Mandating masks is not a "property rights" issue, a thread:
How many businesses are "privately owned" anymore? Esp with the lockdowns transferring power to megacorporations (imitations of the state, not the market - SEKIII), the existence of truly "private business" has downgraded to near zero.
Most of what are here are statist lapdogs on their dole and at their behest, spiraling toward a panopticon of fascism. Masks are a step in that direction.
A state-created entity (corporation) telling people to follow a statist rule is not an example of a free market or "property rights". They're part of the machine, and if someone wants to try to snap em out of it, I applaud that.
They prob block and report people who try to on social media anyway. Gotta hear it from someone.

The corporations are the state, And vice versa. Have been for some time now. It's how state-capitalism works.
The smallest governments always grow into the biggest, because they can rely on the patriotic fervor of the loyalists remembering how things used to be and ignoring that it's not the way they are now, as a method for stirring public support against all dissent.
Today it's masks. Tomorrow accept the digital dollar and sacrifice privacy. 50 years from now, sleep in the pods and borrow everything from the Davos Elite. We're losing, and shouting into the yawning void is at least justified, and at most noble.

Keep it up, if you would.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jeremiah.exe

Jeremiah.exe Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JeremiahEXE

6 Mar
For those curious about why I'm laughing about this situation, watch this video:



She has literally tried to cancel, censor, and otherwise destroy me, because I spread accurate information about the outlet she publicly says she wrote for.

She's bad news.
More? She repeatedly tried to get that video taken down, citing "privacy violations", while claiming publicly that I was negatively affecting her professional life by the video showing up prominently in search results. That Streisand effect made it the most popular vid on my YT. Image
She also repeatedly accused me of "doxxing" - a thing I didn't do - and tried to get people censored for being on my side (@KilldozerSZN, @VoluntaryDom, and @AnarchoLibooty, for instance).

I made a vid about what doxxing actually is, and that died down.
Read 10 tweets
23 Feb
Yes. People should read David Icke.

The idea this is laughable to you is an amusing glimpse into your arrogance. He has his following for a reason, and is censored for a reason. He questions the status quo, and models that which make sense of it.

Unlike you, who caves to it.
Your arrogance (including calling be a "baby", and essentializing conspiracy theorists as "wackjobs") is further typified by assuming you know everything I've read and been through, all while claiming I "don't know half" of the other way around.

Bougie.

LMAO you think war is in one's "self interest"? Terrorism? Capitulation to tyranny? The global panopticon?

No. They must be evinced of this path. And you only assist these efforts by campaigning for warmongering "anti crime" people like Biden.

Shill.

Read 19 tweets
22 Feb
No amount of "reading about relationship anarchy" will make me wrong about 1, 2, and 3, and you proved nothing in either your original tweet or this one.

You weren't censored, and blocking someone on Twitter is not censoring them. Stop promoting CSAM legalization, you cretin.
You adopt anarchist aesthetic, to paper over your desire to get away with unethical acts, while not seeing consequences for them. It's why you promoted Russia as an example of a sex-positive society; you don't actually have any interest in statelessness.
Nope. There's no "religious fundamentalism" in abstinence - the fact that people can do it for religious reasons is not evidence that all reasons are religious. Patriarchy doesn't exist, but calling me a conspiracy theorist while pushing that CT? Amusing.

Read 8 tweets
14 Feb
1) No, yes, yes. *built
2) No they aren't, and only if you want to.
3) Completely untrue, and a direct result of the media lying to you about it - as evidenced by "muh Twitter" when it's on all platforms.
4) And? What do you suggest replacing it with?

5) He was way better than you, and you have very limited "interesting bits", if any.
6) No.
7) The state agrees with and loves this take. Anarchists shouldn't.
8) Yes.
9) No. We should all get fit enough to destroy what destroys us, and not be unhealthy.
10) No it isn't, and fortunately, few people care what you think.
11) Vague statements like this are worthless and require no thought or knowledge.
12) Ancoms are libertarians, and political libertarianism started w/ ancoms. You diss libertarian org tho.

Read 8 tweets
16 Jan
Civilians need these for self defense against a variety of people.

We need them cause, even though the elites are pushing hard to make the whole world completely unfree, US isn't yet.

Example:

Your country arrests people for jokes and wrongthink, en masse - this one could not.
I get that you need to fearmonger, but the fact that you only included one real criminal in your post is telling.

So is the alarmism about the M134, a subject you clearly don't understand (next tweet).

This is why the UK should not be the US's standard.

One of the few which still exist, sure.

There are no M134s on the market right now, and acting like they're a dime a dozen is disingenuous, you hack.

Nobody is carrying one in a Chanel, and it requires expensive and heavy mounting to even use.

But OK.
Read 8 tweets
15 Jan
THREAD:

"Muh NAP" is not the basis of libertarianism, nor is abiding by it.

Certain thoughts can render one not libertarian, at a foundational level, without action, or rights violations, and simply "not violating rights" isn't the foundation of liberty or libertarianism.
The belief in free will, and the meritocratic notions which spring from anti-determinism - THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF LIBERTARIANISM - are the foundation, not muh NAP.

Believing one's value is determinist, and not by their will, is anti-liberty. Can't be anti-liberty libertarian.
Like even NAP as a phrase even came so long after political libertarianism. This isn't a thing. Even in American right-libertarianism, muh NAP ain't the root, and it got on fine without it for many years.

Libertarianism didn't poof into being when the NAP was coined. Ridiculous.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!