Updates following the original post regarding proof of vaccination requirement:
3/21/21
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/25/covid-vaccine-passports-health-experts-are-deeply-concerned.html
https://www.axios.com/vaccine-proof-americans-demand-74778b08-7e1c-40f5-a83e-1a1649eb835d.html
Vaccine coercion by disenfranchisement
Originally posted 11/24/20
To start this long rambling tirade off right, let's first have a chuckle at the comments below this youtube video entitled '1st American to receive vaccine: ‘I see a light at the end of the tunnel’. Looks like I'm not alone.
Just recently, I was speculating how society will likely be coerced to take the COVID vaccine, much the same way the mask has been implemented - you can only enter/participate (wherever) with a mask...and eventually, with proof of vaccination.
All on the actual basis of liability, but telegraphed under the guise of a morale imperative for the common good. And, there will be a social price to pay, not only in terms of access, but also in public judgement.
Why would anyone not want to take the vaccine, wear a mask, or follow guidelines from medical authorities? Here's an alternative perspective on handling of COVID from Rand Paul that aligns more with my own thinking.
The CDC guidelines and subsequent federal, state and local enforcements seem to be pulled from thin air, as though doing something is better than appearing to do nothing, when in fact there is no substantial evidence to support those best practices having any positive outcome on preventing or curtailing COVID from spreading.
One might further pose that these guidelines and restrictions are certainly having a severe impact on the economy and civil liberties, and in some instances, are being used as a form of coercion for political purposes, along with other tactics, including media whitewashing of any voice challenging the narratives about covid, the election, or the riots.
Pay special attention to what's happening to publishers on YouTube, where content is being shut down.
The vaccine from Moderna will only offer immunity for 3 months after the second dose. Like a subscription plan, brilliant revenue model!
And, the vaccine will be considered 'experimental' for some time. So, they can put whatever they want into us over time so we can all enjoy the latest mutation and side effect. Dial us to whatever you like, you are free to literally opiate the masses if you like. China, the world is your petri dish.
A recent poll (for what it's worth) shows only 55% of Americans are willing to take the vaccine.
I'm already seeing reports warning of negative side effects - one from the UK advising those with allergies to avoid the vaccine, one from RT (which is Russian media) saying the vaccine caused facial paralysis in four people.
The more COVID pushes transactions and interactions online, the more society is subject to new forms of exclusion and coersion. In fact, there's a proposal by a former Democrat Senator for a $1,500 stimulus check to encourage people to take the vaccine; ergo, those who refuse the vaccine wouldn't get the money. As if we aren't already in massive debt because of corona virus. We're probably borrowing money from China to pay the stimulus. Thank you, sir, may I have another?
Then, I found an article citing an instance of exactly what I imagined, Qantas airlines will only allow those who are vaccinated to fly. Granted, the article is from The Sun which is tabloid garbage, but that's okay for now, it's enough to start. If you need something more substantial to entertain the premise, scroll to the bottom of this post.
Is this a HIPAA violation? If so, you can stop reading now, but that hasn't stopped the mask enforcement, so if you're curious, read on.
Update: The vaccinated will be issued a card - "not intended as a passport, but as a reminder to take the second dose" - okay, let's see if that sticks.
I can see how this approach could be applied to any number of scenarios. For example, you can now only attend certain colleges if you have health insurance, of course they already require standard vaccinations. In China, they've developed a social rating system, which applies to some degree in the West, for example, the way LinkedIn has become a standard for employment credentials.
What other forms of accreditation might become standardized for inclusion/exclusion, and in what other contexts? As the scenario around COVID continues to develop, we quickly see polarization and division in attitudes towards various mandates issued by city, state, national and international authorities.
The politics of COVID are blended and associated with political division around dogmatic narratives about race, gender, immigration, religion, etc., all discussed under the umbrella of rights and equality.
The mantra 'we're all in this together' could be interpreted in more than one way.
I prefer to think that those who are most at risk should choose to protect themselves, and those who are least at risk, most importantly, should choose what is best for themselves, and should continue to move the economy - for the benefit of all.
Instead, we find ourselves operating as though under martial law, in a war against ourselves.
On one side of the argument, one might find themself standing amongst what might be regarded as the spirited and morale high ground, and part of the narrative of mainstream media and its corporate sponsors. Those who embrace the mainstream narrative are proud to post their support on social media often to the point of narcissism. As though they are the only ones who care about others. Oh, I see, you'll go down with the ship, okay. No child left behind, yadda yadda. Yeah, right. We're a little far out from things getting nasty enough for you to show your true colors.
Maybe the loudest are those who fear repercussions most, maybe they are in fact the most mistrusting, the most judgmental, the most closeted. These are the trend followers who want to fit in, who will pay any price for cosmetics, for approval of others. They embrace memes and learn their politics from friends, social media, Saturday Night Live and Stephen Colbert.
I stopped supporting and listening to NPR after they were traumatized by the W administration, and understandably so; but, it just hasn't been the same since.
Those who question or oppose the mainstream narrative assume the very real liability of guilt by association with what has been damned as racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, fascism, and all that is evil. Thereby creating a new form of intolerance and discrimination, snap judgement, and often going as far as calling for physical violence towards detractors and defectors. Question the mainstream, and you may lose your friends, your family, your job, your life.
The word 'inclusion' itself has become a buzzword applied to various scenarios, particularly corporate climates, typically accompanied as in the phrase 'diversity and inclusion' in regard to discrimination based on race and gender, as well as other groups such as veteran status or disability. We typically think of diversity and inclusion in regard to hiring practices.
More recently, inclusion has been applied to whether felons have the right to vote, and politicians argue that requiring an ID to vote is discriminatory towards certain groups.
I've also seen discussions around the topic of inclusive design - whether a product or process is discriminatory - certainly in regard to accessibility for disabilities although I must admit I was nonplussed by the topic of 'Dismantling Whiteness'.
So, there's a growing liability for companies who create a product deemed non-inclusive by design, whereby they are accused not only of being discriminatory but tantamount to or outright systemically racist. The acceptable excuse has been termed 'unconscious bias' which suggests that such exclusionary practice, though not deliberate, should be monitored and corrected.
Oh my, this epidemic of racism (and misogyny) is even affecting the juggling community which also serves as a pretty good reflection of the STEM community, as both jugglers and programmers are mostly comprised of nerdy men. While this particular video claims mostly white men, the Indian and Asian community is certainly not excluded. Is there some reason that women or LatinX should be programmers or jugglers? I should be better at math, but I'm not. I wish I were, but instead I'm a fairly decent juggler, which may come in handy when I'm homeless.
But, what about the possibility of acceptable, conscious exclusion based on supply and demand? For example, not all software runs on both PC and Mac, because the product is targeted to the market of the user. Not all cars are designed with certain features because those features are aimed at a high-end buyer. Not everyone qualifies for a loan. Percentages favor the majority, even when the majority is a frothing mob of idiots. It's all about context. Have you ever heard the bitter accusation that drug companies could make vaccines for common ailments but they don't because they can't make a profit? Or that cures to certain diseases already exist, but only the elite get those treatments? Yeah, maybe, but if so it's a logistics problem. That's another problem with healthcare. It's expensive. Same with making any product.
One might imagine how COVID might have killed off online dating apps, but quite the contrary, it has proven to be a boon, a very telling indicator of how society actually feels about the pandemic relative to the restrictions and perceptions imposed by media and government. Some things simply cannot be stopped. But they can be funneled.
Dating apps offer a slew of filters when searching for a mate, but filtering by race is not always an option. Gender, age and distance are standard, while other characteristics vary by app, including features such as dating intent, politics and religion, education, drinking and smoking habits, whether they have or want pets or children, and birth sign. Some apps allow filtering of very specific physical attributes such as height, body type, eye and hair color. But, the big question is whether to include race, or if so, it's not 'race', it's 'ethnicity'. It's kind of hard to overlook.
Following the George Floyd protests, the makers of these apps were asked about their position on filtering race. Some had already avoided it, and some with the filter decided to drop it. Some immediately added a notice and even required users to acknowledge Black Lives Matter in order to continue using the app. Ding Ding Ding! One app specifically banned those promoting BLM for violating their no-promotions policy, but ultimately allowed them to return after some backlash, and confirmed their support for the movement. So, did they 'do the right thing' or were they coerced?
Some dating apps chose to keep their race/ethnicity filter and justified their decision based on the logic that minority users - specifically black users - had more difficulty finding same-race mates. However, for those who live in a city such as Atlanta, with a diverse demographic, or especially a roughly 50-50 racial ratio, 'minority' is a relative term. Is it such a crime to prefer one's own race or ethnicity, or perhaps to seek out a specific group, or even to avoid a specific group? Or is it a liability for the app maker? If they keep the filter, apparently it's okay as long as the reason is to serve a minority group, but let's not acknowledge whether other groups might want that filter, too. What, are minorities our guests who we are supposed to be polite to when we have them over for dinner? I like you, but I don't want to shag you. Oh, you feel the same way, I'm glad we agree on that. Now, that's inclusive.
Here's a reddit post where a black guy specifically says that a certain dating app is useless to him without the filter, although he qualifies his statement, stating that "Ethnicity" goes far beyond just "race" or skin color." You said it, brother.
Like politics and religion, there are often cultural differences associated with race that might cause people to prefer their own ethnic group, or to avoid another. At least, in the case of African Amercians - but that's a cultural thing AND a racial thing because black people from other countries may behave completely differently from African Americans, yet the association remains, and it's all relative.
MOST blacks in the U.S., logically, are culturally African American, not African, Carribean, or South American. That's huge, and that's the truth that noone seems comfortable enough to discuss. Ever. In fact, if there are important enough differences, there may be a tendency to not only avoid talking about them, but to patronize the group introducing the difference to the point of dishonesty or even submission, which is a disservice to all if we are to live together as a society. This is the power of liability. And, this is why freedom of expression must lead and should be recognized in business as an expression of the business entity. Otherwise, your next Hooters waitress might be a dude.
What about physicality? Is it okay to select a mate based on race, or associated physical characteristics? Anyone who ever studied natural selection (if you believe in that kind of thing) knows that physicality is a key factor in choosing a mate. It's also a key factor in how predators select prey amongst a herd, by targeting the weak. We ALL have preferences and prejudices hard wired, on an instinctive level. Why the hell do you think women wear makeup? Rosy cheeks and red lips, healthy skin, wide, birth-giving hips, healthy hair, etc. It's not just guys, if you're rolling your eyes and thinking men are shallow. Some women prefer tall men, beards, hairy chests or even bald guys. Although masculinity has recently been criticized to the point of calling it 'toxic' within the last decade or so, the era of the 'metrosexual' was followed fast and furiously with beards galore. And don't kid yourself, there certainly could easily be an ugly filter. These apps do in fact have algorithms and stats with that information. Attractiveness and its reception in society, for better or for worse, is an entirely other topic altogether. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? The data doesn't lie, supposedly, though it may certainly be taken way out of context.
Imagine the day that we wake up to LGBQT Lives Matter, and suddenly all of these dating apps remove the gender filter. I guess we'll all be taking that vaccine after all, so we can get out and find a mate by actually meeting in person, like our parents did, and every generation since the dawn of time. Yes, like cave dwellers. Fellas, strap on your meat vest and start strutting. Ladies, go roll in something stinky. LGBTQ, strap it on, cut it off, whatever, do your thing.
In all seriousness, the decision to not offer a race/ethnicity filter would seem to follow the same logic that might also apply to a gender filter. But that would be ridiculous, right? It is ridiculous. It would render the app useless.
As much as Liberals like to think they are open minded and 'progressive', they are often effectively demanding to remove freedom from others by making more rules or using the rules to stop others, as opposed to creating their own concept. If a guy wants to work in a place like Hooters, why not start a new restaurant instead of diluting someone else's idea? Pooters might just be the next big thing for someone who believes in the idea strongly enough and is willing to work hard, find investors, raise capital and take the risk. Instead of demanding rights from others, first try respecting the rights of others. Nobody wants hot wings from Moochers.
Back to inclusive design. The point and inherent risk of making any kind of widget is ultimately to make a profit - sticky notes, my pillow, beanie babies...cancer vaccines. Yadda Yadda Yadda. Surely there's some way to prioritize. Oh, right, force everyone to buy it for the common good. In a home owners association, it's called a special assessment. In government, it's a tax. In a product, it's called a requirement, but the difference is that everyone will not pay, but the company will have no choice but to pay to include that feature, else face a lawsuit or banning of the product by activists.
If I'm a good driver, I'd rather go with an agency that offers a lower rate than get lumped in with all the DUIs and super speeders. By the same token, if I'm healthy and have no pre-existing conditions, why do I have to take a vaccine designed by and large to protect the obese, diabetics, smokers and elderly? Oh, no, there are plenty of cases of healthy, young people dying of Corona, according to the news. Why would I even think about not getting vaccinated? Well, I never take the flu shot and I'm still kickin'. OMG, how dare you compare Corona to the flu, you fascist bastard! Take the vaccine to protect others, you selfish prick! Or let everyone protect themselves as they deem fit.
This is where arguments of entitlement and accusations become a gun to the head for demanding 'rights'. Everyone deserves...healthcare...education...minimum wage that will support a family of four. Does everyone deserve to have a family of four? Flip the burger, then flip the baby? I'm down with Darwin, come on, you Bible-hating revolutionaries, pick a lane. I didn't vote for W. Survival of the fittest, right? Does anyone remember Mike Judge's Idiocracy?
But increasingly, it's more so becoming all about liability, whereby a disingenuous claim of core values wards off lawsuits and the minions take to 'virtue signaling' across social media with something akin to "It's wrong to krush kittens! Death to the kitten-krushers!" Right on, you said it, sister. And anyone who questions the phony narrative risks being lumped into the 'alt-right' along with Nazis and white supremacists, and their arguments are dismissed as baseless 'conspiracy theories'.
I've already been noticing a lot of grand standing on LinkedIn over race and BLM. Remember Facebook's phrase 'it's all about sharing'? My thought at the time was that people don't understand the trap they are walking into, not thinking much about privacy or possibly regretting who might end up reading their post. I read a LinkedIn article suggesting that posting political statements on LinkedIn might not be the best thing to do professionally, and the comments below scrolled for miles in disagreement. I already predicted that following the Biden-Harris installation, we'll be sucking a feminism firehose from every direction including LinkedIn, corporate workplaces, and every form of media including ads, film and television. Obama opened the door on race, and now it's time for gender. For those of us with Libertarian leanings, the nonstop assault and accusations are insulting, exhausting and oppressive. For those of us who were already turned on, it's a total turn off. Just as racial equality does not equate to being anti-White, so pro-female should not become anti-male. Take some cues from Camille Paglia, a brilliant, Libertarian, pro-male lesbian feminist. Sing it, Sly...we've got to live together.
It turns out the push for inclusion is in many instances also a concerted push for exclusion, but noone can talk about it. At least, not those who are being excluded. It's the new discrimination, and it's rather brazen, specifically towards whites, but also towards those of certain ideology. ACAB - 'all cops are bastards' - this is why black police get no pass from rioters, they are labelled traitors and Uncle Toms.
White Silence speaks volumes! The implication is that any white person who doesn't fall in line and say and do what they're told to comply with BLM is a racist, and guilty until proven innocent. It's not what you say, it's what you don't say. This mob movement that insists on the innocence of known criminals, now insists redirects guilt upon the innocent. It's coercion.
So, before I get rolling about race, keep in mind, in the grand scheme of things, none of this is actually about race. But, race has proven the perfect wound to pour salt into to fuel the fire. Bear with me.
Look at South Africa to see how the notion of ending apartheid ultimately became a reversal. Division remains, but those excluded switched places. Now, white farmers are being murdered and their land taken, and whites beg on the streets.
Here's what the AP News has to say about why, going forward, they will capitalize 'Black' and not 'white' when referring to race. "The AP said white people in general have much less shared history and culture, and don’t have the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color." Don't have a shared history? As in 'The History of Western Civilization?" The entire narrative of BLM is anti-western civilization. How is it that suddenly white people have no shared history, they apparently at least have a shared history of being the oppressor to the point that statues of Lincoln are being defaced and toppled, that all of Europe is paying a price for imperialism, that the American Revolution was fought against Great Britain, that we have since meddled in the Middle East and as a result were attacked on 911 (no, I'm not anti-semitic), that immigration control is a topic at all because people come from all over the world seeking the Land of Opportunity and can set up thriving business while barely speaking a lick of English, etc. etc. etc.
Maybe in the future schools and universities will continue indoctrinating kids with revisionism, so they can just run 'Hamilton' and call it a day. So, by the time the AP standard for writing news not only reflects but enforces a political bias, I guess we can all forget about objectivity.
AP Wire was the first to announce Biden as the 2020 Presidential victor. The Left may complain that Trump is a divider, but clearly, when the media and mainstream dialogue is so blatantly biased, it does not lend confidence to 'both sides'. As a honky, I feel excluded from the privilege of capitalizing my racial identity. Oops, I meant 'Honky'.
Sadly, the lack of long term history has the Black community jumping for joy at the notion of Wakanda, and the lack of short term history erases the memory and awareness of The Great Society (the real act of systemic racism) which emasculated their previously strong, nuclear family. I'm not particularly religious, but we can thank Black culture for R&B, owing that most performers honed their chops through gospel music at church. If you love soul food, it's origins go back to when Blacks were farmers and hunted for food - deer, squirrel, possum, you name it. Not exactly a bunch of government moochers or candy-ass liberals, and there was a time that a black father would put a world of hurt on the boy who misbehaved. Yes, there are still black deer hunters, they have land, they go to church, their wives know how to make medicinal tinctures that don't cause side effects, and if you trespass they might just shoot your ass with a rifle. The stereotype of the urban baby-daddy thug is relatively new.
I've actually heard black people saying of Black Lives Matters "this isn't even our movement", and wondering why young whites and LGBTQ activists are out smashing windows and destroying historic statues on their behalf, with the savvy of an app created to locate the offending memorials. In fact, 81% of Blacks want to retain or increase police presence in their area, as opposed to BLM's call for defunding the police.
I've never heard 'together' used so much, this constant, obsessive nod to collectivism. We're all in this together! Ask the Black community and they'll tell you outright, 99% may vote Democrat, but overall, most aren't on board with gay marriage or open borders. Imagine, many Blacks are socially more conservative than whites. Or at least, they are more conservative than most white Democrats. If there were one party that truly served the interests and beliefs of Blacks, what would that look like? How much of the black community looks to Chicago-based Louis Farrakhan or Obama's 'mentor', Jeremiah Wright who famously said 'God damn America'? And today, we have Nike sponsoring Colin Kaepernick, who now has his own flavor of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Racism is always attributed to whites, but these Black leaders are angry, anti-white, racial separatists. Is this not relevant to today's obsessive, riot-led, corporate-sponsored new world order under the banner of racial equality?
According to Biden, if you don't vote Democrat, you ain't Black. Are blacks so homogenous as a culture, as Biden suggests? Or are they afraid to 'betray' their culture, for fear of being labeled, threatened and attacked by their own people? Or now, possibly by the opposition party? Perhaps one of the greatest things about this radical movement is that Blacks are feeling more ideologically liberated to stand up and say who they are, or at least who they aren't. Black lives matter, unless you are a Black cop or a Black conservative. Then, a white liberal just might attack you, and call you Uncle Tom. Or, as many will point out, no one is protesting the black genocide by gang violence in Chicago or the reliance on abortion for birth control.
If society at large owes the Black people anything, it's an honest dialogue instead of patronizing them with petty conventions like that of AP wire, and to stop using them as political pawns to spearhead the globalist agenda of cheap labor, open borders, mass migration and corporate immunity over U.S. sovereignty. Let's start with the fact that 70% of violent crime in the U.S. comes from a culture that comprises only 13% of the population. And the popular music from that culture celebrates and traffics in criminality, much like the cartels of Mexico. Thanks to Rand Paul for opening a dialogue in Ferguson, proposing we address the disenfranchised with trade schools as a step towards ending the dependency on big government. And most of all, thanks to all the courageous Black voices who have the giant balls to speak up - Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Candace Owens, Allan West, and on occasion in the main stream...Charles Barkley...Lil' Wayne...
Here's an interview by Ben Shapiro speaking with Larry Elder, who offers some facts and statistics about "the Black Lives Matter movement and whether or not black Americans are being systematically hunted down by police in the United States".
Do Chinese factory worker lives matter? Where's their protest / riot? If ever there were a worthy cause, that's real slavery, alive and well, all for the profit of big tech capitalists and corporatists. Occupy Wallstreeters, antifascist, Che Guevara-t-shirt-wearing, wanna-be revolutionaries should be all over it. Do they really care about humanity or is it just about power by any means necessary? Enjoy your overpriced Apple products, Amazon warehouses, Netflix, Disney Plus and Starbucks, global citizens. Oh, and the vaccine!
What about age discrimination? Nancy Pelosi wants to push the voting age down to 16, although I know I didn't really begin to actually follow politics until I was in my late twenties/early thirties, even if I thought I was paying attention before. Old enough to drive is old enough to vote...is old enough to do what else? Join the army? Have sex with an adult? Buy alcohol? Rent a car? Now we're talking about adulthood.
But, what rights do you have beyond adulthood, when you're elderly? Age discrimination seems to be the red headed step child (no offense, Gingers) when it comes to discrimination rights violations - noone really gives a damn about the aging or the elderly, especially under a eugenics program. But, in the case of COVID, suddenly the elderly are useful for fortifying an argument for masks. Who wouldn't want to protect their parents, right? Afterall, China is known for proactive eugenics for population control. What herd might COVID have been designed to thin? Certainly the elderly.
What about inclusion in regard to those who refuse to take a vaccine? Many of those people will fall outside of the usual 'victim of non-inclusion' criteria, and then they'll know how it feeeeeeeels to be excluded, ha!
And as far as a cohesive, logical progression of events, nothing adds up in an obvious way that builds any kind of trust unless you're just walking in on the movie that's just started. Remember the media narrative under George W Bush after 911? Everyone was on board the 'terrorists hate our freedom' train and saber rattling, and if you questioned that narrative, you were some kind of traitor. Homeland Security opened it's doors and began issuing various colored alerts, warning everyone to have a roll of duct tape and plastic sheets handy to defend against a possible chemical attack. Today we have the CDC telling us to wear a mask and stand 6-feet apart. Government geniuses!
Then after W, enter Obama, and all we heard about was racism, every movie was about slavery, every so-called 'reality show' scripted in a token racist to create conflict (yes, reality show characters are scripted), constantly for eight years, when in fact, the actual crisis was the global recession, and troops remaining indefinitely in the Middle East. Obama also dealt with a pandemic only a year into his first term in 2009, H1N1, but no one remembers it because it was handled very differently. Looking back, the death rate was much lower than COVID, but no one could have predicted the magnitude when it first emerged, so was it mishandled? I guess global recession and Chinese viral pandemics go hand in hand.
I understand how going from Doofus Dynasty Dubbya to fresh-face Obama was an easy sell, but what a misdirection away from priorities, and even today we remain in the Middle East, not to mention the loud and contrived obsession over race and gender that has taken center stage, especially to sway votes.
Even the Republican party - along with the Bush family - got on board against The Donald as he cried 'Drain the Swamp!' and suddenly, there was a big crack in the mirror. If Obama was the antidote to W, Trump was the antidote to Obama, shooting from the hip and calling bullshit on political correctness, even with his obnoxious tweets, people were ready for something less cosmetically doctored (minus the orange comb-over). Too bad his rhetoric has been so divisive.
Rand Paul would have done a great job as President, but he's short, he has his own following but he's not a celebrity, and no one appreciates that he cuts his own hair in the spirit of being a public servant. He's only a doctor and a politician who is largely liked on both sides of the aisle, so, he may never command attention from the demographic who digs Cardi B, and I doubt he sings Despacito in the shower.
I know if I ever need brain surgery, I'll pick whichever doctor has the biggest following on instagram or at least a big butt. I'll make sure it's a minority, a woman or better yet, a tranny, and hopefully has some kind of disability, maybe vision impaired or possibly missing some fingers.
Here's what Rand Paul has to say about Joe and Hunter Biden, and the problem with election fraud in Georgia, where 10,000 dead people were registered as voters. Go to 6:25 in this other video to hear Rand's statement about the fraudulent election, and that it was stolen.
But back to this impending vaccine. Why be such a pain in the ass, just wear a mask, get your shot, and shut the fuck up, for the common good. What else is going on that makes anyone so suspicious, and to question the medical community? Here's where one might risk getting lumped in with conspiracy theorists.
Timing.
All of this global pandemic led up to the U.S. Election. How can anyone be so nationalistic as to think this virus was all about the U.S. election? The entire world was impacted. Not that the virus was created to impact the election or the economy (and not that it wasn't), but at least we can recognize and probably agree that politicians have been taking advantage of the virus.
Following the 2016 election, the Left would say that Trump inherited Obama's economy, then leading up to the elections, the Left began celebrating how COVID fucked up the economy, the one thing Trump was proud of, only to later accuse Trump of ruining the economy by blaming him for the mishandling of the virus. Regardless of one's politics, COVID became a polarizing political issue, hinging on shut down versus not, mask versus not, typical Left versus Right versus Left.
What else went global pre-election? The George Floyd protests were world-wide. The protests...errr...riots. Aligned with the threat that they would continue depending on the election outcome. After Biden-Harris was 'announced' as victorious, the riots suddenly just stopped. And a 90-94% vaccine was almost immediately announced.
Who do you suppose organized mass protest in France and New Zealand in support of George Floyd, an African American felon who was imprisoned for putting a pistol to the stomach of a pregnant woman, ultimately died of a "fatal level" of fentanyl in his system, which caused his erratic behavior, whereby he resisted arrest resulting in his restraint by police. Suddenly, the entire world just happens to all take interest in George Floyd to the point of such extraordinary coordination and timing? Yeah, nah. That took some coordination, and a lot of money.
Let's not forget how Obama put major pressure on the UK about Brexit, to the point of threats. Thankfully, the Brits finally made it happen.
He would have died regardless of the knee. And yes, a knee to the neck is standard procedure in certain instances or resisting arrest, it wasn't a special treatment for Mr. Floyd. And no, police shouldn't shoot people in the leg, or any other number of suggestions people pose when they don't know how or why police do their jobs the way they do. I've dealt with my share of cops with bad attitudes and I keep an eye on the militarization of the police, but there's a long history of cherry-picked stories involving cops shooting unarmed black people - typically someone with a history of major no-nos who commits another major no-no that brings about the cops, followed by a no-no response to the cops, which results in them being no-mo', followed by the city being destroyed (including many black-owed businesses) before the facts surface. Rinse and repeat. To the point that people are being bussed into cities and put up in high-dollar hotels to riot. At the ready, such that they mistakenly started rioting after a black man committed suicide and cops arrived on the scene. Oops. Such momentum, such resource.
Let's not forget, there are still regular attacks all across Europe involving acid to the face, machetes, vehicles running into crowds, beheadings, rapes. We've been fortunate here in the U.S. to only have mass shootings, occasionally terror plots, riots, and well, 911. But other than that...we're privileged, right? It's all arbitrary, of course, no coordination at all. That would be terrorism. Heavily funded, corporate-sponsored. Nike sponsors one of the greatest proponents, Colin Kaepernick, who calls for "A future without policing & prisons" (just do a search for more).
The only riots I've seen since the 'election' are groups who are protesting COVID lockdowns, and those who clashed with Trump supporters who gathered to contest the election results. Wait, I thought the rioters/protesters were activated over police shooting black people, did that magically stop happening after Biden was 'elected'? End Trump, end racism? Got it, and if by the most remote chance Trump ends up re-elected, Lord help us.
Update Dec. 5th (written originally on Nov. 24th): Latest BLM protest in Minneapolis in defense of this charming fellow, Joseph Javonte Washington. They sure know how to pick 'em.
Man, those mobile roaming charges applied like a mofo, especially in Javonte's case whereby 'roaming' included showing up in his girlfriend's house and using her phone, punching her in the face, raping her and livestreaming it to her FB and Snapchat accounts, kidnapping her at knifepoint, crashing her car, hiding in a dumpster, and charging at the cops, naked. Now, that's roaming.
Aw, and his face in the mugshot looks sad with those green tears running down his cheeks (he survived his wounds, wow, must have shot him in the leg after all, A for effort, but the officer still got fired, gosh-darn-it), but according to his neck tattoo I'm guessing his tinder profile reads 'must love dogs' apart from the one that greeted him with open jowls when he charged at the cops (naked). I don't suppose the cops could tell whether or not he was carrying the reported knife when he leapt out of the dumpster in the dark and ran towards them. Here's video footage of Javonte and the police.
Statistically, more whites are shot by the police, but no one is complaining about mere police brutality or excessive force towards whites, it's only the black lives that matter. Honkies, you need to get on the ball, but whatever you do, be original, else HLM is going to come across as derivative.
And now that all the major cities are calling for defunding the police, Atlanta suffers from Blue Flu following the firing of the officers involved in the shooting of Rayshard Brooks. Violent crime has gone up by 70% in Atlanta, I guess we can all relax knowing that at least all the shootings of black people aren't at the hands of police, but by each other. Google 'Atlanta news' and see how many headlines involve shootings, racing, and stolen vehicles. Involving who? (whispered) black people - tee hee! Send in the unarmed counselors, at once! No, silly, that's only for domestic disputes, which never involve violence, so they just show up with lollipops and coloring books, and hugs all around. If only a counselor had been called to the house before Javonte went for a spin, he'd probably be talking about his feelings and sipping on a Yoo-Hoo.
Maybe this latest protest in Minneapolis was rolled out just in case the left isn't 100% confident about the election, that Joe and Kamala aren't quite as in the bag as mainstream media would have us believe. Coercion is the platform - better keep that gun to the head. Phony candidates (real payoffs from China), phony protestors (real riots), phony corporate funding (real liability insurance, real marketing to millennials), phony victims (real felons), phony media coverage (real dependence on corporate sponsors), phony accusations (real blue flu resulting in real escalation of violent crimes), phony shelter in place (real recession), phony election results (announced real early), phony vaccines (really experimental and really short-term immunity). How dare anyone question.
Lenox Mall in Atlanta has now banned carrying weapons following a
shooting at the Apple Store. Lenox is apparently
drawing people from across the country. Or could it possibly be Atlanta is the bigger draw, not just the mall? Why Atlanta? Here's
an earlier post I wrote following discussion with two black officers at Lenox Mall here in Atlanta, talking about how the racial narrative and COVID are impacting crime, including car theft and violence.
I remember when Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms impressed me, saying that Atlanta can do better than to burn itself to the ground following the burning of the Wendy's and the riots that ensued. She took a stand accompanied by rappers TI and Killer Mike, saying how those guys 'practically own the West side' (wow, like the cartels in Mexico). Apparently, she was offered a place in the Biden-Harris administration, but has since declined. I guess we can still look to TI and Killer Mike for what's in store for Atlanta's future.
What else are Killer Mike and T.I. up to lately?
Here's the strategy: encourage and fund constant riots under the banner of police brutality towards blacks, and combine with draconian COVID restrictions, all the way up to the election. The police force is then severely reduced and violent crime goes through the roof, especially in democrat-run cities, and suddenly the riots are over. Mission accomplished? Not quite, let's open the borders (stay tuned, here's a nibble).
So, what about ideological discrimination, and in this case, exclusion of those who don't trust the Biden-Harris administration or the vaccine, are fearing for their life, health and safety, and don't trust the politics that are likely leading to (an implied) vaccine mandate? Here's an analogy.
The 'stand your ground law' grants the right to use deadly force if attacked and fearing for one's life or for the life of others, whereas the 'duty to retreat' law obligates those attacked to escape if possible rather than use force for defense, though 'castle doctrine' permits use of force at home, work or in one's vehicle.
So, by the same rationale, while most big chain stores require masks, many small businesses post signs stating that individuals entering the premises assume all liability for any COVID-related consequences.
Therefore, one might argue that businesses requiring a mask or a vaccine is a form of coercion, especially if the store is considered an essential business. In the spirit of the 'duty to retreat' law, the business has the legal option of allowing patrons to assume liability upon entering the premises, but instead chose to enforce a requirement. Might they cite 'castle doctrine' as a defense? Not if they are an essential business, because they are deemed to be serving as a public utility. I need that barbecue sandwich.
Small, struggling businesses such as local restaurants know it might be better for business to allow customers to assume liability rather than offer take-out only or enforce wearing a mask. But, if the business operates in a city that requires masks, the business has to decide whether to enforce the city's requirement or risk citation or other penalty i.e. government coercion. I know of one restaurant that remained open and the owner told me that the police agreed to look the other way because they had to pay their rent.
Big operations with brand recognition such as grocery stores cover their ass and their brand, though it's been interesting to see how some go over the top with their handling while others skirt the requirements, how these make shift rules and regulations have come about, and how these entities have had to do what's best for business without hurting their brand or exposing themselves to liability. Compare the shopping experience at Trader Joe's to that of Publix. Trader Joe's enforces a limited capacity by controlling the entrance. Maybe it's because of the smaller size, or maybe there's no standard, I'm not sure.
Ultimately, disengagement from what will become an open, public discourse of our health status may prevent us from or allows us to be part of society. Will the same reasoning apply to discourse and requirements around abortion, birth control, euthanasia, hospice, or citizenship, and what will be the outcome and impact on insurance, credit scores, etc.? When does a right become a requirement, when does a requirement become discriminatory? When is a 'right' considered an 'entitlement' or a 'self-entitlement' or a privilege? Are rights or privileges earned or owned or innate? Can we run this all together willy nilly or is it very much dependent on context?
Depending on one's political leanings, arguments can be made for or against individual rights and discrimination can go in many directions outside of the more common scenarios that come to mind. Right to one's body, right to life...at the beginning AND end of life. Life, liberty and property...Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And what will insurance companies make of 'Pre-existing conditions' with COVID? According to the CDC, that includes the obese, diabetic and those with hypertension. What about those who've had COVID, is that a good thing or a bad thing? There's always the nasty rumor of a second infection. What about a healthy person who refuses to take the vaccine? That's a twist, an otherwise good risk, with a low chance of being hurt by the virus, right? Can the insurance company require the vaccine for a person with no preexisting conditions? The person is afraid to take the vaccine because it might cause previously non-existent conditions.
The argument is split almost down the middle in terms of requiring mask wearing and vaccine taking, social distancing, lock downs, quarantines and closing of businesses. There are those who prefer limitations be voluntary based on individual condition and circumstance for the sake of building herd immunity, protecting the economy and preserving civil liberties. And, there are those who insist that all limitations be mandatory and standardized for the common good.
Which approach is true American philosophy, American identity? Don't like nationalism? Okay, what part of freedom do you value, free speech, free expression, free thought (I mean, minus micro-agressions, of course)? Free body (abortion, #metoo)? Freedom is not a cafeteria plan. No cutting off clits and pushing homosexuals off of the tops of buildings here. Some boundaries are okay.
If according to the CDC, those without preexisting conditions are likely to survive a bout of COVID largely unscathed, there may have been another path available other than the one we've taken.
One might argue that if everyone were left to choose how to handle their own situation, there would be no lockdown or businesses closed, and only those with preexisting conditions would shelter in place or wear masks. Yes, many would get sick and some might possibly die, but most without preexisting conditions would get sick for a week or two, then go to work thereafter, and businesses would remain open and we would not have a massive debt and a shit economy.
It's a new flu, and no matter how people lose their minds when COVID is compared with flu, the fact is that flu continues to kill thousands every year. And yet, it hasn't shut down the economy or had us all in masks and social distanced. We have enjoyed freedom for years living with flu, and I cannot recall the last time I took a vaccine.
Two key closing thoughts I want to highlight. I've really noticed that black people are way on board with mask wearing. They're the ones wearing space helmets, I mean they really go the extra mile when it comes to mask wearing, and it ain't because they are part of this propaganda train, it's because they are afraid, and believe they are targeted by this virus, the same way they were used in the Tuskegee Experiment, and the way many believe HIV was targeted towards them. I've had this conversation with several black friends, this isn't mere speculation. I'm sure that's very likely why the first person in the U.S. chosen to take the vaccine is a black woman.
I'm aware that there's a higher mortality rate amongst blacks with COVID and I'd tend to believe it's because of the diet, not because of a lack of access to health care as the news would have us believe (i.e. those who succumb to COVID would likely die regardless of treatment). Which brings me to the second thought. Apparently, many who were admitted to hospitals with COVID died from intubation, which may be an extreme way of handling the condition. I'm not convinced that hospitalization is going to save anyone with preexisting conditions and my guess is that like whites, Blacks who succumb to COVID are likely obese, and or diabetic, with hypertension. After writing this remark, I found this statement at the bottom of an article on CNN of all places, stating that "Previous studies have revealed that minority communities have higher death rates from Covid-19, are more exposed and the most vulnerable in part because of pre-existing conditions." Note the shit-eating grins on The Three Amoebas, these globalist jack-offs gang-banged the Middle East relay-style, and now they are volunteering to take the vaccine in public (I'm sure the syringes are only filled with babies' blood and really good weed).
Likely there is a relatively higher percentage of overweight blacks, partly due to diet and partly due to a cultural difference that blacks don't shun curves, in fact they dig 'em. On the contrary, like ballerinas, whites are more likely to smoke to control their weight (apparently not good for surviving COVID). Not that there aren't plenty of bloated honkeys out there, but perhaps proportionately less.
So my concern/question - how will Blacks feel about taking the vaccine? Will they trust it? I would tend to think they'd be reluctant, despite having been cited as being vulnerable. Apparently, those on welfare rely on abortion a least in part because they fear that birth control is potentially a form of extermination. Since we've gotten so cozy talking about race in only one direction, let's think a little further. There's no free lunch. People may look to government for hand outs, and obviously there are problems that need solving - healthcare, soaring cost of university - but the first to feel the limits of trusting big government will be those who lean on it most.
This mask or no mask polarity will carry forward as a morale imperative. Civil libertarians will say the mask should be a choice and could make the same argument against enforcing a vaccine, whether by government, by corporate entity, or corporate entity coerced by government.
And, of course, I'm sure a legitimate vaccine will allow mainstream society to move forward with confidence which is good. But, there are those who don't want to take a vaccine, wear a mask in the shower, shelter in place, duct tape their assholes, or 'practith thothial dithtanthing'. Oopth, thorry, I forgot to wear my mathk and then I thtepped on your airhothe, I need more practith. Thufferin' thuccatath.
Treading the fine lines between infringing on civil liberties, privacy, discrimination and liability.
Joe, c'mon, man! Be the uniter, not the divider, we're all in this together, right? Did I say Joe? I meant Kamala, and - to borrow a phrase from Greg Giraldo - her 'gaggle of squawking twats'. Holy shit, did we just onboard the cast from The View? Soon, it'll be the Ovulating Office. Nah, they're all well past hot flashes, and probably have higher testosterone than Joe or Obama ('President My Boss', not Michelle, I'm pretty sure her's is up there). The Middle East better look out!
From wacky, babbling sidekick to 'transitional candidate', like the Cheshire cat, 78-year old demented Joe will politely disappear into the wallpaper, leaving behind only that goofy crooked smile and a new administration of Fabulous Firsts. Yawn.
This voting for 'the lesser of two evils' approach to choosing candidates has been the mantra since W was in office. I had a history of voting Libertarian because in good conscience I couldn't go with either of the major party candidates, and I was always criticized for throwing my vote away on Libertarian candidates out of principle.
I may not like the divisive tweeting, and I've been skeptical of the follow-through on the policies Trump claims to support, though I do believe in America-first (I know, this makes me a Nazi). I don't agree with a wall because it won't be effective, and we could enforce laws here instead, but Obama called out racial profiling of hispanics, so that didn't work either. How can anyone voting as a Democrat these days feel confident that the promises of the platform will ever get delivered into reality by a senile old white guy who the Obamas never cared for, who calls himself the 'transitional candidate', and who was slandered as a racist during the Democratic debates by this raspy, Jamaican-Indian lawyer with a history of incarcerating blacks for smoking weed, and who they sell as a 'woman of color' (if we're judging by character and not by skin color, why is this a selling point at all?), who would soon step up as President after Biden goes night-night. Had Trump not stepped into the picture, the Republicans would have continued on board this same phony bandwagon as the Dems. They're all getting paid by the same corporate sponsors.
There's no solid or transparent platform of any kind, this is all about power. We've got to see through the smoke screen. Who is behind the curtain? This is classic divide and conquer. The best I can guess is that it's probably about cheap labor and corporate power over U.S. sovereignty. Anyone who thinks that's a good idea, imagine living under the reign of Jeff Bezos. Why did Bezos buy out the Washington Post and use it as a political megaphone? Ask anyone who worked at Whole Foods about life at work before the acquisition by Amazon, or anyone working in an Amazon warehouse. Or just google around...ummm...I mean...search the web - pardon my unconscious bias.
If Socialism is like flirting with Communism, America will never kiss and tell. Get your shot, wear your mask, stay 6 feet apart and shut the fuck up, for the common good.
I invite you to read my Very Long Epilogue to this entry...
More...
Side effect warnings
Search for 'vaccine coercion' yields many results, here are two of the more 'official' answers:
2017 - This article explains and supports my speculation
"Gradually in the USA, a duty (not a ‘coercion’) of vaccination is being enforced. Occurring epidemics, (e.g. measles) and dangers resulting from them, force authorities to violate the principle of autonomy and restrict individuals’ freedoms regarding their own body. The article presents legal solutions relating to vaccinations in the United States and Europe i.e. administrative decisions imposing vaccinations, solutions conditioning social existence and financial penalties for not complying with this obligation and proposes a solution based on financial liability that will balance out patients’ autonomy and public security."
2019 - Case study of vaccine hesitancy in France
2020 - Four out of 10 French adults wouldn’t get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available.
"France has one of the lowest vaccine confidence rates in the world, according to a Lancet study published earlier this month.
French people who are hesitant about vaccines shouldn’t be dismissed as kooky conspiracy theorists who rant about Bill Gates and 5G all day, experts say — at least not all of them. But vaccine skeptics represent a sizable chunk of the French public, big enough to hinder a vaccination campaign when a vaccine against the coronavirus will be on the market."
“We reckon that herd immunity could be attained with a vaccination coverage of 60 to 70 percent, but this is still a very rough guess,” said Daniel Floret, vice president of the vaccine technical committee at the French National Authority for Health (HAS)."
Posts
