, are not, and must be forced by government to contribute to society in the manner “society” has deemed appropriate.
There you have it. Like Chomsky, this guy was appealing to the greater good as a tool to impose his ideological vision onto everyone else. People must be forced to uphold the social standards, but the social standards are conveniently defined by the people that benefit most from the collectivism. At no point do socialists and leftists ever suggest that more individual freedom might be the best option for elevating the greater good. Their solutions always involve progressively less freedom for the individual and more power for the government, the same government which they expect to control.
I’m not talking about silly notions of anarchy, just constitutional protections for inherent freedoms. The political left only seeks to erode the liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, and no matter where they are on the leftist spectrum they all end up at the same terrible place given the right circumstances.
Even Noam Chomsky, a leftist gatekeeper and supposed anti-establishment champion, reverts to little more than a decrepit dictator rationalizing mass starvation when the opportunity to enforce vaccine mandates arises. Maybe he is feeling his mortality along with his age and fear has overwhelmed his senses. I doubt it. I suspect the promise of collective power is so intoxicating to all socialists that their masks and costumes fall away, and their true character emerges whether they want it to or not.
There is not a single shred of scientific evidence to support the forced vaccination argument. There is not a single shred of proof to support the claim that an unvaxxed person is a threat to the safety of anyone else. Mandates are not laws, and even if they were they would be unconstitutional laws. There is nothing legal, rational, scientific or moral compelling me to submit to an experimental vaccine. Chomsky and his ilk have no leg to stand on.
So, we are at an impasse. They want power over us, and we will not give it to them. The bottom line is this:
I will not comply with your illegitimate mandates. It will never happen. And if you think you can use leverage to force me to comply, threatening me with poverty and death through economic discrimination, then I will view your actions for what they are — an attack on my freedoms and my life. I will therefore respond in kind and eliminate the threat by any means necessary, and I will be justified in doing so, constitutionally, rationally, scientifically and morally.
COVID cultists should keep this in mind as they continue down this path. They think that the greater good is on their side, but this is a fantasy-driven by their own desperate desire for dominance. The question you need to ask yourselves is this: Do you really think your desire to force the mandates and your political ideology on me is greater than my will to stop you? Are you ready to risk death for the vax mandates? Because I am ready to risk death to end them.
Bob Livingston
