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.
Good post.
ReplyDeleteIn the present game of frog boiling, the retort to this piece will be:
“It’s only in shops, you can always order on line.”
Then if/when they order it for the bars and restaurants, it will be:
“Well obviously it’s consistent with the shop rules, you can always order delivery.”
Then if it becomes outside your house it will be
“It’s a small price to pay....”
It will never end.
Who will lead the resistance?
ReplyDeleteLiked your article on Offguardian. Please have a read of my madness at http://olivefarmercrete.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteHi. I'm sorry I didn't reply before but I had a look at your blog. While I agree with the spirit of it (how could we not?) I don't feel that we, as a collective awareness, are capable of rising up simultaneously and saying "NO!" I wish I were wrong. Historically, oppressive governments have never as far as I am aware, been defeated by the people they oppress. I'm afraid I don't have the time or the patience to perform the investigative tasks on your page, so I'm glad to have sources of information. There is only one question we should now be asking ourselves, and that question is: What Are We Going To Do About It?
DeletePerhaps we should correspond a little more.
In his 'debate' with Alan Dershowitz, Robert F. Kennedy Jr made the point that the pro in the quid pro quo is for the people to be assured of a safe vaccine, which we are nowhere near. Dershowitz agreed (as he agreed with most of Robert's arguments and suggests, to me, that he didn't agree to the debate because he wanted a debate). Kennedy and Dershowitz both think that they will first offer the vaccine (in the US) to volunteers. I don't know about that. Perversely, That leaves the rest of us (who haven't welcomed covid 1984) hoping that those volunteers will be seriously damaged, quickly, so that the whole Nazi program will come to a halt. Alas, There are, in life, such things as 'no win' situations.
ReplyDeleteDel Bigtree's organization, the informed consent action network (ICAN) has, I believe, scored a partial victory in court when it got the FDA to agree to do only trials for covid 19 vaccine candidates using placebos going forward. The next step is to get the monitoring in place. There should be the longest period of monitoring of vaccinated people among the youngest. Will that slow things down?
Unfortunately, They've invested billions, and much else, in this new global biosecurity police State (Giorgio Agamben and Patrick Zylberman). They - those who own, rule and ruin the world - will persist and their fascist police forces (that includes 'governments') will see to it that their wishes are fulfilled.
"Who's At The Top?" / https://app.box.com/s/umley4h6bslc9oupvwvhfnneb7zf2bvz