Get the shot or get shot

One just has to say something about the new racking up of totalitarian control across Europe and, indeed, the world. Apart from “I told you so,” of course.

Much of the important stuff has been said already, including the significant fact that neither our UK government nor our media – nor any of the churches – has said anything about the human rights implications of enforced vaccinations or of police using live ammunition to control protests in the Netherlands. Even taking into account the limited information available on the latter event several days later, under normal circumstances one might expect national leaders across the world to be demanding a full investigation and explanation. One might even expect a little discussion at EU level, too, since the Netherlands is an EU member. The silence is all very suggestive that the same policies are merely being held in reserve here, rather than excluded. Britain left the EU, but appears not to have left globalist ambitions behind.

Word of enforced vaccination with still-experimental , and very possibly ineffective, agents, expressly against the Nuremberg Code (how ironic that Austria and Germany are at the forefront of advocating them) came at the same time as Austria imposed a full lockdown on its vaccinated citizens, and just a few days after imposing its discriminatory lockdown against the unvaccinated. Lockdowns are now clearly the policy of first resort even for the vaccination-compliant, despite the WHO’s negative assessment of them, for an excess death rate only a little above the average for the time of year, according to EuroMOMO. Gibraltar’s 100%+ vaccination rate (its guest workers must be vaccinated too) has not protected it either from lockdown, or from a COVID surge, though it has had only one COVID death since August according to Worldometer.

Australia is also talking about mandatory vaccination, and this video is chilling in more ways than one. Quite apart from the evident derangement of whoever this politician is, it is important to notice, once more, the global lockstep in the Newspeak. A reporter points out, reasonably, that many opposed to compulsory inoculation are those who are themselves fully vaccinated, and the politician replies angrily that it makes no difference – to oppose the mandate is to be a full-blown anti-vaxxer, whatever one’s own vaccination status.

But he is not the first to brand everyone in the world keeping to the spirit of the Nuremberg Code with the anti-vaxxer anathema. Peter Doshi, senior editor of the BMJ, pointed out a couple of weeks ago that the US Webster Merriam Dictionary has now included such people in its “anti-vaxxer” definition. Now, it is the tricky job of dictionaries to adapt to changes in usage, but this looks suspiciously like the moulding of usage in Orwell’s Newspeak fashion. After all, before now who would have ever have bracketed those opposed to all vaccinations with the majority of the world’s nations that have steadfastly declined to make them compulsory? Have you ever heard a scientific critic of mRNA injections who did not preface his remarks with, “I’m not an anti-vaxxer – I’ve had all the vaccines and spent my career promoting them”? But in Newspeak, they are anti-vaxxers by definition simply to dispute their forced administration.

This kind of redefinition has happened a lot over COVID, and you will probably have seen supporters of the official policies using such novel definitions of “case,””herd immunity,” “vaccine,” and so on to “prove” that the policies are nothing out of the ordinary.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

But my main burden today is to consider the actual strength of support for the official position, and whether it even matters. In the UK a new YouGov poll claims that 62% of people favour mandatory boosters, and only 25% reject them. Well, maybe the propaganda has worked that well. Or maybe COVID has brought out the inner Nazi of huge swathes of the people who would have been secretly rooting for the doctors on trial at Nuremberg after the War.

But what gives me grave doubts about that is the public response to an official BBC YouTube video reporting the huge anti-mandate protests across Europe and elsewhere at the weekend. Of over 2,000 comments (as of now) the huge majority are cheering the protesters on, and criticizing the BBC for neglecting coverage of protests hitherto, and for biasing their reporting of this one against the protesters. There are 2.4K “likes” to 383 “dislikes,” and the clip has been viewed 173,000 times.

Now, one expects partisan viewing of partisan videos since the YouTube algorithms are designed to feed people what they like. But the BBC would surely be viewed by a representative sample of Britain, and even if for some reason anti-vaxxers (according to the new broad definition which seems to mean “broadly libertarian”) are extraordinarily committed and even highly marshalled by some hidden anarchist organisation ( the BBC’s mythical “organised far-right criminal gangs”), one would expect “right thinking people” to rally to the support of the majority position once they saw the drift of the comments. Daily experience shows that most people do swallow the official line, and one would expect them to speak up to see such dissidence on display. You have to wonder if there’s an element of bad conscience in their silence in the comments section of our state broadcaster’s channel. But maybe skepticism is more common than official polls suggest.

Still, I got to wondering what the future might hold even if these polls, and the figures for vaccination across the world-formerly-known-as-democratic, are actually accurate, and if nations impose compulsory vaccination and/or draconian restrictions on the unvaccinated (and who knows, perhaps on the vaccinated “full-blown anti-vaxxers” as well).

Until now, opinion polls have been predicated upon the existence of working democracies. A poll suggests that the political opposition has become more popular than the government? Then the latter had better line up new jobs come the next election. A majority still support the death penalty? No matter, since their elected representatives do not, and the public shrugs. On most things, minorities in democracies acquiesce to majority opinion.

But things change if one is taking a poll on forcing treatment perceived as unnecessary or dangerous on some double-figure percentage of your population – or on their children – or on imprisoning them at home selectively because they resist coercion. If only 25% of your population opposes mandatory vaccines, then that is still 1/4 of the people who believe their government to be violating their basic human rights. Once numbers of people at demonstrations become, as they are now, unprecedented in number at hundreds of thousands or millions, then the fine balance of public opinion no longer matters on the ground. National consensus has evaporated, and one is dealing with a situation where even the most totalitarian government can no longer control things. Oppressed people will stand up for their God-given rights, even if they do so in an ungodly and violent way.

I am no longer as confident as I was that Tiananmen Square situations are unthinkable in the West. One recent article that a reader, and university friend, pointed me to suggests that the policies of our governments are driven by pragmatism – putting the worthy ends of eradicating COVID ahead of the morality of the means used to get there. The article even suggests Chairman Ji himself is a pragmatist rather than an evil genius. If so, then when pragmatism involves gunning down thousands of ones own people and shoving the even down the memory hole, an evil genius would be no worse.

I’m also, as regular readers will be well aware, very open to the idea that our times are those spoken of in Scripture about the mystery of evil to be fully revealed just before the Lord returns, and that the deception may go from bad to worse until that rescue.

And yet the tyrannies in countries such as Communist China depend on having sufficient political and media power to control ones own population and fool everybody else, and that has taken 70 years of revolutionary totalitarianism to impose there. If the whole gamut of western governments, trying to mimic such a command and control model, were to find themselves simultaneously confronted by mass civil-disobedience and public disorder, then things would change in short order. That must be so even if the corporations, central banks, media organisations and academia collaborate to stop it. When, for the first time in history, there is nowhere left in the world to flee from persecution, then the persecuted will inevitably become ungovernable.

One hopes our politicians see the writing on the wall.

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Politics and sociology. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Get the shot or get shot

  1. Peter Hickman says:

    Matthew Crawford in his analysis of Alex Berenson’s work, immediately after his final graph, comments: ‘But when we do compute the tiny overall observed benefit at the end of the 28 week stretch to the vaccinated group, it amounts to a mere 5 deaths per million doses (at over $6 million per life saved)’.

    Unsurprising. We’ve known right from the first lock-down that the cost per ‘saved life’ (a.k.a. postponed death) would be enormous. No mention of QALYs, of course. It was never going to be politically expedient to point out that if a QALY was deemed to be worth $50,000 – $150,000 (as it was), and if that was to continue to be a basis for decision-making, then the cost of proposed COVID-19 interventions should not reach anywhere near even $1 million per death postponed – not least because most of the dead would already have lived longer than average and had a limited life expectancy.

    • Jon Garvey says:

      Isn’t it sad that there has still been no effective cost-benefit analysis by any government (and suppression of those done secretly) two years after the thing started?

      We no longer need to be reminded that science has effectively died along with free discourse, but we do need to keep reminding ourselves just how bad it is.

  2. Robert Byers says:

    While I see no evidence the vacine is bad, though not had or desiring it myself, still its reasonable to question how these things affect the body or some bodys. Those denying us to be vskeptical etc are the historical thought oppresers of history. They are convinced its good and needed and see doubters as dangerous. it all comes down to HOW dangerous was tghis flu from the first. i say it was slow to move around, not dangerous to the normal strong, say under 50 years old, but was dangerous to the rest.
    I did get corrected about the rest because of stats in America on the number of kills.
    Everbody was a little right I think.
    i think everyone can get the vax above a age and should. yet no kids or anyone below say 30 should get it.
    Yes the hysterical attack on anti vaxers is historical. it shows how people do math and obey authority. its always most from the typica; dimber and liberal side.
    Opposers to the vax tend to be smarter people and I mean they simply question. not prohibit. it shows again SOME people are smarter then others and it moves in demographics and is not random.

Leave a Reply