^ Mind the screams. "Dan Andrews, that's on your fuckin' hand, you dog."
This was inevitable.
When tyranny and oppression becomes so unbearably stifling to a population (and protest, speech, and government choice are no longer an option) they will begin to lash out.
This is one of the many ways they may chose to do that, regardless of legal implications.
The Australian government has made it repeatedly clear that the lives of less than fully vaccinated people who have failed to properly register are enemies of the state and it's glorious revolution. They are to be savagely punished until they comply or die. This person, unsurprisingly, chose death. This includes the Internment Camps that I have heard idiot Australians attempting to defend. This includes significant amounts of police violence and harassment. This includes personal violence and harassment. This includes the removal of all available economic activity.
This man, correctly, understood that the law serves no purpose in Australia. The state has made a friend-enemy distinction between it's loyalists and dissenters. As Cicero notes, the law falls silent in times of war. As Clausewitz notes, this is because the law does not apply to your enemy, because the law is a moral force, and they are outside of your moral framework. This is why the statement: "They want you broke, they want you homeless, they want your wife dead, your children raped, and they think it's funny." rings so true. That is how you treat a sworn enemy who is outside your moral framework. The Australian state is at war with it's people, and that is why the law fell silent, and that is why this man chose death.
He will not be the last.
To the slaves and the villeins of petty tyrants: this is your fault. In fact, this is what you wanted. You may celebrate his death at your earliest convenience, you may even write a song about it and post it to TikTok. But please spare the rest of us your lecture about how good of a person you are. You are abominable creatures who have chosen, at every opportunity, an illusion of safety for the real sacrifice of Liberty. You did this under the guise of safety, but your only true reason was the opportunity to exert power over others. Unfortunately for you, this will continue to get worse: that is also your fault.
Yes, you are the baddies.
If you haven't figured that out from the smell of burning flesh yet, then I don't know what else to tell you.
Rousseau: the first fascist
Which also means the first communist, since fascist are just honest communist (or communist are dishonest fascist. Take your pick).
But I never really understood just how insane Rousseau was until I heard them cover more of his stuff including quotes on the Lotus Eaters the other day. I had remembered hearing about him and getting some vague understanding when we covered political theory in Middle and High School. We talked about Hobbes vs. Locke vs. Rousseau, and when I saw that Rousseau's baseline argument amounted to "The natural Man is peaceful and just, and it is society and civilization who corrupts him", I very quickly came to the conclusion of "Oh no, he's retarded" and moved on to the intricacies of Hobbes and Locke since they were at least speaking sense.
Then they started talking about him and had some of his quotes on Lotus Eaters since a lot of the modern Left has (knowingly for some and unknowingly for most) returned to Rousseau, and that its part of the reason that they seem so crazy to the average American who's civilization and ideals are based on Locke. And as I heard more of Rousseau speak, the more I realized that if I ever got the time machine and was allowed to kill a single person in history, it would be Rousseau.
I could see the argument at the time, but it's just provably false now.
I think that's a premium segment I haven't listened to yet.
I wouldnt know. I am not a premium member yet, but I do know they have covered Rousseau in some of their premiums segments. But the part that I heard was from a few days ago where some Dem congresswoman had told the BBC that what was happening in the US was an "Ideological Civil War", and Carl was just quoting Rousseau to show that she was more right than she may have realized. He also pointed out that, at least for many of the thought leaders of the modern Left, this was deliberate.
Specifically, Carl cited the Critical Race Theory bible that he read through and how there was an essay in there from one of the CRT Founders where their argument was essentially "Well, yes. From a Lockeian point of view, the US is working perfectly fine, and the things it is doing wrong it is slowly but surely correcting so that it has the more perfect republic of Locke. But I hate Locke and think we should have a republic as designed by Rousseau, so we must destroy the status quo."
EDIT: On the note of that CRT essay, Carl apparently did a non-premium, longform breakdown of it on their other channel. See here.
Definitely get the Bronze tier and try it for a month to check it out.
The premium subjects are pretty damn good. I'm probably going to upgrade to silver tier to listen to the written articles. I'm also a fan of history, so the long-form discussion about historical subjects with History Bro are my jam as well.