A "mandate" is two blokes going to the pub...
… Or at least, it's not the same thing as an inalienable command from insuperable authorities that you must obey. I know the Crime Minister’s announcement last night (never mind his illegal parties, that haircut should be a felony…) stating that mandatory vaccinations would be “discussed” has caused some anxiety and unrest, but please don’t worry. Remember, masks have also been “mandatory” at various points over the last two years, and are again now, yet I’ve never worn one and there’s a very strong chance that, if you’re reading this, you haven’t either, or you stopped some while ago. So please do be reassured that “mandatory” does not mean “there is no other option”. There are always options, and your right to choose is enshrined in law: the Equality Act 2010 for masks, and the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 for vaccinations, which states at section 45E that – even in health emergencies – people cannot be required to take medical treatment, including vaccinations.
The UK Government does not have the power or the authority to overthrow this very heavyweight Act, just as it hasn’t had the authority to overthrow the Equality Act, so I think it is very likely this latest threat is just more bluffing to try and scare you into compliance. The current actors playing the roles of “powerful politicians” on television are reading from a script, one written by top behavioural psychologists (who seem to populate SAGE to the exclusion of pesky irrelevances like virologists and immunologists) and NLP experts, who know exactly how to cadge, cajole, persuade, coerce, threaten, and lie – whatever’s necessary – to get you to comply.
As a result of yesterday’s press conference, a lot of people are going to think, well, if the vaccines are going to be made mandatory, I might as well just give in and get them now, before I’m forced to.
That is the result the overlords are hoping for, so obviously, don’t give it to them, and they are also hoping to whip up more of their very favourite frequency – fear – so don’t give them that, either. The bad actors in Westminster are full of bluff and bluster, but their threats and ultimatums are ultimately nothing but paper tigers. Those making these threats are counting on the fact that their audience are scared, ignorant, and weak – that they don’t understand the law or how to invoke it, that they don’t know their rights and are too timid to stand up for them. Unfortunately, that’s true of a lot of people, but not of those who have held out against the injection tyranny up to now, so, please, don’t give up or lose hope now. The battle may be intensifying, but that is to be expected, as it’s always darkest before dawn.
Leading on from this, I notice with my signature wry eye-roll (or at least, that’s what it’s supposed to be, in reality I just look like someone with something in their eye) that the propaganda demonising “anti-vaxxers” has really intensified these last few days, with the mainstream media shilling harder than ever for the obscenely wealthy pharmaceutical industry, by suggesting that families have a civic duty to ban their evil, selfish, “anti-vax” relatives from the Christmas dinner table. There are lots of venomous screeds, all across the “left-wing” (pharma-bankrolled) and “right-wing” (pharma-bankrolled) media alike, featuring scandalised spluttering citizens denouncing the abominable evil of the crazed conspiraloons to whom they are regrettably related, for declining to be injected with experimental serums concocted by serial felons.
What is interesting about this is that, in every case, these vituperative rants exhibit no concern whatsoever for the health and wellbeing of the “anti-vaxxer” – who, according to vaccine dogma, is in imminent and grave danger, having no protection whatsoever from the World’s Deadliest Plague - only for the vaccinated – who are ultra-armoured up with super-sciencey, protective injections. Invariably and without exception, the indignant aunt or aggrieved ex denounces the danger the unvaccinated person poses to the vaccinated, rather than the other way around.
Do forgive me for applying the slightest scintilla of logic here (I know it’s been in short supply since March 2020 and is largely unfashionable to the point of being taboo), but if vaccines work, even imperfectly, isn’t the unvaccinated person far more at risk than the vaccinated person? The theory behind these injections is that, while they don’t stop you contracting the disease or passing it on, they do reduce symptoms. Therefore, were an unvaccinated person to pass on Covid to a vaccinated person, the vaccinated person would be at far lower risk than the reverse – and the vaccinated individual is just as likely to pass it on, according to a recent BBC report.
And yet, not a SINGLE article I have read regarding these festive feuds expresses any concern whatsoever for the health of the unvaccinated person (should they dare to debauch the dinner table with their filthy God-given natural immune system), when - if anything we are told about vaccines is true (and presumably the vaccinated believe that it is) - they are at an incalculably higher risk!
You can’t have it both ways. Either the vaccines work and provide protection, in which case you needn’t worry about being around the unvaccinated (but they should worry about being around you, since you haven’t eliminated the risk of transmission and they haven’t got the protection you’ve supposedly got), or they don’t work, in which case there’s no point in the unvaccinated person getting them. The relentless message is that the vaccinated are at risk from the unvaccinated, that the biggest risk is to those who are ostensibly protected rather than to those who are not, and if you can’t see why that’s roundly ridiculous then, well – do you even science, bro?
The whole point of vaccination is to allow you to be around someone with the disease without contracting it. That’s literally the entire, and only, point of the intervention. If you’re never going to be around someone with the disease, then there’s no point in you having the vaccine, hence why we don’t routinely vaccinate for yellow fever or other tropical diseases in this country. A vaccine protects you from illness should you encounter someone with that illness. That’s it.
What a vaccine is not is some holy elixir of eternal life that rids your body of evil unclean entities – I think what you’re thinking of there is ‘baptism’, and the extraordinary religiosity of the current madness is quite breathtaking to behold. Banning unvaccinated relatives from Christmas is akin to some sort of religious ex-communication ritual for heretics and unbelievers who have blasphemously offended your deity of choice. Vaccination has all-but replaced baptismal rites in this country, and if you look at the language that used to be used to stigmatise and demonise unbaptised children, and the language used against the unvaccinated now, you will see it is sinisterly similar.
The reality is that most human beings appear to be deeply religious at their core, and if you take conventional religion away from them, which has mostly disappeared in the West, then they begin to worship and often be radicalised by some other sect instead (such as BLM, MeToo, transgenderism, veganism, etc.). These all bear the hallmarks of extremist religious cults (tedious disclaimer: that doesn’t mean that every vegan etc. is in a cult, but that the organised form of these movements are cultish), and none more so than the Covenant of Covid and its central redemptive ritual - the blessed sting of the holy needle.
You can see that this is ultimately religious, rather than medical or about health, as nobody gets angry at you or demands to know if you’ve taken your antibiotics, or any other medical product, despite the fact that, if you haven’t and remain ill, you could theoretically pose a danger. The reason the vaccinated get angry at the unvaccinated and issue damning judgements and condemnations of them is for all the same reasons any religious zealot does when they encounter an unbeliever. Talk of hell and the devil has simply been replaced with hospital and ventilators, but the overarching tone and theme is the same. Believe in our God (“$cience”), submit to our cleansing ritual that glorifies our God (injections) or forever be damned (ventilated).
And, just like any other religious cult, these diktats all come from fear-based superstitions used to control and modify behaviour (note again all the behavioural psychologists on SAGE) and force submission and compliance. They’re not based in any sort of reality or reason, any more than the scary monsters in the woods were in the film The Village (if you haven’t seen it, the eponymous village is a remote, rural community committed to preserving traditional ways of life, in which the elders scare the younger inhabitants off ever trying to leave or venture into modernity by telling them there are evil scary monsters living in the woods, who will eat them if they try. In reality, the scary monsters are the village elders dressed up in costumes).
Takeaway point: there’s nothing to fear from so-called “mandates”, or from illusion-weaving actors wearing scary costumes. Take a deep breath (and, hate-fans, in this weather you can clearly see just how effective your mask is once you exhale) and keep going. You’re here now for a very good reason and your voice matters enormously. If it didn’t, ‘they’ wouldn’t be doing so much to literally, and figuratively, silence you. If their ‘muzzle mandate’ didn’t succeed in keeping you quiet, then their ‘poison prime directive’ won’t either. Stay strong and keep shouting.
One comment on “A "mandate" is two blokes going to the pub...”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search
Archives
Categories
Unassailable logic.
On a related topic,on a train today,there was a warning that non mask wearing passengers ( without a reason not to wear one )would face a fine.My question is: are masks mandatory or compulsory on public transport?. If,as I suspect,they are the former,how can fines be levied?.