We’re publishing a guest post today by David Martin Jones and Michael Rainsborough, two professors at King’s College London, disputing the claim, often made by libertarian lockdown enthusiasts, that J.S. Mill would have supported mandatory Covid vaccinations.
In a comment piece in the Telegraph on December 22nd, John Harris makes the moral case for mandatory vaccination in the public interest. Harris might have supported his argument by reference to a number of political and moral theorists who, like Harris, have endorsed forcing people to do things against their will in the name the greater good. Kant springs to mind. So too does Jean Jacques Rousseau who thought that securing the ‘General Will’ might require the recalcitrant to be “forced to be free”.
Curiously, however, Harris co-opts John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859) to support state mandated Covid vaccines. Harris writes: “It is difficult, in view of the urgency of the global Covid pandemic and the immense death toll and burden of the disease, not to conclude that, in Mill’s famous and uncompromising words, the anti-vaxxers are ‘such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act’.”
What Harris seems to mean is that by refusing to get vaccinated, the vaccine refusenik acts in a way to “do harm to others” and consequently such actions must be controlled “by the active interference of mankind”. But would Mill have construed a refusal to get vaccinated an action directly harming others?
Clearly not. In the introduction to his essay, from which Harris quotes selectively, Mill warns against the potentially despotic power the people may exercise in a modern democracy. This tyranny of the majority operates “chiefly through public authorities”. But it can also operate through society collectively acting upon the “separate individuals who compose it”. “Society can and does execute its own mandates” and when it does so in areas “where it ought not to meddle it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression”.
The rational and autonomous individual, Mill maintained, needs protection against “the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose… its own ideas and practises as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them” to fetter and prevent any “development not in harmony with its ways”. One could call this the tyranny of the medical-socialist state.
To guard against this evolving modern despotism, Mill proposed one very simple principle to govern the dealings of government and society with the individual “in the way of compulsion and control”. That simple principle is that the only end for which a government can legitimately interfere “with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self- protection”.
This, then, is the harm principle that Harris seeks to manipulate for collectivist ends. It in fact recognises that the reasonable individual’s own good, either physical or moral, is “not a sufficient warrant for intervention”. The individual “cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so” or because “to do so would be wise, or even right”.
To be sure, such reasons may be good for remonstrating, reasoning, persuading or entreating with the recalcitrant “but not for compelling him”. To justify compulsion “the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else”. In that part which merely concerns him or herself, the anti-vaxxer’s “independence is, of right, absolute”. On this point Mill insists: “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” He continues: “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way… each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual”.
Harris’s case for compulsory Covid vaccination rests on a highly questionable interpretation of the harm principle: namely, minimising societal distress by seeking to reduce avoidable death, hospitalisations and excessive pressure on the NHS. However, with an infection fatality rate of a little over 0.2% and an average age of death from Covid above the age of 80, the case seems hardly compelling, since the social risk does not deviate all that significantly from most winter flu seasons. The fact that vaccinations do not prevent infection or transmission further reduces the force of the argument.
All individuals, when they step out into the world risk bringing unintentional harm – to themselves and others – whether driving a car, going for a walk, or meeting with friends. Everyday life involves all manner of potential hazards. The point is, though, that an individual’s engagement in the routines of daily life is in, the vast majority of instances, not “calculated to produce evil to someone else”.
Thus, enlisting Mill on the side of compulsion because vaccine refusal might indirectly harm others, on the grounds it places undue pressure on the NHS, conceptually stretches and ultimately undermines Mill’s ‘simple principle’. Mill was a utilitarian and a moral consequentialist. He also lived in a laissez faire age. There was no NHS in Mill’s day. If there had been, he would quite possibly have argued that if a responsible adult refused the vaccination the NHS offered to prevent an infectious disease, the individual would either forego any right to NHS treatment or be required to pay the cost of his care. Actions, after all, have consequences.
As numerous libertarian commentators on Mill have pointed out, the distinction between self-regarding and other regarding actions is paramount. Simplifying the distinction, Karl Popper, whom Harris quotes, observed “my freedom to swing my arm stops at your nose”. The point, of course, is that it is my arm and I have a sovereign right over whether I choose to have it vaccinated or not. After all: “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” To conflate a purely self-regarding act with an other regarding one is not merely perverse but politically dangerous, as Mill would no doubt have recognised.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Isn’t “libertarian lockdown enthusiast” oxymoronic?
There was never going to be 100% “vaccination, but there’s been far more than the 15 million that was supposed to be enough to end the cycle of lockdowns. The remaining pure bloods have nothing to do with any ineffectiveness of this dangerous drug
Please don’t despair….when a country says they’ve jabbed X, it’s usually Y.
Y is usually the number of people who’ve willingly laid down their arms for the state, with little or no thought and X is the rest of us.
I guarantee Y is two thirds…..same as the UK. Clearly, two thirds in terms of jab numbers alone…including some people who have probably been paid to be jabbed many times (heroes who have taken one for the team).
So….we know there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Let’s wait and see how many French people protest….it’s going to be more than the MSM would have you believe.
I am hopeful (possibly misplaced hope) that every country’s population holds at least a third of critical thinking, government mistrusting heroes.
We will win the day….and I hope I’m around to see it. I can’t wait to tell the grandchildren what I did during the war!
I’m certainly no great student of philosophy, but I do intuitively understand that “thinking about thinking” (or truths) is kind of important.
One point I’d make is that very few public officials have a true and strong personal or political philosophy based on great study. In short, they have no core principles.
If many more did (and if these principles were grounded in the philosophies of liberty and freedom), none of these mandates would have been authorized.
Of all the politicians I’ve observed, Ron Paul comes the closest to a political figure who HAS grounded his political career in economic and political philosophy. Alas, Paul is largely considered a “kook” and has been dismissed and attacked by the establishment for his entire political career. (A sad commentary: It does NOT pay off politically to have strong and principled convictions. Indeed, the opposite is the case. Those who have no core principles do much better in this profession).
Anyway, you don’t need specific elements of science to reject many of these initiatives. Most can be rejected on grounds of principle or philosophy … if such arcana actually mattered.
Politicians have always behaved appallingly, it is baked into the system. We are saved from their worst excesses in democracies by alternating periods of different rule; where alternation doesn’t occur (such as in Zimbabwe, China or Putin’s Russia) things just go from bad to worse.
What’s more, in an open society where debate is welcomed, different views and philosophies get aired and the politicians, or at least the better of them, pay lip service or more to their edicts.
What has happened in the UK is that debate has been stifled just at the point where a huge shift in scientific prominence was taking place. Worse still is that few people are actually aware that the BBC, the principal media news outlet in the UK, has been effectively censored. So we were stuck in a philosophical perspective that couldn’t be challenged.
What keeps me awake at night is the realisation that the very slight turning of the tide that we are currently seeing might rest on the shoulders of a few individuals and lucky circumstance: De Santis, this website, a handful of Tory MPs and the internet.
It was a close run thing, as someone once said.
Well said. The same things keep me awake at night. Or expressed differently, it bothers me to no end that there are no “alternative” voices in the halls of power.
Translated…….These are the words of the coronavirus you now call Omicron.
“Your welfare is our concern.
There is no war. You cannot weaponize people against us. You no longer need to make false promises. It was never our intention to destroy human beings.
This exercise was designed to remind all people, who amongst us can and cannot be trusted. It is now over”.
John Stuart Mill in Principles of Political Economy:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.”
A short while back a male dressed in weird garb, with a large fake phallus hanging from his groin area, ran from a London library into the street and harassed pedestrians and motorists. This person had been in the library at taxpayers’ expense to give an “enlightening” talk to children. Parents are practically forced to allow their children to be given experimental mRNA gene therapies. “When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.”
Strong UK governmental coercion for people and their children to accept the injections of an untested mRNA gene therapy numerous times a year, qualifies the populace as instruments. “A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by… Read more »
Great work.
It’s really John Stuart Mill’s work, but thank you 🙂
There is an inherent problem with the harm principle that Mill does not address and that gives rise to these kinds of issues for those who seek to use his thinking as a guide in this kind of case. That is, what level of risk to others rises to the level of harm. There is no de minimis threshold, nor any guidance as to how to set one.
And in that regard, Harris renders his argument absurd from the outset with this ridiculous exaggeration:
“in view of the urgency of the global Covid pandemic and the immense death toll and burden of the disease“
In reality, covid is and always was just another respiratory pandemic of the kind we have encountered every few decades throughout history, causing ill health and death broadly comparable to other pandemics within living memory.
But Jones and Rainsborough imo are correct in identifying the point at which Mill can be used to refute Harris’ argument:
“The point is, though, that an individual’s engagement in the routines of daily life is in, the vast majority of instances, not “calculated to produce evil to someone else”.”
We can have no reasonable expectation of or right to a… Read more »
“We can have no reasonable expectation of or right to a life without any ordinary exposure to respiratory viruses, in going about our ordinary live”
Indeed, and what’s worse is that not only can we not have any such reasonable expectation, but if we try it’s doomed to fail anyway, and all we do is make life shit for everyone, which is exactly what has happened.
I do object to your references to a “respiratory pandemic.”
There has been no such thing.
Harris has been one of the better contributors to the Grauniad. But, it’s no surprise that, after years of rubbing shoulders with the others, he was bound to be infected.
If only he could have been vaccinated against that.
What kind of nonsense is this, there is only one motive behind support for mandatory state mitigation, cowardly selfishness.
It is impossible to be a libertarian lockdown enthusiast.
J.S. Mill was not a friend of liberty.
This seems like a very academic discussion in the pejorative sense of academic. The title of the Telegraph piece was “Is there a moral duty to get vaccinated?” which would be a substantive discussion with implications for very many people. But Harris argued for mandatory vaccination, which is quite different, and I don’t think the government is seriously considering implementing mandatory vaccination for the general public. (They do of course implement mandatory vaccination as a condition of employment for some roles but that is rather different).
However, from an academic point of view I can’t see any problem with quoting Mill to support mandatory vaccination. Mandatory vaccination can only really be justified on something like the harm principle. If failing to vaccinate could be shown to do sufficient harm to others then Mill would justify mandatory vaccine. There is of course a whole empirical debate about how much harm failing to vaccinate does to others but that is not a philosophical issue.
I don’t feel under any particular moral obligation to protect others, and also think that any society that introduces a legal obligation to protect others has gone or will go off the rails. I would make an exception for protecting my loved ones in terms of moral obligation, though I would also expect them to protect themselves as best they could, and in terms of legal obligation there should probably be a legal obligation to protect one’s non-adult children. I think it best to stop there, any further “protecting others” activity to be entirely voluntary.
I don’t feel under any particular moral obligation to protect others
So if you see a tree which is likely to fall on passers-by you don’t feel a moral obligation to report it? If you are first on the scene at an apparently serious road accident you don’t feel a moral obligation to stop?
Just to clarify: has this ever happened to you? You saw a tree, decided it was likely to fall on passers-by, and reported it. Who to exactly? And why were you so sure it was going to fall? I mean, do you check every tree you see, give it a shake to check for structural integrity then send off a stiffly worded email to the local council? Wow. Good for you. What about if you saw a carriage hurtling down the street, and you were right next to the track-switcher, and on track there was a schoolbus full of children, and on the other, a duck, and on the third, three nuns. Which way would you switch it? What if the duck was two ducks and it was only one nun? What about if the school bus was an ambulance? What about if there were a thousand tracks you could switch it between, and 999 of them had the works of John Stuart Mill, and one had a christmas present for a child? What then? What about the tree hanging over the track? Would you phone the authorities to tell them first, or switch the train then deal with the… Read more »
Just to clarify: has this ever happened to you? You saw a tree, decided it was likely to fall on passers-by, and reported it. Who to exactly? And why were you so sure it was going to fall?
Close. It was a nearby mature ash tree that was likely to fall on a house. It had been cut back some years ago but could still cause substantial damage and could easily kill someone. I reported it to the council (by e-mail) and also told the owner of the tree. I was pretty sure it was going to fall in the near future because it was divided into two (see attached photograph which I sent to the council) and my wife noticed that the division had widened noticeably in the course of a few days – also there was signs of rot at the base where it divided.
No I don’t check every tree – but if I notice one that presents a threat to others I do feel morally obliged to protect them by at least reporting it.
I don’t understand the point of your comment. Of course some moral decisions are tricky and the trolley examples are famously criticised… Read more »
The point of my comment was basically comedy. The serious point though was sending up these kind of moral questions where people pose all kinds of artificial scenarios and force you to declare your decision. Meanwhile, back in the real world. Of course, no one is going to ignore imminent danger to another person if there’s a simple chance of preventing it. On the other hand, no one goes around checking every tree to make sure it’s not going to fall. We’re all a mixture of moral on a good day, and not so much when we’re tired or grumpy or whatever. The point here is that the kind of moral obligation being discussed is whether you should take the vaccine to protect others. Or maybe not, I can’t be bothered reading the thread now. So, yeah, comedy. I was making a joke.
In general I would probably try to help in the case of an obvious danger that I could help with, if the cost to me was not excessive. In that circumstance, I would pobably feel guilty if I failed to help. But there’s a lot of qualification going on here, and all of the considerations are being made by me and are for me to make. But my priority is me and my loved ones, with the constraint that I would feel obliged to try not to CAUSE harm. But that’s different from not PREVENTING harm. I am not responsible for viruses (unless I am a worker in the Wuhan lab that leaked covid).
So there are some circumstances in which you feel morally obliged to protect others.
all of the considerations are being made by me and are for me to make.
Of course – otherwise it would not be a moral decision – you would just following someone else’s rules.
But my priority is me and my loved ones,
As it is for most people – but that does not negate lower priorities when they can be fulfilled without affecting your highest priorities
I would feel obliged to try not to CAUSE harm. But that’s different from not PREVENTING harm.
Yes – but we were discussing examples of preventing harm (the dangerous tree) and you seemed to think there was some obligation connected with that
I am not responsible for viruses
No. But if you are able to protect people from the harm done by viruses at little cost to yourself then surely you are obliged to do that?
Not sure about “obliged” – I guess I would oblige myself, but it’s for me and no-one else to determine that. I mean, others might judge me for what I did or did not do, and they are entitled to that view, but that’s where it should end. I think the circumstances in which there is an “obligation” are very limited and are not really the province of politicians to pontificate on – it should be limited to priests. As soon as you start to talk about general moral obligations to help others, we arrive at where we are now, where someone behaving in a way that would have been considered normal prior to 2020, for all of recorded history, is villified or arrested.
All vaccines cause far more harm than they do good.
The entire science of vaccinology is a massive fraud.
Dr Susan Humphries has written a book called -Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History.
The book is a comprehensive take down of the faux science of vaccinology and shows how improvements in public health, proper sanitation, clean water and food standards were the reason of massive improvements in public health, not the Doctors and their vaccines.
The simple fact that mortality rates had plummeted (as general public health measures were introduced) long before most vaccines were even available proves that vaccines can not take credit for the massive reductions in mortality.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. This book utterly blew my mind, and I’ve read plenty of materials in this topic. But somehow, this book cuts through the clutter. The account of the historical resistance in Leicester in the 1870s is worth the price of the book alone. Someone could cut and paste the hysterical reactions of the authorities to the united decision of the people of Leicester to throw the vaccinators out of town next to the hysterical reactions of the authorities in our day, and you will see that they are the same script, almost in some cases the same words. Childhood vaccination against smallpox went from 95% to 5% in two years and guess what happened. Or guess what didn’t happen, the apocalypse. But yeah, the whole book is so on point. Get it, read it. Then get RFK Jr’s magnum opus on Fauci, and you’re good to go.
Who decides the utilitarian calculus, and what if they’re wrong or evil?
There is no worse tyranny than that of moral chaos, which now rules the earth.
Nevertheless, we are in the right.
“…by seeking to reduce avoidable death, hospitalisations and excessive pressure on the NHS.”
The NHS has had 2 years to get its act together and done nothing
Absolutely wonderful article! Thank you Luke!
It’s shame that the national conversation cannot reach these depths and heights.
“John Harris makes the moral case for mandatory vaccination in the public interest.”
Many of us have long lasting natural immunity – what’s the vaccine for?
“Libertarian lockdown enthusiasts”? Really?
that’s a big fat oxymoron
The moral argument is rather complicated.
First they convinced everyone that covid was deadly to everyone, and then produced vaccines that were proclaimed to protect the self and to protect others and where there were no risks (safe and effective)
Thus the majority would have been taking the vaccine to protect the self and to protect others.
I’ve emboldened the ‘protect self’ bit — in many this was the deciding feature (remember all those family members of council officials found to have been vaccinated in Jan 2020 — they didn’t break the rules to protect others).
In addition, there were many who chose the vaccine to protect their income (particularly healthcare workers) or to protect their ability to go on holiday. Beyond that, surely there were rather a few that chose vaccination out of inertia (everyone else is doing it) or peer pressure (particularly children).
Oh, and there would be a very small number whose primary deciding factor would have been to protect others.
It is very important to note that for most of the vaccine period everyone will have been bombarded with messages that the vaccines are safe — their actual safety is unimportant, what is… Read more »
An excellent analysis, amanuensis.
I would add a further social-moral imperative against taking the ‘vaccine’ – namely the way in which accepting a curtailed testing programme undermines the whole fabric of the framework that has been developed to protect society (for real) against the selling of poisonous snake-oil.
I have no problem asserting my selfishness, as i’ve said many times I have no objections to any mitigation measures, if it makes people feel better fine, I do take exception to them being mandated by the state I strongly object to the government taking liberties it does not should not ever have.
Everyone’s choices throughout this shit show have been selfish, there is no greater selfish act than socialism! What ever their action was during the last 2 years the underlying reason has been self-preservation or fear.
Very thoughtful post. I frame the debate in the template used by rebel journalists like Caitlin Johnstone, who argues that “controlling the narrative” is the only real metric that matters. Control the narrative, you control the world. John Stossel is another contrarian journalist who routinely produces segments that illustrate that much of “conventional wisdom” is either wrong or dubious.
Most of the points you make above resonated with the masses for one reason only – because they falsely believed the assumptions and the narratives were true and factual. It’s hard for people to make any choice – moral or otherwise – if the information they believe is true is not true. The people who are committing the greatest sins are those who know the information is false and promulgate this false information anyway. These people and organizations also do everything they can to persecute those who would expose that the narratives/assumptions/conventional wisdom are false.
So you basically have two groups: Those who know they are spreading lies and protecting lies and do this anyway (for their own selfish reasons) … and those who lack the critical-thinking skills to figure this out for themselves. As it turns out, it’s been… Read more »
Don’t forget that forcing someone to undergo any medical procedure against their will (however unfounded this unwillingness might be) is basically rape, a violation of the victim’s body against their objections. All that matters to classify it as such is the victim’s perception of this action, not whether or not the action causes any actual harm (similarly to how the harm of being raped for many actual rape victims is mental, rather than physical). Threatening people with rape over prolonged periods of time is comparable to psychological torture.
Now, there would need to be extraordinary social benefits indeed to justify rape and rape threats. Such benefits simply don’t exist. Therefore compulsory (or even coercive) vaccination must be rejected outright.
“Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” – Is this a quote from Popper, or Mill?
What a waste of time and space – except on an entirely irrelevant theoretical level.
The authors write of “the immense death toll and burden of the disease”.
There has been none, ffs!!! That is the basic fact of this non-pandemic, non-epidemic – shown by mortality and funeral data over an extended period. And yet the crass assumption still doesn’t get edited out.
The entire shit-show is based on a myth.
Nothing to do with the “tyranny of the medical of the socialist state” – just one big, fat lie, used to conscript people to a phony war.
2022 has to be the year the brave and courageous reclaim the ancient freedoms and liberties the people of this country have fought and died for, particularly throughout the 20th century. Doing nothing is no longer an option now.
This proto-Fascist-Communist coup has to be defeated.
I agree. 2022 might be one of the pivotal years in world history. Massive lies are even going to be exposed and the people take back control of the world … or things are going to get a lot worse. Bad developments are accelerating. And that’s just the ominous signs the public does see.
I don’t care if it is the elixir of life distilled from the sweat of newborn unicorns, with 100% efficacy against covid. Nobody has the right to force or even attempt to coerce anyone into injecting anything into their body. The fact that there are emergency authorisations, but no marketing approvals in place for this novel pharmaceutical intervention, no long term safety data, proven underreporting of adverse events, no apparent liability for anyone involved, multiple historic misdemeanours by the manufacturers and that the first doses appear to be the introduction to an increasingly ineffectual booster treadmill for which there is no end in sight, supported and driven by a world wide concerted propaganda campaign means that there are ample (albeit unnecessary) reasons not to have the injection should anyone feel reluctant.
Plus, of course, the whole notion of a mandatory NHS is anathema to Mill’s entire argument in ‘On Liberty’.
We are forced to ‘join’ the NHS; allocated a NHS number on birth, and forced to pay for it through taxes. Why? To ‘protect’ us from illness & disease. Our freedom of choice is removed ‘for our own good’. And we’ve seen where this leads: shut in our houses to ‘protect the NHS’.
This coerced ‘help’ is exactly what Mill was arguing against. I have no doubt he would agree that the NHS could legitimately withhold medical treatment from those who decline vaccination- or from those who fail to meet any other requirements set by the NHS. But he would also hold that free citizens should not be forced by the state, for their health, to enrol in the NHS or to pay for it or to be subject to its requirements.
We should be free to leave the NHS. To elect neither to benefit from it nor contribute to it. Once that freedom is granted, all arguments for mandatory vaccinations collapse.
These arguments lie in the wrong place. First of all it does not matter about any of these philosophers unless we consider the proposition that if we cede to the state the right to inject into us what it likes when it likes this is a power which can and will be abused and it has nothing to do with the greater good. It means the state has far too much power. Furthermore, it would be idle to pretend that there are not establishment persons nationally and globally with a eugenics agenda who find most of us dispensable.
Exactly. The same goes for lockdowns and all the other covid restrictions. Can and will be abused.
I think for some nefarious Deep State types, the “agenda” is the thing. For others, it was a case of “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
Both groups want much greater government control and are threatened by true notions of liberty and freedom.
It doesn’t really matter what their motives are/were. The key point is that they are going to do everything they can to solidify their controls and implement even more draconian measures.
Surely no sane person could agree with with forced vaccination!
‘Misreading Mill’
A lending library for dyslexics?
I wonder if Harris would be prepared to be filmed whilst he was holding down kicking, screaming women who did not want to be injected with an experimental product.
I doubt it. It wouldn’t fit with his, undeserved, perception of himself as a caring, virtuous person.
The problem with all these brainy philosophers is they don’t have grasp of the basic facts. They don’t need to, you see, because they are so brainy. So they skip the hard yards of actually drilling down into the utter insanity of vaccines, and, like Toby, assuming that they are a shining example of the wonderful success of modern medicine, they plough on with their prejudices gussied up as high falutin’ philosophy. If Mill would have argued that the unvaxxed should pay for access to NHS, then Mill would have been just as ignorant of the salient facts as Harris. None of this philosophy matters, it is all just peeing into the wind. What matters is the hard facts that Covid is absolutely curable by cheap effective therapeutics, and the vaccines are an insane demonic catastrophe.
They should charge people at the door for their jab, cut to the chase.
No, the problem is they mistake their good memories as intelligence. What really counts is analytical ability which is why many uneducated people still become successful. That doesn’t mean education should not be valued, just not as highly as critical thinking.
Critical thinking – or those who regularly practice such thinking – is THE “threat” to to the corrupt and irrational Status Quo. In the “Covid debate,” those who think critically have been censored, attacked, maligned, etc. This is the immediate strategy. But we can also now better see the long game which was to “dumb down” education. This took decades of work. This effort is also now paying great dividends for those who do not want to be challenged by skeptics.
Utilitarianism is Bond villain logic:
‘Just shoot this child, and I won’t press the nuclear button’.
‘Just rape your mother, and I won’t execute those 8 men’.
What do you do?
You sense that no matter how many batches of children you shoot, the villain will still kill you at best and press the nuclear button at worst.
The answer is: you don’t shoot the child, even to avert the nuclear holocaust.
And today, we are being coerced by the Bond Villain State repeatedly, to avert a COLD. And giving in never works in this case, either.
I don’t care of it’s the bubonic plague or small pox, there is never a justification for forcing something into my body.
Medical rape.
I find it repugnant that any professor would try and validate it at all.
yes Rape is allowable when we are in a crisis of reproduction. In that case any woman can be forced to have a penis into her for the good of society.
Fuck off.
Adolf Hitler supports mandatory vaccination
So does the nasty, wrinkly, semi-reincarnation of Stalin that slobbers about in Cardiff.
100% quacksination= totalitarianism. Literally.
The only solace you can take is that most of the current frontmen will be torn to shreds eventually. If the plandemic succeeds, by their lords and masters who will throw the petty obsequious bureaucrats aside in favour of more loyal hardmen or if it falls apart by the people.
Recently I’ve been intrigued by this thought/possibility: They aren’t going to be able to suppress the truth forever. The truth, at some point, will be learned and wildly acknowledged. Don’t some news organizations (or bureaucracies) at least have a few employees who want to get on the right side of history for when this day occurs? So far, I guess not, but maybe this could change?