Both government and corporations have begun exalting mandatory injections as a kind of moral good, in a perverse ritual that they refer to as “science”, but which cannot be, for science does not fear investigation or criticism. As someone who provides political commentary regularly, I now receive messages from people who are genuinely afraid. Many have been given an impossible choice: lose their jobs and thus their ability to provide for their families, or accept a medical procedure that they do not trust, and risk their ability to provide permanently.
Of course, the majority of people who have thus far accepted COVID ‘vaccinations’ (a word which was recently redefined) have survived the injections, but that isn’t true for everyone. It’s impossible to get a clear picture of how many people have died from the COVID injections at a time when thousands of deaths sometimes disappear from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting database (VAERS). The raw number of how many people have been left with life-altering disabilities will likewise be muddied, because for all of the screeching about “following the science”, the data that should inform scientific opinion has itself been politicized. We don’t know the long-term impacts of the various injections, all of which were rushed to market with minimal testing, and many of which are still being tested by the very government that assures us of their safety.
The unparalleled politicization of this vaccination program leads us to have reason to question how many side effects and deaths are reported to VAERS at all. Even in a normal year, with a normal vaccine, it’s relatively uncommon for side effects to be reported, according to the U.S. Department of Health:
Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health.
— Report commissioned by the US Department of Health (before COVID)
Elitists in government tell us without irony that we cannot have an exact number of deaths from these vaccines, because those causalities are complex, yet it’s verboten to ask about the validity of official COVID deaths. Those deaths somehow lack complexity.
There’s Something More Than Science
The unprecedented edict of mandatory vaccination for the bulk of America’s workforce and her children is clearly unrelated to science and health. However, missing from the collective conversation is a recognition that even if the science were clear, a policy of forced medical treatment would still be wrong.
Imagine that a virus existed which was wildly more dangerous than the one we actually face. Let’s presume that 20% of the people who became infected would die, and that a vaccine was available that was reasonably safe. One could, from a public health perspective, more readily justify the decision to erode the rights of the populace in order to protect them. One could justify sacrificing their freedoms for their safety. Of course, there would not be a need in such a scenario, for mandates only serve to force the public to do that which they are unwilling.
It’s always a dangerous game when we explore the limits of what we can justify — freedom, rights, and Christian morality be damned. That’s because we can justify almost anything, given enough time. That’s especially true of large bodies of people who hold no individual accountability (governments). The more power they have, the more they exert.
The governments of the Twentieth Century mustered a combined death toll that ought to shock the conscience, as their policies led tens of millions to untimely deaths, whether by famine or genocide (with some overlap), both of which were justified as being for the good of some collective. Supervillains don’t exist in comic book form in the real world. Nobody wants to face the mirror and see a villain in the reflection. It’s part of the human condition to justify our most malevolent actions under the facade of altruism. When the mentally ill were forcibly sterilized, and that was deemed legal by the U.S. Supreme Court, the justification was always the good of society. When America and Europe engaged in eugenics in the early Twentieth Century, its most ardent supporters saw themselves not as villains but as heroes, protecting society from the inferior individual, to produce a better tomorrow.
At some point, a moral people must pause for long enough to recognize the smallest minority, who can most easily be extinguished by the unscrupulous who hide behind the veneer of a collective good: the individual. It is the individual who suffers now as he seeks to take care of his family in an environment that forces him to make an impossible choice, one that may have grave consequences. For some like him, the vaccine will have permanent, life-destroying consequences. This is true of even the safest drugs. If he were to die as a result of this imposition, his family would be forced to try to survive without him thereafter.
In the West, not too long ago, we recognized the dignity of the individual and his right to make decisions that would impact his body. We held this to be a sacred right, regardless of whether we agreed with the wisdom of the individual choice. Adults regularly engage in high-risk recreational activities that an objective observer would recommend against. None of us are free if we do not have the freedom to do what others will not, or to refuse to do what has become the norm.
Hitherto recently, an American employer would be reticent to even ask about the medical decisions of his employees, but that norm was quickly replaced with an audacious sense of obligation to mandate those medical decisions under threat of destitution. Previously, the same employer would have feared running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which attempts to maintain the dignity of encumbered peoples by ensuring that employers and businesses cannot harass them about their unique difficulties (or their medical choices).
Now, the employer is not simply paying his employee for a service well done, in a simple exchange of time for funds. The employer is much more. Through the consent and even encouragement of government, he has become the enforcer; a tyrant in his own right, exerting his will and the will of the state against the employee. We barely have need for the jack-booted thugs of the despotic regimes of old, when those contractual relationships that previously undergirded a free society have been transformed into the instruments of our own enslavement.
If military force were to be used to inject the populace, most Americans would find resistance to be acceptable and even dutiful. The elitists in government know this. Instead, the individual must battle against his own employer or supervisor, who is likely the person that previously gave him the very employment that is now dangled before him, if only he should surrender his autonomy, dignity, and freedom.
There is a time when resistance becomes duty. Almost all believe that to be true. We simply draw lines in different places. Surely, however, if there is a line to be drawn somewhere, it must be drawn at forcible medical experimentation under threat of man’s starvation, along with his family. If we are a moral people at all, surely that horror is worth resisting.
In what might seem to be a stroke of irony, the easiest way to defend the individual is for the masses to rise, and to refuse to comply. It’s for employers to refuse to enforce evil edicts en mass, and for employees to band together and refuse to accept medical experimentation. In a resounding voice, people must be willing to say “No”, before the camps are built.