The Fluoride Fascists in New Zealand…

…Are using exactly the same playbook as the fluoride fascists in the UK.

Screengrab from Fluoride on the Brain documentary

In the same way that the hearts of UK fluoride fascists purport to beat for deprived UK communities whose gnashers need saving, the New Zealand fascists’ alibis for forced medication are the deprived communities of the Māori and Pacific Islanders whose children are disproportionately affected by tooth decay.

There’s a very easy way for the fluoride fanatics to find out if water fluoridation addresses tooth decay in low-income communities. They could simply take a look at how water fluoridation has worked out in low-income communities in the US where drinking water has been fluoridated for generations. Those communities still suffer the worst rates of tooth decay [time stamp: 16:44]. That’s because poor dental health is related to poor diet and nutrition, sugar being a major factor. That’s about two minutes of homework that ought to stop the zealots masquerading as anti-deprivation crusaders dead in their tracks.

A journo pal in NZ sent me a link to this great documentary, Fluoride on the Brain, produced by Reality Check Radio (RCR), about the fight to stop water fluoridation across the country.

Fluoride on the Brain touches all the key points of the debate in a concise and punchy way, including the garbage science of the fluoride proponents and the ethical issues of informed consent and the right to refuse medication. But the point I want to emphasise in this article is that, ultimately, this debate should not be about the science or whether fluoride is good or bad for you. For those who don’t know that fluoride is a toxin, I encourage you to watch the NZ documentary. I have previously written a piece covering the history of the fluoride deception and some aspects of the science, with numerous source references to explore. So this piece is a proudly science-free argument against water fluoridation (and indeed any other form of forced medication) because we will never achieve freedom unless we subordinate science to universal human values.

It is dehumanising to start from the position of having to prove that fluoride is a toxin in order to defend yourself from a concerted effort by the state to force you to swallow it. In tacitly accepting this position, we are saying that the state has a right to put a substance inside your body, and that the onus is on you to prove that the substance is not harmful. This proposition is inherently preposterous. There is no relationship under which a sane and dignified human being would accept such a bargain. It is even more preposterous when we consider that the state is constituted by us, the citizenry, to do our bidding. The state is servant, not master.

The bargain in relation to all state-administered matters is that we as a community appoint people from within our ranks to administer services we require as a collective. In the case of water, we recognise that it would be a nice idea if our water was safe and clean. We do not grant implicit or explicit authority to those servants to take it upon themselves to add what they believe is a medicinal fortification to the water.

The reason we don’t do that is that those servants, like us, are fallible. Once they seize the reins of bureaucracy, these all-too-fallible servants have a tendency to morph into little Hitlers, and all too frequently end up advocating things which harm us. Thus, even if it were an incontrovertible fact that fluoride added 200 years to the lifespan of each human who swallowed it, no institution, no person has a right to force it down your throat by injecting it into the public water supply. The job of a public water authority is to provide clean drinking water. Medicating an entire population with a substance that supposedly prevents tooth decay is not only beyond the government’s remit, it is forced medication – a clear breach of medical ethics and bodily autonomy.  

So this debate should really focus on the sovereign right of all humans over their bodies. The fact that so much attention is paid to the science is testimony to the new religion of science now governing — very badly, I would add — human affairs. It’s scientism: the idea that ‘science’ must be the final arbiter of the public good, when science is simply a tool for increasing our limited understanding of the material world. The arbiter of public good is the inherent morality of natural law.

Thus, while rightly lamenting the exclusion of communities from participation in the debate over water fluoridation, I humbly submit that the RCR documentary does not sufficiently emphasise a key point. That is not to deny that involving communities in the decision would be a vast improvement on the openly authoritarian approach being taken, but it’s not for ‘communities’ to decide this. They too are fallible.

It must, instead, be an individual choice. If 99% of the members of a community decided they wanted fluoride in their water, they cannot force that decision on the 1% in a matter that should be governed by ethical considerations – specifically the sovereignty of every person over his or her body. That is not up for a popular vote at the ballot box! Under natural law principles, they are welcome to imbibe as much fluoride as they want, but they have no right to insist that the 1% join them. That is not what democracy should be. That is a tyranny of the majority.

Since 2020, Covidians on the left and right have seized upon a simple soundbite that appeals to, well, simpletons, and is used to justify their tendency to insist that a majority of people can trample on everyone else’s right to bodily autonomy. That soundbite is: the right to freedom does not grant the right to harm someone else. No-one said it did! But it’s invoked to imply that an individual is physically harmed when someone else fails to put something in their body. What they are saying is that, in certain circumstances and timeframes specified by the state, the boundary of each person’s body mysteriously dissolves and merges with everyone else’s such that the substance that’s supposed to protect them will only work if everyone else takes it too. There’s a word for that: psychotic.

Here’s my soundbite to counter that madness: shove [insert preferred synthetic chemical of your choice] into your body if you want to. I’m not harming you by abstaining.

Now they’re on the fluoride bandwagon. Slightly different tack but the same end goal – getting a dangerous substance into your body by force. It’s an invasion of the body fascists. Note that it never occurs to them to apply this force with something that is incontrovertibly good for you – like vitamin D. Not that I would welcome that; it would  still be bodily invasion. But no! Strangely, they only love and care for you when they want to put substances like fluoride, or experimental mRNA ‘vaccines’ in your body. And, in the case of fluoride, they love you so much that they’re prepared to spike your water with it to make sure you don’t miss out on the amazing effects of a chemical that is not in any natural human metabolic pathway.

Again, you’re very welcome to put fluoride in your body but, for those who want a fluoride fix, there are many other cheap and easy ways that don’t involve dragging the whole country into it. If the fascists in NZ and the UK really care about deprived communities, why don’t they post fluoride tablets through everyone’s mailbox or make them freely available at every pharmacy? Or maybe even — and here’s a radical thought — do something to tackle the primary causes of the deprivation itself? This suggestion is based on the assumption that those causes are rooted in evils that should be restrained. More on this below.

So, why aren’t they interested in the approach of voluntaryism and solving the root cause of deprivation? Because they get high on forcing stuff into other people’s bodies, and giving everyone a free choice is just no bloody fun for a fascist. They get a sadistic thrill out of forcing millions of people to do something they wouldn’t do if given a choice. For that reason, they are mad, bad and dangerous. If we lived in a sane society, those people would be in secure padded cells, far away from the rest of us. Instead, we pay them huge salaries to terrorise us.

Now, I’m not denying that we all need to cooperate with each other for the good of society. But we can cooperate without being body fascists, or any other kind of fascist for that matter. The first step is to craft laws that are directed solely at restraining evil, as opposed to doing ‘good’,  Examples of spurious ‘good’ being the insistence on everyone imbibing fluoride in the water or having regular injections of lipid nanoparticles. That is the paradox of doing good at the societal level. Once evil is restrained, good flourishes organically in an atmosphere of voluntary cooperation. Utilitarian law-making that purports to do the greatest good for the greatest number is invariably seized upon by people with tendencies to do evil.

It’s past time that people realised this fundamental law of the universe: public authorities posing as do-gooders are, and always have been, a tried and tested Trojan horse for delivering evil. In bucket loads.

Barring the odd reference here and there to fascist tendencies, this has so far been a forceful homily on how the road to hell is so often paved with good intentions. Everything I’ve said assumes that our government servants are just a bunch of well-intentioned but incompetent, do-gooding nincompoops. That, I’m afraid, is in fact the best-case scenario and it applies to the order-following ranks in government and not the order-givers. There is a darker and more obvious truth that has been subverted by the well-worn aphorism about the road to hell – we’ve forgotten that the road to hell is very frequently paved with bad intentions.

I and many others have awakened to another reality which is that the higher up the chain of command you go, the more sinister it gets. As a senior minister, even if you were personally convinced that fluoride was harmless, no reasonable person would gamble with the lives of millions by ignoring the science built up over nearly a century that forcefully challenges the ‘safe-and-effective’ mantra. It’s a senior minister’s job to know that science, or to surround themselves with people who know it, or to invite diverse expert opinions in order to do a thorough risk assessment. If members of the public reading this piece know that fluoride is a toxin, is it rational to assume that your Oxbridge-educated ministers are all clueless? So you have to ask yourself: what on earth is motivating them?

I will finish by double-underlining the opening premise of this entire argument – the sovereign right of all humans over their bodies. This right ought to be self-evident but, in an era in which governments are forcing us to mount a defence of self-evident rights – whether it’s the right to privacy, free speech or bodily autonomy – we are confronted with a curious paradox. This paradox is that it is difficult, though not impossible, to construct arguments to defend the self-evident precisely because it is, or should be, evident without proof or reasoning! That’s the meaning of self-evident!

In the same way that I had taken for granted that I would never have to justify to anyone why I had chosen not to put a particular substance in my body, we are now being gaslit into believing that mandated vaccination and fluoridation is the natural order of things and that those who reject it are deviants who must be brought to heel. During peak Covidianism, the EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, explained to the world with icy illogic that:

“1/3 of the European population is not vaccinated. These are 150 million people. This is a lot... And therefore I think it is understandable and appropriate to lead this discussion now, how we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union. This needs discussion, this needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led."

Indeed, 150 million people is an awful lot of people the fascists failed to bring to heel. The inability to control one third of a herd is infuriating for people who view their relationship to the mass of citizenry as akin to that of a farmer to his livestock.

What should make us more angry: the fact that the covid ‘vaccines’ that this woman wants mandated have killed and maimed more people globally than any other pharmaceutical product in modern history or that we live in a world in which a ‘leader’ can utter these words and not be led away from the podium in a straitjacket? Von der Leyen is pretending not to know that only two generations earlier, one of the crimes for which her ancestral leaders were hanged was the denial of the human right to reject unwanted medical procedures. If she can get away with this, then perhaps we get the ‘leaders’ we deserve.  

So, faced with such brazen gaslighting, how does one defend the self-evident right to control our own bodies in a world that seems to have forgotten history? How about reminding ourselves that there is a name for the condition under which a group of people are forced to surrender control over their bodies to another group of people – slavery.

I don’t doubt that many will argue that forced fluoride medication and mandated vaccination are nowhere near as extreme a form of slavery as putting bodies in shackles and working them to death on plantations as economic chattel. But history rhymes, not repeats. Slavery has to be delivered in a new way if the fascists are to succeed in getting away with it. The fact remains that if you believe the state can dictate forced medication of any kind, then you also believe in some degree of slavery; you believe it is reasonable to surrender your body to an institution that routinely and casually kills people, accidentally of course (that should make you feel better as you are lowered into your grave), and then conducts inquiries at your expense to ‘learn’ the lessons of its ‘mistakes’.

You are very welcome to surrender your body to the cause of ‘science’ and to submit to the will of the supposed servants you appointed. Notebook in hand, I will observe with a mixture of sadness and curiosity how that journey ends for you. But I am not livestock, so forgive me if I don’t join you.

---