MEDICAL APARTHEID is here

I thought I would never see the day, where the government engages in a system that manipulates, coerces, and deliberately establishes the division of society.   The government has been doing everything they can for forces people into compliance of a program that is a violation of people's rights and liberties.

Medical Apartheid is here.  After reading the Ontario government's policies for the reopening and lowering of restriction on the public, only those who are vaccinated are allowed to participate in these reopening plans.   Those who are not vaccinated, have been set aside.  They can not participate in the functions of the rest of society.   This is Apartheid plan and simple and the government is moving ahead with this as if the |Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not exist. 

Has nothing been learned from History?  Has nothing been understood from the past?  The segregation of society has been fought over for centuries and yet here we are in the twenty first century and in a so called democracy where civil liberties have been the cornerstone of the nation, and the government stoop to authoritarianism without blinking an eye.  What is more disturbing is that the general public has been manipulated to support these draconian actions. 

The government has further moved that scientists and doctors who speak against the actions of the government will be disciplined.  Already we have seen this with the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, who have instructed their members to follow the government policies or loose their licenses and practices.  We have seen the same thing with scientists, who can loose their research funding if they do not comply with government instructions.

So when the government says they are backed by the science and medical fields, remember Nazi Germany when they claimed the segregation of the Jews from the public, the Ontario government is doing the same thing, and using the same excuses; "we're doing this for the health and safety of society". 

One thing which will be interesting in all of this, is when the numbers of infections go up, vaccinated people will be the only ones to blame as none vaccinated people are not allowed to participate.  As I have mentioned before, when and if the numbers increase, the vaccinated people are the only ones left to be blamed.  So what will be the direction then?

The science is not there to support the government policies of Apartheid.  Even the pharmaceutical have said that their vaccines will not prevent people from contracting the virus.  It will only "hopefully" lesson the need to go to the hospital, and nothing more.  In other words, the diaper may smell rosy fresh but it is still full of shit.   These same pharmaceutical companies are still saying their vaccines are experimental and should not be taken as a cure of covid.  

The facts still remain, that the recovery percentage of those infected is still 99.7% and the death rate is still  0.007%.  And these facts can be verified.  But still the violations of civil liberties is unacceptable in this country that can no longer pride itself as an open and fare society.  The doors of freedoms have been slammed shut for a portion of the people.  The idea that Ontario or even Canada is a society where freedoms are the fundamental rights of the people, that can no longer be said.  Canada has moved into the realm of fascism, communism, and Apartheid, and even in the ideology of the southern United States, when there were different drinking fountains for whites and blacks.  Canada changed the face of the ten dollar bill to support freedoms, and yet now the country has turned their backs of public who have chosen to go against the government and stand for the freedom that was guaranteed under the Canadian Criminal Code, Canadian Bill of Rights, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Freedom does not reign in Canada.

Coercion part 2.

 Part Two: Ontario! Yours to Discover No Longer Unless

“This deal is getting worse all the time.”
– Lando Calrissian, The Empire Strikes Back

On the policy side of things, there are a few items that concern me. There seems to be a full court press in effect in advance of winter. I write this essay from Ontario—or Totalitario, as I’ve taken to calling it for fun when I’m glum. We’re a few weeks in from the implementation of our province’s vaccine certificate program. Some localities are already requiring proof of vaccination for purposes that exceed the province’s rules, such as Oakville’s policy that couples can’t apply for marriage licences without them. Some commentators, like Father Raymond de Souza, have described the program as a “necessary evil,” while insisting it must remain temporary.

Premier Ford has assured his subjects in Ontario that the certificates are indeed temporary, which would be more reassuring if he hadn’t previously promised that he wouldn’t introduce them in the first place. The federal government has offered one billion dollars in aid to the provinces for the establishment of vaccine passports, which doesn’t sound like an investment in something temporary and limited. Once these technologies are invested in and bureaucracies are built around them, dismantling them will be a challenge, simply given how public administration operates.

One troubling aspect of the certificates’ adoption in Ontario was that a week before the premier caved and agreed to implement them, public health administrators declared that if he didn’t do it, they would. COVID times have allowed bureaucrats to exercise and usurp the authority that belongs to legislatures in ways that we always suspected they longed to do. What’s more, many voters seem to cheer it on, either unaware that they are in effect being relieved of their roles and responsibilities as citizens, or else they’re relieved that they are being so relieved of them.

Before Ford announced the certificate policy, demands abounded calling for him to exhibit leadership. What was meant by leadership, however, was in fact the opposite of leadership: his utter capitulation. For a year and a half now, Doug Ford has been devoid of bluster and swagger, his posture and body language that of a defeated and broken man, his soul hollowed out, his vacant eyes wide and strained from having looked into the abyss and discovering his insignificance.

People clamoured for and embraced the certificates or passports while still making fun of conspiracy theorists, apparently unaware of or indifferent to the fact that these technologies were the lynchpin of many conspiracy theories that long claimed that the pandemic was part of a plot to usher in the surveillance state and worse. I am aghast that with respect to the probable non-natural origin of the virus and now the vaccine passports I find myself discovering that the kooky crazy whacko nutjobs weren’t totally off-base about everything. I really wish they had been. Everybody: Please stop making the conspiracy theorists look good.

I’m sure the baby boomers aren’t prepared to hear that the passports they’re so chuffed about might represent the precursor technology to whatever will turn their grandchildren into serfs. But hey, enjoy your tasty appetizers and hockey games! The retirements they worked so hard to earn have been interrupted. They have endured a year and a half of an unrelenting barrage of alarming messaging targeting them directly, daily. It has been the greatest hardship endured by a generation that has overall experienced more progress, peace, and prosperity than any generation in the history of humanity. What might they be unwittingly consigning future generations to in exchange for a likeness of their old lives?

One doesn’t have to be an old-school anti-vaxxer or radical libertarian to understand that normalizing the principle that governments and private entities can effectively treat us like they possess control over our bodies—not merely outwardly but at the subcellular level—is a bad idea.

Of course, indicting the boomers like that is entirely unfair. Gen-Xers and their own children are just as cheerful about downloading the app and uploading their proofs for the sake of fast food and music festivals—or as the ancient Romans called them, bread & circuses.

The fact that the injections don’t prevent the vaccinated from spreading or getting the disease is enough to show that the passports are not intended to reduce virus transmission; they’re a mechanism for reward and punishment. A room full of vaccinated people is already a potential super-spreader event. Risks may vary, but that data remains new and disputed, and nebulous relative risk should not form the basis of absolute distinctions. I realize that doesn’t prevent Jonathan Kay from saying that young males who have abstained on account of the risk-benefit ratio for their demographic should nevertheless be confined to their homes indefinitely so that he feels super safe attending a Blue Jays game. I mean, I appreciate the psychological attraction of the passports. Many people are enticed by the viscerally gratifying prospect of saying “I have been a good girl or boy, so I get a cookie; you’ve been bad—no cookie for you.”

We should enjoy our relative advantages now in case they pale in comparison to the disadvantages we’ll endure for having gone along with this scheme. The arrangements we’ve acquiesced to look profoundly short-sighted.

Let me be clear: I would not minimize for a moment the real suffering that the virus itself has caused. Nor would I minimize the additional hardships heaped on top of the suffering caused by the virus on account of the lockdowns and other restrictions. But if the coercive ethos currently taking hold becomes normalized and routinized, the amount of hardship that will befall us all and our children’s generation may well be orders of magnitude greater—dwarfing COVID’s cost to human well-being. I am not referring merely to the hardships still to be inflicted upon those individuals who stubbornly insist on forgoing the vaccine, enduring whatever exclusions, marginalization, or other indignities that await them. I mean with respect to all of us who live to see what unfolds over untold years to come.

I think Doug Ford is being honest when he says the certificate program will be temporary. If they aren’t folded into a national program co-sponsored by Justin & Jagmeet, I suspect they’ll be absorbed into Ontario’s nascent Digital ID initiative soon enough, and that system will prove even more difficult to opt out of. Who knows what directions whomever replaces Ford in 2022 will take that program at the further urging of businesses and bureaucrats? We know that the World Health Organization would like to implement a global digital identification program, too. Imagine what it would be like for our personal health considerations to be weighed against the wants and needs of the whole world, as adjudicated by the humanitarians in charge there. I see that the World Economic Forum and President Xi want to chip in any way they can with complementary technologies.

I have seen the memes saying that access to “non-essential” aspects of life is a privilege, not a right, as well as those that pretend that a digital certificate that governs your everyday comings and goings in all their minutiae is no different than our old paper medical records. I’m sorry, but the principle behind the passports is that the government can take away the life that used to belong to you, as much as it pleases, whenever it wants, as if it belongs to them now, dispensing it back piecemeal, contingent upon their discretion and your behaviour—and you should be grateful to them for that. Once your consent to that principle is established, you should assume that governments will feel at liberty to indefinitely expand the number of aspects of your life they can hold hostage on any number of pretenses asserted as necessary to protect and advance the common good.

I’m sorry, but the principle behind the passports is that the government can take away the life that used to belong to you, as much as it pleases, whenever it wants, as if it belongs to them now, dispensing it back piecemeal, contingent upon their discretion and your behaviour—and you should be grateful to them for that.

If you would not draw a line at bodily autonomy upon the initial buy-in, there’s no reason to think this will end with the nth round of COVID shots or whatever other medicines they determine you must take or procedures you must submit to, whether you like it or not, to ensure that you pose no threat to public health according to their models, algorithms, and calculations. Responses to other crises could be incorporated into the system, too: climate change, financial collapse, systemic injustice, cybersecurity, war in East Asia. Who knows how much of your behaviour might require daily carrots and sticks? Could our governments shut your whole life down as quickly as Bell can cut your service? If so, they might restore it as slowly as Bell does, too.

One doesn’t have to be an old-school anti-vaxxer or radical libertarian to understand that normalizing the principle that governments and private entities can effectively treat us like they possess control over our bodies—not merely outwardly but at the subcellular level—is a bad idea. Personally, I recommend against calling what vaccine passports and the mandates accompanying them represent “slavery.” That said, Andrew Wiggins did not mince words when he said “you don’t own your body” anymore.

We should make recourse instead to a concept Orlando Patterson explored in 1982: Social Death, a condition describing “an insider who had fallen, one who ceased to belong and had been expelled from normal participation in the community because of a failure to meet certain minimal legal or socioeconomic norms of behavior,” rendering them a desocialized, depersonalized outcast, the “permanent enemy on the inside.”

Social death suffices as a label for what the vaccine passports portend for those individuals they start to exclude. As of September 22, social death was only implicit within the principle of Ontario’s emerging program, the specifics of the policy not yet extending so far in practice. By all reports, however, Lithuania by comparison hasn’t dithered or flinched on that front, despite its living memory of totalitarianism. As of October 12, it looks like Italy doesn’t want to get left behind in the race to leave people behind, either. What we’re witnessing so far at home is but a mustard seed, but we can already see how pleased some people are at being given permission and encouragement to discriminate. Treating others as our inferiors can be intoxicating, especially if we believe they really deserve it.

Shall we deny people any access to health care since they obviously don’t care about their health—just as we have always done with the obese, addicts, and heedless risk-takers like motorcyclists and snowboarders? What other public services and resources can we exclude them from? How much ignominy can we subject them to? If we’re on board with inflicting social death upon our neighbours, including some family members or former friends, what else are we okay with? A process like this won’t be easily stopped once it has built up some momentum. What further humiliations will we approve should the passports and mandates fail to stop the spread of the virus and we’re still told it’s the fault of the unvaccinated, however arithmetically implausible that accusation becomes? Destitution? Incarceration? Separating children from parents for their safety and re-education?

The New Brunswick education minister was recently caught on camera telling some abrasive voters he obviously found despicable that their offspring are really “the province’s children,” a comment that prompted a reaction online. As a political theorist, however, the part of the exchange that most caught my attention was his further claim to represent those who stand for building “a genuine community.” That has creepy overtones. I wish I was kidding, but he wasn’t.

Allow me to admit that my pessimism might be misplaced. As I write, Ontario is making tentative gestures toward loosening the reins a smidge. Just as no vaccine is 100% effective, I grant that there is a non-zero chance that our governments at every level will in time rescind all their emergency powers, abolish intrusive and discriminatory measures like these passports, and return us to pre-pandemic normalcy. Responsible government will reign again. International organizations will lay off. Boy, won’t I be embarrassed for all the days of my life.

Unfortunately, we have been given some slack before only to discover the whip at the ready. Soon enough the finger-pointing blame game begins again. At this point, I would rather we remained on guard, in our hearts and intellectually, like our anthem commands all of us to be, rather than credulously optimistic.

---

Travis D. Smith is Associate Professor of Political Science at Concordia University in Montreal. He holds a PhD from Harvard University. His prize-winning dissertation, On the Generation of New Natures, 2005, examined the political meaning and significance of modern medicine. His publications in political theory include several contributions to the study of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In addition to his interest in issues at the intersection of politics, technology, and religion, he also teaches and writes on topics exploring the relationship between storytelling and education. In 2018, he published Superhero Ethics.

This is part 2 of 3. To read Part One, click here.
Part Three will be published on Tuesday, October 19 here.

Part 1 - coercion vaccination

 Part One: They Shoot, They Score

“You’re far too trusting.”
– Wilhuff Tarkin, Star Wars

If you hoped that the COVID-19 vaccines would have made the virus—or public policies relating to it—significantly less problematic by now, you were mistaken. One needn’t declare the vaccines garbage or poison to be disappointed in them. Meanwhile the legacy media, public health officials and the medical establishment across Canada strive more than ever to maintain a unified front through a manufactured consensus regarding the nature of the continuing crisis and what is to be done.

The enforcement of this artificial agreement is at odds with many citizens’ experiences, observations, and conversations, not to mention some heterodox professionals’ positions. Dr. Byram Bridle, for instance, from the University of Guelph—one of Canada’s most maligned and sidelined voices—has recently said, “there is an entire portion of our scientific and medical community that is being very aggressively censored right now. I think Canadians should be concerned about this. When in our history was it wrong for scientists and physicians, who are public servants—our job is to inform the public—since when do we shut down one arm of any debate, historically? That’s not healthy for Canadians.”

The authorities’ escalating recourse to duress perpetuates an ongoing crisis of trust. It implies that citizens’ questions are inherently immaterial, their concerns are irrelevant, and there’s no place for debating evidence. None of the faculties of mind that are distinctively human matter; people may be treated as mere bodies to be pushed around.

Some of our governments’ measures target the untrusting who can’t help but wonder what their leadership is feigning, hiding, or preparing; others ensure that even those who have been most trusting endure prolonged suffering while giving them someone to blame. It is reasonable to wonder how long these coercive measures will continue, or how far they may go as they continue to fail to reach their objective of ending COVID times.

Remember when we were told that we’d probably reach herd immunity around the time 70% of the adult population or so had rolled up their sleeves? I remain unsure how they expected to reach herd immunity using a treatment that does not provide immunity.

We all remember being told that the vaccines would grant us immunity, don’t we? Plenty of simplified pictorials and condescending cartoons told us so. “And now you’re immune!” People proudly declared that they took the shot to protect other people, adopting Facebook badges that smugly boasted “You’re Welcome!”

Now we know the vaccines do not confer anything like what most of us understand by immunity, nor were they ever designed to. They do not stop us from spreading the virus should we become infected, even to other vaccinated people. Furthermore, we are now informed we were never promised that they would prevent infection or transmission, leaving us to decide whether to trust our memories or the people whose claims assail them. Remember when we were told that we’d probably reach herd immunity around the time 70% of the adult population or so had rolled up their sleeves? I remain unsure how they expected to reach herd immunity using a treatment that does not provide immunity.

Were the experts mistaken or dishonest about their projections from the get-go? Apologists for the experts’ inconsistencies keep reminding us that the science is “evolving.” That fact doesn’t stop the authorities from championing absolute imperatives and strict exclusions based on knowledge that’s so much in flux.

Mainly, we’re now informed, the shot could reduce the risk of the worst outcomes if one becomes infected. It’s like a radically novel relatively untested synthetic gene-tech Theraflu that everybody is told to take in advance of illness. What protection it offers us collectively has apparently been compromised by its confrontation with variants. What protection it offers us individually wanes relatively quickly, too—as the prime minister knew it would before the rest of us did by pre-ordering so many boosters on our behalf. What foresight!

My favourite headline regarding boosters still comes from the Daily Mail on September 5, announcing, “Israel is planning to administer FOURTH Covid shot… as country battles wave of infections despite hugely successful vaccine rollout.” Oy, again with the shots already. If only the vaccines were as successful as the rollout.

Effectiveness-related issues are only the half of it. Not everything is rosy on the safety side of the equation, either. I don’t know what is worse—that these treatments have so many and so varied a list of adverse reactions, or that there seems to be no honest accounting of or for them, no transparent acknowledgement of or reckoning with them, and an awful lot of denial regarding them. All of this in combination with the lack of proper patient follow-up has among other things compromised the possibility of anyone giving informed consent to these treatments. “Hey, relax, guy” seems to be the main message we hear in response to any concerns regarding safety. The Ontario FAQ about giving the shots to teenagers distributed just before school started this fall is two pages of “Hey, relax, guy.”

One possible way to deal will all the discomfiting unofficial and anecdotal evidence calling safety into question is to cover one’s ears. “Na na na na na na, misinformation!” There are, however, so many anecdotes—I mean, there’s so much misinformation! Stories keep resurfacing no matter how hard social media platforms and message boards try to snuff them out for violating “community guidelines.” Meanwhile, we still have no knowledge of long-term risks, and could not have any, making it impossible to conduct satisfactory risk-benefit analyses.  There are other hypotheses about broader safety concerns that I admit I cannot fully assess here. I do know that we’re pressing on anyway—full steam ahead, powered by hope and trust.

Someone’s decision to forego the injection is construed as deliberate malice or contempt for the well-being of others—pure selfishness—as if demanding that other people do something to themselves for one’s own safety is selfless.

We typically see people’s reasons for why they don’t trust, don’t want, or don’t need the shot reduced to a most uncharitable caricature. The government and media continue to imply that apart from simple yokel-bumpkinism, moral turpitude explains the preponderance of what they call hesitancy. Someone’s decision to forego the injection is construed as deliberate malice or contempt for the well-being of others—pure selfishness—as if demanding that other people do something to themselves for one’s own safety is selfless.

Apart from the people who were first in line, a significant proportion of people who took the shot did so unenthusiastically, and misery loves company. Having been maneuvered into doing something of uncertain benefit and unknown risk, they’re indignant that everyone else hasn’t followed suit. What, do you think you’re better than me? Among those who took the shot only because mandates compelled them will be some who will be glad to see others likewise compelled. Because fairness.

The reasons people have for being resistant are often familiar and mundane, not outlandish nor superstitious. Have you never had reason to distrust the media or mindbogglingly wealthy corporations? Have you never had reason to regret heeding a medical professional’s advice, suffered bad side-effects from a drug approved in the proper way within the regular timeframe, or known someone who suffered grave complications from their prescriptions?

That’s all in general, without raising the specific issue of those individuals whose personal circles include people whose health has taken a bad turn after trying these new vaccines, often with little recognition or subsequent assistance. Whenever someone says, “but I took the shot and I feel fine” as if that settles the issue, I’m reminded of all the people who have gone for an annual physical feeling well but left with an appointment for a biopsy, scan, or scope. We must hope that murmurings nowadays about reactivated viruses, surges in cancers, and other warning signs still in their infancy are all errors and lies circulated by charlatans.

Meanwhile, the Canadian legacy media seems dedicated to only telling Canadians which provinces are faring worst at what moment, and which premiers and public health authorities are to blame for that on account of not being authoritarian enough. These media outlets seem determined to refuse reporting on emerging information about the ways things are going in other countries should that information prove inconvenient or unsettling for the policies preferred here. They won’t report on those countries now ending their COVID times emergency measures while our provinces are ramping theirs up—although I’m sure that will change if Sweden suddenly gets hit by some novel variant. And they definitely do not want to draw attention to the violence being exercised by police powers elsewhere.

The origins of the virus remain obscure. It remains possible that it was designed as a bioweapon—whether by the People’s Republic of China or whomever, whether it was released deliberately or accidentally. Too many powerful parties are determined to ensure we’ll never know the truth.

As Canadians, we have been privileged not to have been the target of war during our lifetimes. If the virus were a weapon, however, it’s hardly inconceivable that its manufacturers could have designed it so that the remedy for it would be dangerous, too. That doesn’t involve supposing any malfeasance on the part of pharmaceutical manufacturers or the policy makers who signed sweetheart deals with them, only haste. A plan like that would involve thinking but one move ahead. That’s beginner’s-level chess.

So long as we don’t know the origins of the virus, that alone remains one perfectly valid reason to be wary of anything related to it. Choosing not to care about the unknown origins of the virus reminds me of how stupid the Jedi were for never really figuring out where all those Clone Troopers conveniently came from just when it became necessary to fight a war they weren’t expecting. That said, irrespective of whether the Chinese Communist Party was responsible for the virus, it looks like much of the world, Canada included, is progressively adopting something approximating their form of rule anyway without any shots needing to be fired.

---

Travis D. Smith is Associate Professor of Political Science at Concordia University in Montreal. He holds a PhD from Harvard University. His prize-winning dissertation, On the Generation of New Natures, 2005, examined the political meaning and significance of modern medicine. His publications in political theory include several contributions to the study of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In addition to his interest in issues at the intersection of politics, technology, and religion, he also teaches and writes on topics exploring the relationship between storytelling and education. In 2018, he published Superhero Ethics.

This is Part 1 of 3. Part Two will be published on Monday, October 18 here.

A long read. need to find part 1 and 2.

 Land of Coercion, 3

Publication / By Travis Smith

Part Three: The Last Stop
By Travis D. Smith

“All of this is unusual and it’s making me feel uneasy.”
– Obi-Wan Kenobi, Revenge of the Sith

Being a rights-bearing person means that one can say no. There are things one doesn’t have to do or say or give up. Once this system of passports, mandates, and more is fully operational, good luck saying no anymore. Good luck appealing to any of your rights once you’ve already agreed it is best for us to jettison some of our most fundamental. It’s not simply that we’ve been had in agreeing to these measures; it’s that we risk being haved and haved again.

Some will say we’re only replacing individual rights with social rights; but the advocates of social rights have always known that they represent a denial of rights. That’s why they like them. They use the language of rights to get us on board with forfeiting our rights in exchange for their violation on behalf of an abstraction at the discretion of those in charge, who are hardly disinterested.

To ridicule people who weren’t eager to take the current mRNA vaccines it was often said that it’s not like they contain microchips or change your DNA. What’s clear now though is that if the government tells us eventually that we do in fact need to change our DNA—because if we don’t, we pose a threat to our fellow Canadians—our media and our neighbours will swiftly castigate and condemn anyone who doesn’t readily adjust. What makes you think your DNA is so special anyways? And similarly: Don’t you know that your nanotech implants and digital interfaces protect everybody else?

If you haven’t already, check out the federal government’s own website slavering over the impending advent of Biodigital Convergence. Heck, they’ve kind of already got us on board a bit. The mRNA vaccine technology—in which an artificial, synthetic, non-human, foreign, computer-model-based genetic product has been deliberately incorporated into our cell functionality—is already stealth transhumanism. No mystery ingredients required. I mean, it’s only a teensy, tiny bit of transhumanism, but we’ve got to start somewhere. Now someone doesn’t fully belong to the community unless they’re one of us, marking the beginning of a new kind of speciesism. At what point does resistance become futile?

Backing off from far-fetched futurism to address the present more directly: Workplace mandates are underway. There’s a debate to be had whether the definite harm inflicted upon identified people for the sake of relieving some indeterminate degree of risk to others is proportionate. It’s still to be seen how many people’s lives will be upended, potentially irreparably, by these policies in comparison to the reduction in hospitalizations that is counted as their principal justification.

Moreover, I haven’t seen any serious discussion of the longer-term question (though it’s nearer than we realize) of what’s going to have to be done with the ejected if they can’t find a way to bounce back after they’ve been bounced. Maybe the plan is to so ground them down that they come crawling back, begging to take any shot they can get, more as penitence than medicine. Otherwise, I suppose, someone has to take out the trash.

Isn’t it weird that they had to cajole so many health care professionals into taking the shots? Isn’t it astonishing that there are any at all who would rather lose their jobs than submit to the jabs?

The vaccines’ inability to reliably prevent transmission should delegitimize mandates. The further disregard for naturally acquired immunity when it comes to mandates is particularly baffling. Either that or it’s telling. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci can’t give a straight answer as to why the authorities are so determined to get these shots into everyone’s arms, including those whose immune systems already possess broader and longer-lasting protection against a range of variants than the narrow and limited antibody response prompted by the original spike proteins alone. Instead, he makes another disingenuous call for future discussions and studies that could only see completion after it’s too late to make a difference.

In the United States, President Biden gave a speech imposing sweeping mandates of a sort that would have resulted in a general strike and an immediate shut-down of the entire public sector and marches and more in the streets if the exact same policy had been proposed by the previous president. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has since imposed a mandate on federal workers in Canada, too. While the rest of us keep our literal facemasks on, the prime minister has of late in press conferences like that one and several recent campaign speeches perceptibly changed his tone and allowed the metaphorical mask to drop from his face.

In Canada and the United States alike we’re starting to witness the effects of mandates within the medical profession. The full detrimental impact of these policies, resulting already in “unforeseen limited staffing availability,” remains to be felt by all members of the public, whether or not one is vaccinated. There was already a shortage of trained professionals and exhaustion among those practising. They’re calling it an “unintended consequence,” but it’s almost like those imposing the mandates want the hospitals to be more overrun.

Isn’t it weird that they had to cajole so many health care professionals into taking the shots? Isn’t it astonishing that there are any at all who would rather lose their jobs than submit to the jabs? Am I the only one hearing stories of physicians taking early retirement, too? Do these trained professionals feel that the jobs they’d be expected to do if they must continue under the terms in effect would no longer be the jobs they trained for? What have they seen or heard?

Occasionally, stories like Dr. Rochagné Kilian’s resignation in Owen Sound pop up on alternative media sites, but who in the media establishment is conducting investigative journalism into this strange phenomenon? The closest I have found is a CBC article from October 13 featuring a few remarks from three Quebec nurses, only one of whom would give their name. Apparently other possible sources backed out of interviews out of fear of reprisals. The CBC dutifully responds to the nurses’ concerns by reciting the refrain that the vaccines are safe and effective. Hopefully that’s all these nurses needed to hear. How is it that nobody had told them until now?

When it comes to exemptions to mandates, it is evident that there is no intention to grant many. “Exceedingly narrow, specific, and somewhat onerous to obtain,” was the prime minister’s description of his standard.

When it comes to exemptions to mandates, it is evident that there is no intention to grant many. “Exceedingly narrow, specific, and somewhat onerous to obtain,” was the prime minister’s description of his standard. Whichever exemptions are granted, there’s no reason to believe they won’t be withdrawn in time.

As regards the adjudication of religious exemptions, it’s abominable that secular powers like the Ontario Human Rights Commission are entrusted with reading people’s hearts to discern the sincerity or validity of their commitments and beliefs and dismissing them out of hand for not conforming to officially accredited creeds. As regards what few medical exemptions are being allowed at present, the most absurd criterion being applied is that someone may be exempted from a second dose if they had a really bad reaction to the first. One must take the jab to find out that one shouldn’t have taken the jab.

On September 13, the CBC ran an article about someone who had a horrible experience following the first shot, but Public Health nonetheless recommends, and his employer still requires the second. The CBC shrugs. Them’s the breaks. The U.S. FDA’s infamous draft list of adverse outcomes shows that they knew early on that bad side effects would range wildly, but the development and distribution of these treatments happened so rapidly that it was impossible to acquire data sufficient to know what conditions are contraindicated.

It’s not like bureaucracies, necessarily operating on generalizations and simplifications, can appreciate differences between persons, from body to body—certainly not when an emergency has been declared. Meanwhile, medical professionals, too, seem similarly obliged to disregard the differences between their own patients and give them all the same direction, otherwise they put their own positions in jeopardy.

Mandates are coercive enough to compromise the principle of voluntary consent. What other coercive measures might come next? On September 3, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared on CBC’s The National to say in plain speech that the time for coercion has come for Canada. Apparently, he is not only able to bamboozle Congress under oath with impunity; he presumes to tell other nations how to use their police powers. Being King of the World naturally comes with the territory after having declared oneself essentially indistinguishable from Science Itself.

In that obviously pre-scripted exchange—the only kind of interview Dr. Fauci likes to do—CBC’s Andrew Chang does his best impression of Kent Brockman welcoming his new insect overlords, offering to be helpful in rounding up others.

How is it that Dr. Fauci, the godfather of gain-of-function research, doesn’t know by now where this virus came from? That ignorance alone suggests that maybe he isn’t very good at his job. (Of course, if he does know and isn’t telling, he’s bad at his job in a worse way.) If there’s any event during COVID times we could point to and say that sure looks like an actual conspiracy, it was the behind-covering cover-up Lancet letter from February 2020 in which Fauci’s friends pre-emptively declared the lab-leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory. The same Dr. Fauci now informs Canadians that it’s time for outright coercion.

I am concerned about the number of Canadians who are concerned about the trajectory these coercive measures might take. The recent reaction among those on high alert to the Premier of Saskatchewan’s September 13 emergency order permitting entrance into any building without a warrant, confiscation of private property, collection of any information, prohibitions on travel, the relocation of persons, and more, indicates how on edge some people are getting. When Provincial Command was authorized to lead the emergency response through the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre as of October 7, Scott Moe roundly mocked anyone who expressed concerns about potential abuses of power in a tone-deaf fashion that seemed designed to further antagonize. Ha-ha, the silly farmers think we’re going to steal their cows.

In my own small town, locals have wondered why a construction company that specializes in steel buildings has suddenly starting shipping significant numbers of containers under black tarps that look like they could contain components for rapidly deployable temporary hospitals or relocatable military buildings. A defunct transporting facility on the edge of town suddenly sporting a freshly surfaced yard surrounded by high-tech exterior lighting and barbed wire fencing is enough to get people gossiping. It’s strange reports of unusual observations like these that random people across the continent are tucking into TikTok videos as if they suspect something insidious is afoot. It is a disturbing sign that people’s imaginations are getting the better of them. Our impending federal travel ban is further fuelling people’s paranoia.

On August 13, the Government of Canada announced that it will be constructing five “Safe Voluntary Isolation Sites” in the vicinities of remote towns in Northern Ontario. The Public Health Agency of Canada says they’re to help people where “crowded housing conditions and high costs make it unsafe or impossible to self-isolate.” Conditions like these burden Timmins, Cochrane, Hearst, Kapuskasing, and Moosonee—the last stop on Ontario’s northbound train—more than I realized.

To rile up followers in advance of upcoming protests, one notorious anti-COVID-policy activist on Twitter openly called them “concentration camps” on October 13. Canadians can only respond to such allegations with disbelief, especially when uttered by disreputable types. Obviously, worst-case interpretations of these facilities’ purposes cannot be true because this is still Canada. I can nevertheless imagine what Solzhenitsyn would say, and I still remember bigoted curmudgeons in the 1980s declaring that everyone with AIDS should be shipped off to Baffin Island.

Given that people are saying mandates and passports portending unemployment and social death for non-compliance aren’t technically coercive, I can imagine how someone’s response to the ultimatum “Do this or go there” might be reckoned as sufficient to call their confinement at such a site voluntary—for their safety as well as ours. It looks like Saskatchewan has already dispensed with voluntariness when it comes to transporting people to secure isolation sites. In this context, Dr. Theresa Tam’s tranquil meditations on sending non-compliant persons to mandatory quarantine detention centres from the 2010 National Film Board documentary Outbreak remain somewhat disquieting.

I’m sure the accommodations are going to be comfortable enough and the occupants in these sites will be glad for the opportunity to be isolated there. My point is, extrapolating from the attitudes and acrimony expressed nowadays, further stoked by our authorities’ inflammatory rhetoric and restrictive policies, I am no longer so confident that some number of Canadians wouldn’t be okay with it if the worst-case interpretation were true—especially should breakthrough cases spike or new variants emerge. Neither of those concerns would worry us so much if the vaccines worked like we would have liked.

To conclude, I would like to say that whatever is coming, I am sure that it cannot properly be called fascism or communism. I know this because the Royal Canadian Legion has implemented the vaccine certificates in the bars of its local branches, and to be a member of the Legion you must attest that you’re neither a fascist nor a communist. Who knows what new modes and orders might emerge consequent to COVID times? Whether it will be something much worse than what we knew before or somehow surprisingly better may take the next ten to one thousand years to find out.

---

Travis D. Smith is Associate Professor of Political Science at Concordia University in Montreal. He holds a PhD from Harvard University. His prize-winning dissertation, On the Generation of New Natures, 2005, examined the political meaning and significance of modern medicine. His publications in political theory include several contributions to the study of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In addition to his interest in issues at the intersection of politics, technology, and religion, he also teaches and writes on topics exploring the relationship between storytelling and education. In 2018, he published Superhero Ethics.

This is part 3 of 3. Part One is here and Part Two here.

ВЕТЕРАН

Daniel Bordman DESTROYS CBC With Facts and Logic

Wear your face diaper

 This is how intelligent the requirements are for the vaccine.    The demands that everyone wear a mask is the first step.  Now in reality wearing a mask has prevented the spread of colds and flues last winter, which was a good thing to be honest.  Right now everyone is required to wear a mask.  The vaccinated people still have to wear a mask just in case their vaccination doesn't work.  With the high percentage of people getting vaccinated, there still is this requirement that you must wear a mask just incase you catch the virus that you are suppose to be protected against.

Since none vaccinated people are not allowed to join groups, go to sporting events, play sports, attend bars and the list goes on and on even to the point of being fired from your job, when a vaccinated person catches the virus, where did they get it from?  Who gave them the virus?  But they were all vaccinated! The reality is that recovery from the virus is 99.97%, and the death rate that everyone fears is still at 0.007% from the beginning.   Ontario apparently is at a vaccination rate of nearly 90% of the population so with the none vaccinated being only 10%, why are the vaccinated so afraid.  Are they not really vaccinated?  Are they not safe?

If everyone is wear a face diaper, and with a high rate of people being vaccinated, why is the government still fear mongering?  Why are doctors and scientists who are not in compliance with the government propaganda being persecuted, the licenses cancelled, loosing funding for much needed research.  If so many people are vaccinated, there shouldn't be anyone in hospital ICUs.  

From the very beginning, when this whole thing became a political quagmire of false claims from the government propaganda machine, the only reason for all of this is the mass control of the population to government demands.  The stripping away of civil liberties and freedoms from the population has been the goal of the governments of all parties.  This will not end as the authoritarian acceptance has been supported by many.  With all the work being done to produce vaccination cards/passports there is no way that any government will slowly fade this into silence.

The Ontario government is pushing the vaccination passport be on your cell phone, but what many have not though about is that the government wants you to put your driver's license on your phone, and your health card on your cell phone.  And since many already have their banking information on their cell phones, the government has complete ability to know where you've been, what you have in your bank account, your personal health and banking information as well as where you live, how many tickets you have received and the list goes on and one as the federal government is also thinking about people putting their social insurance numbers on their cell phones as well.  End result, you have given the government and banks all your information and there is nothing that you can't keep from them.

Pastor Artur Pawlowski - “Totalitarian regimes are afraid of one thing! ...

Canada FORCES Pastor to Preach Government

The Worst of the CBC October 15th

Jessie Montgomery Dancing -- One just has to have fun sometime.

This has become too easy, it will be easier yet in the future.

 This morning I woke up and as I was thinking about the blogs I have been writing, it occurred to me that obtaining the masses to agree, is easier than people have thought.  That brought me to the concept of the acceptance of the "mark of the beast" or "666".  While growing up, there were all kinds of theories as I am sure there are right now as to how, in the future, people would accept a marking on their wrist or forehead known as the Mark of the Beast.   Well this covid pandemic has proven to me that it is easier to get the masses onside than what was previously thought.

The government propaganda, not just at the local level, but world wide, has made it easy to frighten the population into compliance.  The use of a pandemic and massive fearmongering has enabled the governments around the world, through the media, to create a situation in which people are more than willing to surrender their freedoms and liberties, for the false sense of security and health.

Mass fear has been created, and yet despite all the fearmongering and all the demands made by the governments, even government research and facts show that this virus has a 97% recovery rate.  The flue has a lower recovery rate, something like 80%.  The death rate from covid, real covid is 0.007% where has the flue has a higher death rate, something like 0.8%.  Yes SARS, H1N1, Flues all have had higher rates of infection, death, and lower rates of recovery.

Through the media, governments have been able to create a crisis where there may not be a crisis.  As a result, mass hysteria and fear has been created which enabled the governments to control the population and make demands on them, that in normal situations the governments would have a difficult time persuading the population for compliance.

After watching the events of the past year unfold, the demands for vaccinations and the government devised programs of isolation of none vaccinated people, it would be easier than good christians could realize how people would be willingly and quiet freely accept the Mark of the Beast.  It has been proven.  Nest step is to see how easy it will be when the time arrives.