First off, our freedoms are threatened.
What are freedoms?
The word "freedom", honestly, doesn't have a universally-accepted meaning; different people use it in different context. It is not a rarity to see people using the word "freedom" for awfully restraining conditions.
So in this context, "freedom" is basically the absence of any external restraints, regulations, or threats initiated by a coordinated entity in order to attempt to alter one's condition, behavior, motivation, or any other properties.
That means, the absence of any external entity exerting effort in order to attempt someone to do or not to do something.
First thing we must understand is that we must stop trying to help "everyone", if we want to save ourselves.
Helping others is highly irrational if the return benefits aren't sufficent - and they aren't: for our attempts to "wake people up", we've been rewarded with nothing but public shaming. And public shaming isn't exactly beneficial in our efforts to liberate ourselves from any undesirable external influence.
Stop it. Empathy is a beneficial mechanism when it is directed towards allies and friends. But most of the people around us are neither our allies nor our friends.
If you're thinking that those people actually want freedom but they just need a wake-up call... Do not forget that we are individuals, and each individual has cognitive autonomy - the ability to think on one's own - and as a result, a certain degree of individual beliefs, values, and goals.
I'm telling you that some of the people want freedom while others do NOT.
And how do you find the people who want freedom? Ask for a solution for any problem. If the answer is "create a law, a regulation, ban this, restrict that blablabla..." then before you is not a freedom-loving individual, but someone who is perfectly fine with living under regulations - and someone whose preferred method of dealing with issues is actually more regulations or control.
The most rational solution to a problem is the one that minimizes expenses while maximizing efficiency. By helping a person, you expect a potential beneficial return - in other words, you expect such relationships to be mutually-beneficial - but providing help is costly for the helper. And when the helper receives no benefit in return, it's a waste of effort, possibly resources as well.
Helping "others" or "everyone" is just like that. You waste effort on something that is almost guaranteed to give you no beneficial return: you are trying to "wake up" the people who enjoy their sleep. And some of them get real mad when you're trying to wake them up.
The only one who we can really help is other freedom-loving individuals. Those are the only ones we really need to help out of pure compassion: these are close to us in that they are willing to leave each other alone, to negotiate before using violence and coercion, and to cooperate voluntarily.
Second - we need to prepare our own societies to live in.
I'll be blunt: humans don't live with livestock in the same room, and free men live apart from slaves for a reason. The primary reason being that the farmer, or the slave-owner, treats everyone in this room as a potential slave. They simply do not expect free people to live in slave pens.
Besides, most of goods we have are coming from dealing with the "general society". Such a cooperation definitely eases our lives by providing us easier ways to acquire certain goods, but at a price of increased dependence on the genera-l society as well. Should the society decide to cut the flow of goods to us - we're mostly fucked, as we do not have a robust network of trade and collaboration strictly for use by us, the freedom-loving individuals.
Why are we so afraid of transferring all of our money to the digital accounts of some huge world-banks? All because the banks can potentially "freeze" the accounts we use. Oh yeah, these aren't even "our" accounts. And what happens when those accounts are frozen? Right: we will buy nothing, and we won't be so happy...
But we have done something pretty much like this already: entrusting our comfort, our well-being, and even our lifestyles, to the "worldwide society". Yes, we can buy and use devices, such as smartphones, without even knowing how any of their components are being made, what are they made of and how are they assembled or even how do they work. Worldwide collaboration has made life very, very easy, by letting even "normies" with little talent or intelligence live comfortably. Just send 'em to do dumb labor - and they can buy pretty much whatever is being sold should they have enough money.
But the drawback is, most of those people are unable to replicate those tools and mechanisms they use. Should the society cut 'em off - and they're on their own.
This is not a big problem, though, if we already have a large enough network to produce whatever we need. "Oh, they've cut us off. Well shit, we now have our own society, so we can replicate pretty much anything. Fuck them."
The actual advance of what is called "Fourth Industrial Revolution" could be greatly beneficial for our freedom-loving alliance. After all, the 4IR is all about automation of production of goodies; in other words, what required a human before, now will only require a bunch of machines, some resources and some power. It only simplifies things for us - the key, though, is to program those machines to do the right thing.
After all, the Fourth Industrial Revolution - as well as automation, artifical intelligence, and even transhumanism - it's all about technologies. Raw technologies. We could just let someone use them to make us slaves eternally, but also we can make them serve us.
Third thing we need to understand: politics are bullshit.
And what we need to focus on is not how to obtain permission for this and that, what's written on the papers we call "laws" or "constitutions", or how to push our liberty-friendly policy into the law. What we need to focus on,
is how can we make us technically free, sovereign, and independent on any external factors and entities.
Politics and laws are nothing more than spoken words and writings. Nothing prevents a politician, or a police officer, from killing people in bulk even if laws ban such behavior. Nothing but an armed populace willing to defend itself against such acts - something we do not have now.
That is all because most of the people do not know where do the rights actually stem from. If the Constitution says, "you have these-and-these rights", they think that those rights are magically granted to them so they never, ever do anything to safeguard those rights; they rely solely on the image of some omnipotent "god" who "gave" them those rights.
But in actual reality, rights are far from being God-given. The concept of "rights" arises when there are a few entities potentially capable of being a huge problem for each other, but they decide to live in peace - and greater safety - while staying away from each other's affairs and property, instead of being aggressive but risking aggression from others every day. When those entities decide that it is better to leave each other alone, and to punish the offenders with collective violence, or any other cooperated blowback - the rights emerge.
In that regard, not many of those living on this planet have any rights. They have quasi-rights temporarily handed to them by their governments, but these only exist long as the governments permit them to exist.
What if the governments just go out and take away peasants' rights? Well, nothing, they'll just obediently hand them those. And that's how it goes, and the coronavirus hoax had illustrated it well.
If the government tells the citizens of the world to hand over their weapons, put chains on them, and obey their Master, everyone save for us the freedom-lovers will - obey.
But technologies are what protects us from abuse. Technologies such as weapons, means of communication, means of preventing cyber-attacks, privacy means, means of production... Do you get it whey they need you disarmed soooo much?
You might fight hard to push a freedom-friendly law into legislation, sure. But all it takes is a little effort by authoritarians to nullify that law. And even if they don't, that law might be ignored by offenders - and if the system really needs it, the offenders will remain unpunished.
Fourth - it doesn't really matter who's sitting in the throne.
A ruler is who sits in the goddamn throne.
He might be called Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin or even Ron Paul - he's still a ruler of some nation. And the ruler's ultimate goal is absolute control. Regardless of the ruler's name or the name of the party the ruler represents.
Chinese regime is horrible, it's true. You don't really want to be conquered by Chinese Army, right? Neither you want Russian savages to kill, rape and rob your fellow citizen. But I don't think you really like American regime. Why?
Because it's a lot like the others.
China has built a totalitarian-leaning surveillance regime for its citizens - but so did Russia, Europe and America. Chinese have that military-civil fusion, and in some form you have it, too. Chinese have censorship, Russians have censorship officially - and hey, look what American politicians are trying to make.
Both China, Russia and America are aiming to disarm their populace. All of those dominions are aiming to take total-control over the economy and build a tiered society with tiered property rights. In all of those dominions, you're afraid of the government law enforcers doing bad things to you for simply enjoying their life. Do I need to go on?
The only difference you'll have under a Chinese or Russian rule is that you'll be treated as "inferior race" by the conquerors. Chinese think of white people as of mere slaves, and Russians think of Americans as targets to beat, rape, rob, and kill for fun. But in both variants, whether "your" nation will or will not be conquered, there is a threat of violence. Either by the Chinese/Russians and the government, or just your government.
Again, instead of fighting for America, or China, or Russia, or wherever you live... fight for yourself. This way, you'll actually help yourself.
And fifth: we must figure out what rights and regulations we really want and need.
Both rights and regulations are two-sided: in general, they have both beneficial and malicious effects - and whether a certain right or regulation is more "malicious" than "beneficial", is up to each individual to decide.
And while the majority had apparently decided that a totalitarian world is "safer" than a free one, and so they've ditched their liberties one by one n exchange for gov't oversight - we the freedom lovers do not think so... Because we're the freedom-loving, autonomous and sovereign individuals.
Your right to life means the restriction put on everyone else around you, "Do not kill this man or we will attack you." Your right to property means, "Do not take what belongs to this man or else we will rob you as well".
So what does, for example, the right to "affordable housing" or "universal healthcare" or "basic income" mean? It means that the others are forced to build homes for you. It means that doctors are forced to work for you. It means that someone i forced to give you money. And all of this means that everyone is forced to pay for it, to become poorer just so someone they don't care about will feel better.
The restrictions are just the same. For example, banning encryption or providing encryption backdoors for "authorities" means no one can hide their criminal intentions, but on the other hand, it means that authorities can read private messages - and they can use these messages how they see fit. Depending on the content of such messages, and on the sender's carelessness, those can actually be used to harm or rob the sender.
Or, let's say, forcing everyone to take some "medicine". The plus side is, that if the medicine really works, it'll provide safety from the disease for everyone. The minus sides are, you don't know whether it's a medicine or something else; you don't know how will the organism react to this "medicine"; you don't know if this medicine is the best choice against the disease and you don't even have the choice...
The people are buying into the cherry-picked representation of the benefits the regulations and "rights" promise us. We do not buy this shit.
So what we are doing now, is wrong at its roots - instead of trying to build our own future, we're trying to "restore" our liberties - which is fairly expensive, given our numbers, and the numbers and abilities of those who support and oppose us.
Building a free country for all means disappointing everyone else who lives here - not just those "pesky elites" who "want us all to be slaves", but the general populace as well. They don't want liberties - they want an authoritarian regime, where their policies will be enforced. And by trying to build a free country, we're ruining their plans.
In their eyes, we're selfish fucks who do not understand the strggles of other people to control - and sometimes to be controlled. Due to cultural customs, they can't say it quite openly; they can only accuse us of being selfish. But after analyzing their behavior it becomes clear what is it they can't say openly.
Their problem is that they can not reach an agreement with the "elites" on how will they be ruled, and not that the "elites" are taking away their liberties while they struggle for freedom.
But what we need, is personal liberties.
So what we need to do, is cooperate with other freedom-lovers in pursuit of freedom for us - and not play a part in their goddamned stage.