The main argument, and it is a knock down one in my opinion, against vaccine passports is that it undermines fundamental freedoms, such as autonomy over one’s body. Dr Mercola has given an excellent account. I would add that the situation is even worse, since given the adverse effects; there is a probability, however small, of death from a vaccine. Yes, there are risks crossing the road, but that is still voluntary. Vaccine passports force one to play vaccine roulette, like Russian roulette, only with a syringe.
“In his April 2, 2021, article, “Vaccine Passports and the Recalibration of Social Ethics,” screenwriter Tom Moran opines on how vaccine passports “undermine one of the most fundamental rights in a civilized society: autonomy over one’s own body.”
You’re now being bombarded with propaganda disguised as “news” telling you, either directly or insinuatingly, that getting vaccinated is a patriotic duty, and refusal is selfish and immoral at best, or an act of domestic terrorism at worst. However, as noted by Moran:
“The failure to participate in a noble act is not immoral. To put it another way, giving blood saves lives. Failing to give blood is not murder.”
Indeed, this is particularly true in the case of COVID-19 “vaccines,” seeing how the sole benefit reaped is that you might suffer milder side effects if or when you get infected with SARS-CoV-2. Perhaps it’ll prevent a more serious case requiring hospitalization, but the shots do not make you immune; you can still get infected, and they do not prevent you from spreading the virus if you’re infected.
Should We Demand Personal Sacrifice ‘for the Greater Good’?
Since the vaccinated individual is the only one getting any conceivable benefit, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is clearly not about saving other people’s lives. Some insist that if enough people get vaccinated, herd immunity will develop and the virus will peter out, but no one explains how this is supposed to work since the shot doesn’t prevent infection or spread.
But even if that best-case scenario were true, the choice to gamble your health by taking an experimental gene intervention must remain a personal one, made with full informed consent, which is nearly impossible due to the censorship of anything but complimentary information on the vaccine. For some, the potential benefit might be worth the risk. For others, the potential risks may far outweigh the potential benefit. We’re not all the same.
“If you have a rare blood type, your blood is even more valuable to society than someone else’s — but this does not mean you have a moral, social or legal obligation to protect other people by donating,” Moran writes.
“The right of the individual to choose is more important than the ‘greater good’ of society. We have always known this. That is why giving blood is voluntary. This is why there is no punishment for abstaining. This is why there is no reward for participating, other than receiving a sticker and biscuit. Any form of coercion would be morally reprehensible.
Autonomy over one’s own body is absolute — one of the most fundamental rights in a civilized society. So important is this autonomy that it even extends beyond our own death. Our organs may only be harvested for life-saving transplants with our prior consent. Becoming an organ donor (another good thing to do) was, until very recently, an opt-in system. Again, there is no reward for participating and no punishment for abstaining.
Any medical intervention that is for the benefit of society, with no conceivable benefit for the individual, must always be voluntary. The rights, freedoms or opportunities conferred on an individual in society should never be contingent on participation in such an act.”
Moran asks you to consider the theoretical situation of having to donate blood in order to get tickets for a Broadway show, or show your organ donor card to get into a restaurant. What if you had to donate bone marrow in order to gain the privilege of attending a sporting event?
The fact that the right of an individual to assess personal risk, and to prioritize their own quality of life is now being derided as something heinous is a dangerous and inhumane development. The idea that your physical body belongs to the state, and that you have no right to make your own decisions about what is to be done to it, is nothing short of slavery.
Vaccine Passports Eliminate Basic Human Rights
While the mainstream narrative is that vaccine passports are the best way to eradicate the pandemic and your “path to freedom,” they are neither. Again, the “vaccines” are not designed to prevent infection, only lessen symptoms, and if rights you had before are now removed, how can it be a path to freedom? This narrative requires some kind of double-think straight out of “1984.”
No, as Zuzana Janosova-Den Boer warns in her article “I Survived Communism — Are You Ready for Your Turn?” signs point to a place diametrically opposed to freedom. Den Boer emigrated from Czechoslovakia to Canada, and in her article, she details the “all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda” starting to permeate her adopted country.
Interestingly, the article was written in January 2019, a year before COVID-19 ushered in authoritarianism for all to see. She recounts a statement by a professor lecturing on “scientific communism” in her native Czechoslovakia.
“It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality — 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!” he said. However, “Science is not about consensus; ideology is,” Den Boer says.
The New ‘Green Communism’
While there are plenty of parallels between COVID-19 pandemic responses and communism, Den Boer’s 2019 article highlights the reincarnation of communism under the banner of environmentalism. Her commentary is more easily understood today than even two years ago, as the reality of the Great Reset is now becoming more widely known.
Part and parcel of that “reset” is the introduction of an energy-based economy and “sustainable development.” What many fail to realize is that this pleasant-sounding verbiage hides some rather nasty plans because the technocrats, whose plans these are intend to enslave mankind under the guise of protecting the environment. This is hardly a trade-off most people would voluntarily agree to. Den Boer writes:
“In March of 2007, the website WorldNetDaily published an article entitled ‘Environmentalism is new communism.’ In it, the former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stated: ‘It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.’
He goes on to describe environmentalism as ‘the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.’ Klaus has also written a book: ‘Blue planet in green shackles,’ in which he states ‘communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.’
He also warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of ‘protecting nature’ is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism — new communism …
Since I received my own vaccination of communist propaganda, during the first 27 years of my life, I … am immune to this disease. If someone is trying to ‘save me’ against my will, I’m instantly wary and ready to fight back — if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
So try to imagine how I feel, now as a Canadian, when I see the same tactics and hear the same phrases I saw and heard for years under communism, only this time in English!”
Trick of the Trade: Deception
“Communism can be characterized by a single word,” Den Boer says, and that word is “deception.” Real intentions are never disclosed. A range of slogans and programs may be presented, but they all have a singular goal, and that is “totalitarian enslavement.”
She points out that communism has been subverting the environmentalist movement since the 1970s, as it was then recognized as a field ripe for sowing its ideology. In 1972, then-chairman of the Communist Party USA, Gus Hall, published a book called “Ecology,” in which he stated that:
“Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements.”
Den Boer writes:
“This idea was incorporated into the U.S. Green Party program in 1989 (the same year soviet communism collapsed), in which the fictitious threats of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used to scare the public into believing humanity must “save the planet”:
‘This urgency, along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time …
First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.’”
What the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) promotes is not climate science, but socialist ideology, Den Boer insists, citing as evidence comments made by Ottmar Georg Edenhofer, former co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, who in a 2010 interview stated that climate issues are about economics, and that “One must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics.”
Three Stages of Communism
Den Boer goes on to describe the three primary stages of communist propaganda methodology. Stage 1 is about creating polarization and demoralizing the public through divide-and-conquer tactics. Idealists are primary targets, as they are easily manipulated with emotionally charged propaganda. “Recognizing how essential these people are to the success of his revolution, Lenin referred to them as ‘useful idiots,’” Den Boer writes.
Next is destabilization, where the basic values of society are targeted and twisted, primarily through the educational system. “New communism is based on all the old communist ideological principles and beliefs, but uses environmentalism as its agent of change, to completely alter the core values of western democracy and destabilize (demoralize) society,” she says.
Stage 3 is revolution, which typically occurs after majority support has been gained, through whatever means. If the revolution is won, democratic elections are abolished, and members of opposing parties are executed. Private businesses are seized and nationalized.
“Key supporters who now finally realize how they have been manipulated and exploited (i.e. useful idiots who are no longer useful) are either jailed or executed, to prevent the formation of any dissident movements.
All other useful idiots, having fulfilled their purpose of bringing communists to power, are now either enslaved into the new ideology, or disposed of in a variety of prescribed ways.
A new privileged elite of communist party leaders is now formed … Leaders of every key institution or organization: company, hospital, police, school, etc. are now replaced by an official member of the communist party. Competence, ability or fitness for the job is no longer relevant or required; the only prerequisite is loyalty to the party.”
While supporters believe socialism and communism will bring equality and prosperity to all, the economic consequences are always the complete opposite: Poverty. But why? Den Boer explains it thus:
“People always spend their own money more carefully than someone else’s. Capitalism is about efficiency. Private businesses must spend their capital very carefully. They cannot afford to make investments in their business, unless they are sure it will be worth it …
In a centrally planned economy, all production is controlled by government. The revenue required to operate the government and the economy is obtained through taxation. Because a centrally planned economy is not subject to the laws of supply and demand, financial goals become meaningless, since there are no penalties for not achieving them.
Thus, long-term government plans are never fulfilled and financial goals are replaced by imaginary production quotas. The result is profligate waste and inefficiency on a monumental scale.
Communism institutes mandatory employment with pre-determined duties and salaries. The problem is lack of goods and services. Even if you have money, you will have few opportunities to spend it for your own benefit.”
Socialism Versus Communism
Den Boer goes on to stress that while socialism and communism both seek to abolish private business and turn resources into “publicly owned” resources, they are strictly controlled by the government, not the people.
Communism results in the poverty of an entire society. By comparison, free-market capitalism has lifted the highest number of people out of poverty in human history. ~ Zuzana Janosova-Den Boer
Socialism is implemented first, at which time wealth is distributed according to productivity. Communism is the second stage, at which time wealth is distributed according to individual need. However, individual needs are determined by the government, not the individual.
“Remember the key word: deception? Socialism equals communism. Any political party or organization that advocates socialism is advocating communism,” De Boer writes.
So, what is life under communism like? For full details, I recommend reading De Boer’s article in its entirety, but to start, you can always expect a shortage of basic goods, necessitating waiting in line for staples such as milk, meat and eggs.
Inevitable side effects of such shortages are theft, corruption and bribery, which become systemic. De Boer warns that to function, you have to be prepared to enter the right networks and pay bribes for everything, be it schooling, timely health care, government permits, clothing or car repairs. Here are a few other examples:
- “Want an apartment? You can’t buy one; real-estate markets don’t exist. You’ll probably get one (eventually) for free, but the government will decide the size, type, location, as well as your position in the queue, which may take years.
- Want a car? You must first submit an application, or buy a permit, to buy a car from the government, then wait in line, for years. The wait time might be 2-3 years, or it could be as long as 7-10 years.
- Want to use some recreational facilities (government built, of course) for your vacation? You need to be approved by a labor union, and wait …
But here’s the best part: there’s no guarantee you will ever receive an apartment, car, garage, daycare, recreation, or anything else you might want. If there is any record (ever) of your non-compliance with communist ideology, you will receive nothing …
Communism results in the poverty of an entire society. By comparison, free-market capitalism has lifted the highest number of people out of poverty in human history.”
Fear Keeps It All Together
What prevents communist society from collapsing into anarchy and freedom revolution is fear. The threat of arrest, interrogation, torture and incarceration in an insane asylum is your constant companion. Informants are plentiful, as providing incriminating information about another can be used as currency for personal privileges.
Signs are all around us now, indicating that we are well on our way toward socialism/communism, although I believe a more technically correct term for the governance being introduced is technocracy, as detailed in “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy” and “Technocracy and the Great Reset.”
Global technocratic governance has all the hallmarks of socialism and communism, but there are some key differences, starting with the fact that it is heavily reliant on technological surveillance, data mining and social engineering through technological means.
The end result is that the kind of bribery De Boer describes would be next to impossible due to moment-by-moment surveillance, and snitches would be superfluous, as surveillance technology would catch everything you say and do automatically. The threat level, and therefore fear level, are therefore also bound to be much higher than in any previous communist regime. Freedom would truly be near-nonexistent.”