The last act of a dying empire is to rob the treasury, and in some cases, destroy the country comprehensively, including as much as the population as is possible.
In that respect we may indeed be "The Fourth Reich."
Fascism, Socialism, Communism--statism by any of its many names--has been a progressive liberal "Left Wing" ideology since the Jacobins under Robespierre were attempting to purify French society with the guillotine.
(Trivia note: the Right/Left nomenclature applied to the political spectrum is derived from the seating positions of the various factions within the National Assembly of the First Republic. The more revolutionary and radical types were seated on the left of the chamber, with the more conservative elements seated on the right).
Trying to link the NAZI ideology and "The Right" is a never-ending left wing pursuit by the Democratic Marxist Socialists as well as the current and "former' Communists world wide.
People forget that in the 1930s Hitler and the Nazis were not perceived as the monsters we have since come to regard them as being. The British aristocracy of the time was rather taken with Hitler's authoritarianism (there's an intriguing video clip of Edward VIII after his abdication mimicking the Nazi salute as a wave to a crowd of Germans during a visit to Nazi Germany). One reason the nation of Israel almost HAD to be created in the British Mandate of Palestine (i.e., the "Holy Land"), was because the uncomfortable truth of European history is that the Nazis' ideology of ethnonationalism and anti-Semitism was rather well received from France to Poland. (France, remember, was the country that sentenced a Jewish officer--Alfred Dreyfus--to life imprisonment on Devil's Island rather than acknowledge that his superior was in fact the one who was guilty of espionage and potentially treason).
It was only after the horrors of the concentration camps were thrust into the world's collective consciousness that the liberal elites grasped just how badly they had misjudged the situation (not that they repented of their affections for Hitler, only that the global opprobrium meant they had to quickly cover their tracks), and so post WW2 authoritarianism magically become conflated with "right wing" monarchism (the conservative political tradition in Europe at the time).
However, an understanding of monarchism reveals that it is distinctly different from authoritarianism, for in nearly every European monarchy, the tradition of the monarch being beholden to a larger comprehension of law dates back to well before the signing of the Magna Carta.
True authoritarians, from Oliver Cromwell onward, have generally rejected the structural limitations of monarchy (which is the likely reason Cromwell himself preferred to be "Lord Protector" of England rather than "King Oliver I" of England--as monarch he would be subject to all the traditions and restrictions attendant upon the Crown at the time).
You can trace the arc of thought among notional "elites" all the way back to Plato's "Republic", wherein the idea of a meritocratic rule by "experts" was first articulated within Western Thought. Roughly one hundred years later, the First Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, would build his rule on the Chinese principles of Legalism, which, broadly speaking, made the permanent administrative State the moral arbiter in all things.
Show me an intellectual elite and I'll show you a fanatical authoritarian who truly believes he has the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives. It's been that way literally for millennia.
The obscenity of the FDA and CDC pushing these inoculations truly defies the capacity of language to adequately convey.
Given that these inoculations are still highly experimental, if only because the clinical trials conducted by Big Pharma were rigged from the beginning, the Nuremberg Code's proscriptions against such human experimentation under false pretenses has not merely been violated, but damn near obliterated.
Moreover, not only is the Nuremberg Code being transgressed. The WMA's Declaration of Helsinki, which updates and expands on the Nuremburg Code, is also being flagrantly disregarded by these guardians of the public health.
Even if one does not agree with the contention that the inoculations are experimental, and thus the Nuremburg Code and Declaration of Helsinki notionally do not apply, the Declaration of Geneva--a "physicians pledge" outlining the ethical obligations of the medical profession globally--is sorely abused by the multiple proven lies and frauds surrounding Big Pharma's development, testing, and promotion of the inoculations.
The constant gaslighting and coercive pressures applied to people to get them to accept the shots are also an abhorrent desecration of the Declaration of Lisbon, which asserts the rights of patients around the world to quality health care but above all HONEST health care.
Given that Pfizer's own data--which it has worked to keep from being made public--attests to the toxicity of these shots, not only are the ethical dimensions of the matter shocking, but a growing case can be made for at a minimum reckless disregard for human life by both Big Pharma and Big Government, and potentially even intentional mass homicide. Pfizer knew the shots were toxic and has promoted them anyway. The FDA knew and went along with it--and is still going along with it.
It was a fascinating bit of research. Having put forward the "personhood" argument previously, this seemed a rather obvious companion analysis to perform, and it was quite the reveal on how the courts treat issues that the media and the public capture under the rubric of "bodily autonomy."
When comparing covid inoculation to abortion: one is forcing/coercing an unwanted medical procedure. The other is denying access to a wanted medical procedure.
Which is why those who are generally opposed to abortion must grapple with the ethical reality that, opinions of abortion aside, principles of bodily autonomy generally accrue in favor of permitting abortion just as they do in favor of rejecting COVID-19 inoculations. To overcome that one must be able to articulate an ethically coherent superseding principle.
Jacobson presents the logic that a community's interests in protecting against a dangerous and highly contagious disease (in that case, smallpox), was one such superseding principle. As regards abortion, I personally would argue that the personhood of the unborn child is also a superseding principle.
However, if such superseding principles do not withstand close inspection--and I do not believe the Jacobson position of protection against a dangerous and highly contagious disease can apply to COVID-19, as the COVID-19 is arguably neither dangerous nor as contagious as smallpox has been recorded as being--then the bodily autonomy arguments must prevail.
On the subject of abortion, for me it’s a question of are we a society that will sanction murder because I have no doubt that an unborn baby is a human being. Not that that is necessarily evil, but let’s at least admit to it. That said, I am neutral on the subject. It’s far too nuanced and impossible of a situation for me to resolve.
Indeed, the arguments against the inoculations even being allowed out on the market greatly exceed what can be contained in a single Substack!
However, given that the FDA is pushing forward with an even more dangerous incarnation of these insane inoculations, as they are abandoning clinical trials for the next round of boosters, the capacity of people to legally "just say no" to them is becoming increasingly important--and we are already at a stage where it can be a matter of life or death.
We need not resolve every bodily autonomy issue to conclude--and to advocate--that people are well within their inalienable civil rights to refuse these shots regardless of what the FDA and CDC claim about them.
What I hope to persuade everyone is that the case law within the US courts contains multiple precedents to support the right of people to decline the inoculations, and I hope everyone finds it within themselves to stand up for their inalienable civil rights, particularly in this regard.
Contrary to what the politicians and the experts want people to think, we are not arguing the matter de novo. This debate predates us all.
As has been stated by far more perceptive legal scholars than I, the essence of bodily autonomy is the "right to be let alone."
Even if one argues the personhood of the unborn child (which I do), the government still has no real valid role to play in micromanaging prenatal care or a woman's broader management of her own self care.
We do not, for example, call CPS just because children are fed diets of junk food (and many are, hence the obesity crisis in this country). Nor should we.
No level of government has sufficient police power to regulate all the ways parents care for their children, and similarly no level of government has sufficient police power to regulate how a woman manages pregnancy, even if because of the personhood of the unborn child deliberate termination of that pregnancy is not an option. Parents have (and should have) liberty to care for their children as they will, but no parent has liberty to willfully take their child's life (which is what abortion is if one accepts personhood of the unborn child).
While the propaganda is that the mRNA inoculations are "safe and effective," the reality--which cannot be avoided indefinitely--is that they are neither safe nor effective.
There needs to be space for the life and liberty of both mother and child, during and after pregnancy. Whether that means more laws or fewer laws is a political debate we desperately need to have.
The last act of a dying empire is to rob the treasury, and in some cases, destroy the country comprehensively, including as much as the population as is possible.
In that respect we may indeed be "The Fourth Reich."
Composed of "Right Wing Extremists!" LOL
Also spelled NAZI. (National Socialists)
Remember how Himmler was big on Bodily Autonomy?
Nothing could be further from the truth.
"Right Wing"? Puhlease.
Fascism, Socialism, Communism--statism by any of its many names--has been a progressive liberal "Left Wing" ideology since the Jacobins under Robespierre were attempting to purify French society with the guillotine.
(Trivia note: the Right/Left nomenclature applied to the political spectrum is derived from the seating positions of the various factions within the National Assembly of the First Republic. The more revolutionary and radical types were seated on the left of the chamber, with the more conservative elements seated on the right).
https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate
Exactly, "collectivism" by any other names.
Trying to link the NAZI ideology and "The Right" is a never-ending left wing pursuit by the Democratic Marxist Socialists as well as the current and "former' Communists world wide.
We should expend some thought on why?
Oh there's no mystery as to why.
People forget that in the 1930s Hitler and the Nazis were not perceived as the monsters we have since come to regard them as being. The British aristocracy of the time was rather taken with Hitler's authoritarianism (there's an intriguing video clip of Edward VIII after his abdication mimicking the Nazi salute as a wave to a crowd of Germans during a visit to Nazi Germany). One reason the nation of Israel almost HAD to be created in the British Mandate of Palestine (i.e., the "Holy Land"), was because the uncomfortable truth of European history is that the Nazis' ideology of ethnonationalism and anti-Semitism was rather well received from France to Poland. (France, remember, was the country that sentenced a Jewish officer--Alfred Dreyfus--to life imprisonment on Devil's Island rather than acknowledge that his superior was in fact the one who was guilty of espionage and potentially treason).
It was only after the horrors of the concentration camps were thrust into the world's collective consciousness that the liberal elites grasped just how badly they had misjudged the situation (not that they repented of their affections for Hitler, only that the global opprobrium meant they had to quickly cover their tracks), and so post WW2 authoritarianism magically become conflated with "right wing" monarchism (the conservative political tradition in Europe at the time).
However, an understanding of monarchism reveals that it is distinctly different from authoritarianism, for in nearly every European monarchy, the tradition of the monarch being beholden to a larger comprehension of law dates back to well before the signing of the Magna Carta.
True authoritarians, from Oliver Cromwell onward, have generally rejected the structural limitations of monarchy (which is the likely reason Cromwell himself preferred to be "Lord Protector" of England rather than "King Oliver I" of England--as monarch he would be subject to all the traditions and restrictions attendant upon the Crown at the time).
You can trace the arc of thought among notional "elites" all the way back to Plato's "Republic", wherein the idea of a meritocratic rule by "experts" was first articulated within Western Thought. Roughly one hundred years later, the First Emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang, would build his rule on the Chinese principles of Legalism, which, broadly speaking, made the permanent administrative State the moral arbiter in all things.
Show me an intellectual elite and I'll show you a fanatical authoritarian who truly believes he has the right to tell everyone else how to live their lives. It's been that way literally for millennia.
BRAVO
Peter, you are unusually well informed, perceptive and your view or analysis of past events is a welcome breath of fresh and free air.
Thank you, Sir!
I'm a history geek. I read about this stuff for fun.
(And then I write about it on Substack!)
You should "double down."
Just kidding, you work load and production are inspiring as well as sharp as a new razor.
Am I wrong in believing that our government has committed crimes against humanity re inoculation simply based on Neurenberg Code?
No, you're not wrong.
The obscenity of the FDA and CDC pushing these inoculations truly defies the capacity of language to adequately convey.
Given that these inoculations are still highly experimental, if only because the clinical trials conducted by Big Pharma were rigged from the beginning, the Nuremberg Code's proscriptions against such human experimentation under false pretenses has not merely been violated, but damn near obliterated.
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/the-covid-vaccine-trials-tell-us
Moreover, not only is the Nuremberg Code being transgressed. The WMA's Declaration of Helsinki, which updates and expands on the Nuremburg Code, is also being flagrantly disregarded by these guardians of the public health.
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
Even if one does not agree with the contention that the inoculations are experimental, and thus the Nuremburg Code and Declaration of Helsinki notionally do not apply, the Declaration of Geneva--a "physicians pledge" outlining the ethical obligations of the medical profession globally--is sorely abused by the multiple proven lies and frauds surrounding Big Pharma's development, testing, and promotion of the inoculations.
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/
The constant gaslighting and coercive pressures applied to people to get them to accept the shots are also an abhorrent desecration of the Declaration of Lisbon, which asserts the rights of patients around the world to quality health care but above all HONEST health care.
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-lisbon-on-the-rights-of-the-patient/
Given that Pfizer's own data--which it has worked to keep from being made public--attests to the toxicity of these shots, not only are the ethical dimensions of the matter shocking, but a growing case can be made for at a minimum reckless disregard for human life by both Big Pharma and Big Government, and potentially even intentional mass homicide. Pfizer knew the shots were toxic and has promoted them anyway. The FDA knew and went along with it--and is still going along with it.
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/pfizer-knew-the-mrna-shots-were-toxic
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/pfizer-fears-the-truth-about-their
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/pfizer-accidentally-validates-vaers
No, you are not wrong. Tragically and frighteningly, you are all too right.
Thanks for your insights. You’re one smart cookie. I can use the above when arguing my point to the comatose.
Thank you for your kind words--and best of luck with the comatose! (Remember, only apply the Clue By Four as a last resort!)
This whole article and thread are a terrific discussion!
Congratulations!
Thanks!
It was a fascinating bit of research. Having put forward the "personhood" argument previously, this seemed a rather obvious companion analysis to perform, and it was quite the reveal on how the courts treat issues that the media and the public capture under the rubric of "bodily autonomy."
Lol. Will do
When comparing covid inoculation to abortion: one is forcing/coercing an unwanted medical procedure. The other is denying access to a wanted medical procedure.
That is a fair assessment.
Which is why those who are generally opposed to abortion must grapple with the ethical reality that, opinions of abortion aside, principles of bodily autonomy generally accrue in favor of permitting abortion just as they do in favor of rejecting COVID-19 inoculations. To overcome that one must be able to articulate an ethically coherent superseding principle.
Jacobson presents the logic that a community's interests in protecting against a dangerous and highly contagious disease (in that case, smallpox), was one such superseding principle. As regards abortion, I personally would argue that the personhood of the unborn child is also a superseding principle.
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/personhood-abortions-essential-question
However, if such superseding principles do not withstand close inspection--and I do not believe the Jacobson position of protection against a dangerous and highly contagious disease can apply to COVID-19, as the COVID-19 is arguably neither dangerous nor as contagious as smallpox has been recorded as being--then the bodily autonomy arguments must prevail.
Nor is the covid inoculation safe and effective
On the subject of abortion, for me it’s a question of are we a society that will sanction murder because I have no doubt that an unborn baby is a human being. Not that that is necessarily evil, but let’s at least admit to it. That said, I am neutral on the subject. It’s far too nuanced and impossible of a situation for me to resolve.
Indeed, the arguments against the inoculations even being allowed out on the market greatly exceed what can be contained in a single Substack!
However, given that the FDA is pushing forward with an even more dangerous incarnation of these insane inoculations, as they are abandoning clinical trials for the next round of boosters, the capacity of people to legally "just say no" to them is becoming increasingly important--and we are already at a stage where it can be a matter of life or death.
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/the-end-of-covid-19-vaccine-safety
We need not resolve every bodily autonomy issue to conclude--and to advocate--that people are well within their inalienable civil rights to refuse these shots regardless of what the FDA and CDC claim about them.
What I hope to persuade everyone is that the case law within the US courts contains multiple precedents to support the right of people to decline the inoculations, and I hope everyone finds it within themselves to stand up for their inalienable civil rights, particularly in this regard.
Contrary to what the politicians and the experts want people to think, we are not arguing the matter de novo. This debate predates us all.
As has been stated by far more perceptive legal scholars than I, the essence of bodily autonomy is the "right to be let alone."
Even if one argues the personhood of the unborn child (which I do), the government still has no real valid role to play in micromanaging prenatal care or a woman's broader management of her own self care.
We do not, for example, call CPS just because children are fed diets of junk food (and many are, hence the obesity crisis in this country). Nor should we.
No level of government has sufficient police power to regulate all the ways parents care for their children, and similarly no level of government has sufficient police power to regulate how a woman manages pregnancy, even if because of the personhood of the unborn child deliberate termination of that pregnancy is not an option. Parents have (and should have) liberty to care for their children as they will, but no parent has liberty to willfully take their child's life (which is what abortion is if one accepts personhood of the unborn child).
While the propaganda is that the mRNA inoculations are "safe and effective," the reality--which cannot be avoided indefinitely--is that they are neither safe nor effective.
There needs to be space for the life and liberty of both mother and child, during and after pregnancy. Whether that means more laws or fewer laws is a political debate we desperately need to have.