Tag: survival

History repeats itself (Vaccination edition)

1. PrejudiceThe Nazi government actually fostered and promoted prejudice. According to the dictionary definition, prejudice is comprised of “unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social or religious group.”“Those who refuse the injection are trying to kill Grandma and the Children.”

2. ScapegoatingThe Nazis scapegoated the Jews, blaming them for every societal problem in German society. They published an enormous quantity of propaganda that blamed the Jews for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults that plagued “civilization;” and declared Jews and others untermenschen, or sub-human.“It’s the fault of the unvaccinated that we still have the pandemic.”

3. DiscriminationIn the case of the Jews, the Nazi’s prejudice against them made them easy to scapegoat. This naturally led to discriminatory laws by the government, and caused violent acts against them that individuals could perpetrate with impunity.Jews were required to wear a yellow Star of David sewn onto their outerwear like a badge of shame so others could see and avoid them. Or they could, if so moved, hurl epithets towards them and even physically assault them with the awareness they could do so without consequence.“You cannot attend the concert, fly, make a living unless you can prove vaccination.”

4. PersecutionPersecution of minorities isn’t new. The persecution of the Christians by the Romans is one example, and another glaring case in point is the current situation of the Baha’is in Iran. But the system created and utilized by the Nazis against the Jews was likely the most organized and efficient one in history.Jews were forced from their homes, their valuables confiscated, crowded into ghettoes, homes, businesses and temples lost during Kristallnacht, a two-day pogrom (November 9 and 10, 1938) commonly called the “Night of Broken Glass.“Those who refuse to be vaccinated should be interred in re-education camps.”

Awake yet?

Them: You won’t be able to attend a concert or football games if you don’t take the jab 

Me: I couldn’t care less

Them: You can’t go to a large shopping mall

Me: I’ll survive

Them: You can’t drink at the bar

Me: I’ll drink at home

Them: You can’t enter night clubs

Me: I don’t go out at night

Them: We’ll tell your employer

Me: I’m self employed

Them: You can’t be in the city

Me: I prefer living out in nature

Them: You can’t go to McDonald’s or Burger King

Me: It’s gross anyways

Them: You can’t eat at restaurants

Me: I’ll order takeaway or I will cook at home (preferred)

Them: You can’t shop at large grocery stores

Me: I can grow my own food and continue to buy from local farmers

Them: You can’t be part of society

Me: I already checked out

Them: Your kids can’t come to school

Me: I’ll homeschool

Them: You’ll be on your own

Me: I’m surrounded by my family and tribe and all the people reaching the same conclusion all over the world

Them: You can’t choose for yourself

Me: I just did

Them: What can we tempt you with?

Me: Nothing

***
“When they have nothing you want they have no power. And that’s when power comes to the people.”

What is generally lost in all the static over the COVID 19 injections is that ALL OF THEM are experimental and are being used under an emergency declaration. Medical experimentation is still medical experimentation even during a crisis.

After WW II the United States lead the allies in conducting the Nuremburg war crimes trials. Part of those trials dealt with medical experimentation on unwilling subjects. The following was the result:

NUREMBERG CODE (DIRECTIVES FOR HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION)The Nuremberg Military Tribunal’s decision in the case of the United States v Karl Brandt et al. includes what is now called the Nuremberg Code, a ten point statement delimiting permissible medical experimentation on human subjects. According to this statement, humane experimentation is justified only if its results benefit society and it is carried out in accord with basic principles that “satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.” To some extent the Nuremberg Code has been superseded by the Declaration of Helsinki as a guide for human experimentation.

–“Permissible Medical Experiments.” Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg October 1946 – April 1949, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office (n.d.), vol. 2., pp. 181-182.

1. 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 situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, 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. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury disability or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required by him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

On February 20, 1905, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote about the police power of states to regulate for the protection of public health: “The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts,” Harlan said “upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”
So, the question remains which law is in force here?

If the SCOTUS decision of Jacobson v Massachusetts, (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/197us11 ), prevails, you can be forced to take the stick.

If the Nuremburg Code prevails many employers, city, county, state and Federal officials will have committed what are considered war crimes.