FORCED VACCINATION COULD BE WEEKS AWAY

When a mainstream media outlet like Good Morning Britain asks “Should vaccinations be mandatory?” the public should experience the deepest alarm. Time and again, government policy has been presaged by one of these propagandist media sensations which attempt to elicit the support of, or influence,  public opinion. Sanctimonious editorials appear in national newspapers and on television news stations demanding changes in law. We’ve seen it all before with calls for carbon-neutral industries, banning coal, banning cars that run on petrol, demanding everyone wear a mask in public. This is accompanied by cherry-picked references to dubious and questionable bits of “science” in order to further bamboozle the already befuddled audience.  The great British public then does what it always does, takes to social media and rails against any dissenting voices often before they appear,  labelling them “anti-vaxxers,” “deniers” and enemies of humanity without a speck of human decency, with the support of national newspapers like the Guardian agitating for extreme measures to be taken. Shortly after, the law is changed often without consultation either in or out of Parliament, as we have seen with forced face-mask wearing.

 

Make no mistake: at present forced vaccination cannot be permitted in law. There has been no new amendment to British law permitting this: expect that to change as soon as the public has been softened up by clarion calls from the media and the gullible, whose capacity for being fooled or wilfully blind is matched only by their obnoxious self-righteousness. These measures do not even seem to be debated: the silence from the House of Lords at this time is deafening.

 

Hitler’s “Enabling Act” originally passed in 1933, and revised in 1937 and 1941, implicitly legalised the Holocaust: in other words this monstrous process was technically permissible in the law of the land at that time. It is no defence against anything that is self-evidently wrong for anyone to protest: “But it’s the law!” Leave aside for the moment the proposition that for a Covid-19 vaccine to have been developed in less than six months, when past vaccines have taken years or decades to produce, is intellectually preposterous. Leave aside the fact that there is no possible way in which the safety of such a product can be meaningfully tested in anything short of  a long span of time. Being forced to submit your person to being invaded with an unfamiliar substance by injection is a prospect so horrible that any sane person must naturally recoil from it: yet the British public is, I fear all too ready to submit to this, as we have seen with masks.  One can already hear the voices of the righteous denouncing anyone who feels like this as a sociopathic threat to humanity and a criminal for whom no fate could be too bad. Is there nothing the British public won’t accept?

 

The Nuremberg Code of 1947, accepted worldwide as an ethical blueprint for medical experimentation, states:

 

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

 

It is important to note that this document is not binding in law: however at present British law does not allow forced vaccination. Yet how much longer we can expect to be protected in this fashion cannot be known. And if we accept this as I’ve no doubt we will because the great British public is essentially, weak, gullible and compliant, what’s next? Euthanasia?

 

The entire “vaccine” narrative is deeply suspect with a number of media claims that society cannot return to normal without a vaccine. This presupposes that a vaccine is possible, which cannot be known. It also implies a perpetual lockdown unless the masses agree to be forcibly injected with an unknown agent. And how many times have we heard the “eighteen month” timeline for such a thing to be developed? These messages do not inspire confidence.

 

I may be wrong. I hope I am. But it is possible that we are witnessing the beginning of the greatest crime against humanity since the Holocaust. And by the time it happens, it will be legal.

 

REFERENCE:

 

Nuremberg Code:

https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf

 

Enabling Act 1933

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

 

Law regarding forced vaccines.

https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/coronavirus-legal-news-views/coronavirus-act-2020-does-it-permit-mandatory-vaccinations

CROSSING THE RUBICON: THE UK SLIPS INTO A REPRESSIVE STATE.

Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon River in 49 BC  in defiance of Roman law placed  him and his army on a direct collision course with Rome,  leading to the Civil War which established him as Roman dictator. It is a well-established metaphor for a point at which there is no going back and at which things will never be the same.

 

I predicted a few weeks ago that the UK Government would in the near future try to force everyone to wear facemasks in public. Leave aside the plethora of information that makes it clear face masks are of practically zero benefit in everyday circumstances, and may in fact be dangerous, the forced wearing of facemasks is a transgression so fundamental and of such significance that it is difficult to adequately express. It implicitly hands your body over to state control, and renders one of your most basic existential freedoms subject to state interference. For the first time, the right to exercise a choice of whether you should inhibit your respiratory faculties and hide your face in public is taken out of your hands. If you doubt the significance of this, try to remember the public outcry that followed a debate regarding banning the wearing of burkhas and hijabs in the face of Islamic terrorism, and the connotations this had for civil liberties at the time. Facemask wearing is the visible hallmark of Asian states perceived in the West as repressive and authoritarian. It is a badge of serfdom, akin to the yellow star that Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. There is no greater invasion of your person possible short of tattooing you with a number.

 

This astonishing about-turn in policy has not happened overnight or without preparation. It has been preceded by a cleverly-orchestrated media campaign which seeks to bizarrely turn established professional and scientific research on its head, making virologists, infection-control bodies and academics who have published papers for the medical profession into liars and charlatans. This campaign has included editorials and blogs which talk in disapproving and accusatory tones of “mask-shirkers” and “mask-deniers” allegedly “refusing” to wear face masks. Leave aside the obvious fact that refusal cannot take place without a demand: in other words someone has to give you an instruction to which you reply, “No, thanks.” Absent such a demand, you are not refusing anything, merely making a choice. And until now there has been no such demand. But those making this choice are now psychopaths and enemies of humanity without a shred of integrity, respect or regard for their fellow human beings. When I returned from Asia early this year the advice was clear: face masks do not protect you from infection and it is not advised that you wear them. What is more, face mask wearing was actively discouraged because of limited supplies required for hospital environments, where infection control is king and every precaution makes sense. Above all the only situation in which it is appropriate to wear a facemask in public is if you are unwell and have a cough, in which case why not stay at home?

 

But this piece of simple logic has been covered by the mask-advocates whose logic runs like this: “You may have coronavirus without knowing it, and may infect others with your breath even at unlimited distances so you need to wear a mask.” This covers all bases despite the evidence for this being at best negligible and at worst  manipulated and dishonest.  It is part of the greater logic that renders every societal value worthless unless it contributes to the impossible task of making sure that not one single individual anywhere, ever,  is infected with Covid-19.  None of this means I think we should do nothing about this pandemic. But there is now a growing awareness that the cure proposed is not indefinitely sustainable and may in fact be worse than the disease.

 

The virtue-signalling of face-mask advocates is easily refuted. Facemasks have been available for decades for use in industry and ideas generally considered good are taken up by the public. Nobody needed the government to tell them to go out and buy a car or a television set. So if you’re so convinced face masks are a good idea why has it taken the State to tell you before you came to this Eureka moment? And for how many years or decades have you been going around disrespectfully infecting your fellow human beings by going out without a mask when you had a cold or the flu?

 

However, apparently all the established research is now wrong and face mask wearing is essential. It is a vast game of “Simon Says,” in which we only do anything when Simon says. And it won’t stop there. Expect newspapers like the Guardian to run sanctimonious editorials demanding that face-mask wearing be extended to pubs and restaurants, and eventually to every departure from your home. Following this such a move will become policy: indeed, the  British public will do what they are already doing, gleefully embracing this perverse doctrine, boasting of buying colourful face masks for their children, and showering anyone who has a different point of view with disapproval.

 

I’m forced now to doubt that we,  the British people value our freedom as much as we profess to. We take to the streets in droves to embrace new forms of repression, such as an anarchistic movement that seeks to rewrite history and dismantle our police forces, or an anti-human death cult that seeks to suppress all human activity by frightening us all into believing we are destroying the Earth by existing. But in the face of mounting attacks on our liberty and our freedom, we are silent. We have had our liberty taken away from us. Our movements are monitored. Our discussions are censored via social media. We are no longer free even to make fundamental choices about our bodies. A public that will silently accept these things has learned nothing from history, will accept anything and deserves its fate if that is a dystopian world-state.

 

We are no longer entitled to lecture other nations about being repressive states. Their representatives, quite rightly in my view would laugh in our faces. There is a growing fear in the minds of many of us that Western lockdowns may be permanent. The spectres of identity cards, martial law and forced vaccination now hover over us. Dismissing this as “conspiracy theory” and accusing those who feel this way of an inhuman disregard for life is the rhetoric of fascism, a force that always thrives in the face of a perceived threat. I believe forced face-mask wearing in British streets is a brutal act that crosses the Rubicon, and finally signifies our descent into a de facto repressive state.

CLIMATE ALARMISTS WILL LOVE COVID-19.

“Help stop the spread of coronavirus.”

 

Think about what that means for a moment. The most casual examination of this phrase reveals that these six words add up to the most futile proposition conceivable in the current times. A virus that in six weeks has paralysed the entire human race, has spread to every imaginable corner of the globe, has affected, directly or indirectly, every single living human being on earth. This is an event unparalleled in human history which has shut down civilisation to an extent that until now has existed only in science-fiction novels. And there is a distinct possibility, at least in the minds of the public, that this “emergency” may never end and that everyone now living, at least over the age of 40, will reach the end of their lives in the shadow of coronavirus.

 

And yet we are still being told there is something we can do to “help stop the spread of coronavirus.” This expression has now replaced “Save the planet,” as the only, entire, complete and overarching purpose of human existence in the propaganda machines of the state, big government and big business. It is quite clear that nothing on earth can stop the spread of coronavirus, just as nothing on earth could appease climate alarmists’ empty and impossible demands. “Help stop the spread of coronavirus” actually means something quite other than it seems to, just as “Save the planet” did. There may be something we can do to slow the spread of the virus  down, but we are rapidly reaching the point at which further attempts to do this must be balanced against the damage we are doing to the civilisation and society we have, for better or worse, created.

 

In fact both expressions amount to the same thing. Stop humanity. Close down every aspect of human behaviour, endeavour, commerce, culture and interaction. Centralise all wealth creation and redistribute it in a manner that stifles human creativity. Track and monitor every single living human being on earth, which every liberal thinker has protested about for decades when practiced only by regimes perceived as authoritarian.  Create a climate of introverted fear and societal loathing that convinces everyone that all natural human behaviour is an implicitly sociopathic, disrespectful, criminal act worthy of the deepest opprobrium and contempt. There is no doubt in my mind that climate alarmists will try to exploit this “crisis” in order to suggest lockdowns are made either permanent or lead to ongoing and irreversible societal changes that end for all time, normal social and creative human behaviour, sacrificing every natural inbuilt instinct to a kind of utilitarian world view in which the only perceived values we have are “Save the Planet” and “Help stop the spread of coronavirus.” The first is a meaningless and deeply dishonest anti-human crusade. The second is simply impossible and has already failed. Articles for the American Council on Science and Health, and the Lancet, both powerfully argue that continuing as we have been so far may not work.

I believe that  “Help stop the spread of coronavirus” is a failed tactic that needs to be abandoned if we are to have any hope whatever of avoiding the alternative: the emergence of a monstrously dystopian world state, a thing that could conceivably be upon us in less than ten years.

 

 

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/05/11/coronavirus-likely-will-infect-us-all-lockdown-delaying-inevitable-14779?fbclid=IwAR0xE-xYO4HMt-uUE_u2TbGZCcmbfITbQ666d6cDWGcz4Jo5aNSQqR_4Pes

 

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR365JTqlbGaHLx101-j5m7UDYJ028-h1cijI1pTtvP7oSCCDEQFmzybwFU