“It’s Not the Jab – It’s the Precedent” (the slippery slope argument)

By Eric Peters, August 22
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/08/22/its-not-the-jab-its-the-precedent/

If you knew someone who chose not to exercise, who ate too much not-good food, would you exult in the news of his having been diagnosed with diabetes or cancer? Most people would not and if any did exult, it would be considered evidence of a mental defect (sadism) by the rest.

Yet people – some people – practically celebrate when a person who questions the rightness of forcing people to submit to “vaccinations” gets sick – and practically dance on their graves if they die.

There are many good – sound – reasons for objecting to forcing anyone to get “vaccinated” that have nothing to do with sickness, as such, but rather with this business of forcing people to take medicine or submit to medical treatment of any kind whatsoever. It sets a precedent by affirming the principle that it is ok to force people to take medicine and submit to medical treatment. Once that is established, for any medicine or treatment it will naturally become the basis for requiring that people submit to other medical treatments; they will be required to take other medicines – as decreed by the government and enforced by corporations, through “policies” that render it impossible to work or even to socialize without proof you’ve submitted to these decrees.

There are some, perhaps, who wish to live in such a world but most probably do not. Yet they cannot see that they are helping to build such a world by supporting this push to make everyone roll up their sleeves.

Just this once? If you think so, think again. Please.

As always, there are people who cannot see the inevitability. The same people who could not see that mass acceptance of the “masks” – as these psychological training devices are styled – would lead to mass “vaccinations” – as these unsafe and ineffective temporary symptom suppressors are styled. The same people, in mentality, who could not see that giving the federal government the legal power to seize – that is, to “tax” – a portion of the incomes of the very wealthy would inevitably lead to the government seizing a portion of the incomes of everyone.

The proportion ever increasing.

If the government can erect checkpoints on the public right-of-way, at which people who’ve given no reason to suspect them of having committed any crime can be stopped at gunpoint and required to produce “papers” – and also demonstrate to the satisfaction of an armed government worker that they are not “drunk” – then the government already has the power – in principle, established in law by precedent – to erect checkpoints at which people can be required to prove they are “vaccinated” and present “papers” so affirming.

This is why many thoughtful people object in principle to forcing anyone to be injected with anything. The shot itself is an incidental affront. It is what the affront allows – and enables – that matters.

Try to envision what such a world will be like.

Imagine being required to go to the doctor’s office, like a pet taken to the vet.

A doctor perhaps not even selected by you, who wields power over you.

A doctor that can order you to do as he says – to take what he says – and if you do not do as he says and take what he says you must, can see to it that you are punished for it.

Envision it working in the manner the insurance mafia currently coerces you to buy its services, want them or not. If you decline, if you allow your policy to lapse or refuse to renew, the government is immediately informed and your former right to drive – which is now a conditional privilege – is rescinded, making it exceedingly difficult for you to live since most people must drive in order to work and to obtain the necessaries of life. The mafia is well-aware of this power it possesses and uses it to get what it wants, which is your money – and submission.

Now imagine the health insurance/medical-pharmaceutical mafia wielding similar power. It will encompass the entirety of your life – in the name of “public health” and the “common good.” Sickness – including hypothetical sickness – will be used to justify all-encompassing measures, visited upon everyone – enforced by a technocratic social credit regime, as in China – which America increasingly resembles.about:blank

Your diet and habits monitored, since you might get diabetes or develop hypertension if you eat too much not-good-for-you foods, the amount and type to be determined for you (for your own good) by a medical technocracy empowered to compel your obedient submission via immediate excommunication from work/social life at the first sign of recalcitrance. You are allowed to eat only what they say and only as much of it as they say you may.about:blank

Your activities – including your formerly private sex life – are now also a matter of public “concern,” since various sex acts can be “risky” and that cannot be allowed. At the least, your routines must be monitored.

Not exercising can increase your risk of becoming sick and “we” – meaning, they – cannot have that.

In his bleakly predictive novel, 1984, Orwell described mandatory calisthenics each morning – the physical jerks – led by a Telescreen termagant. Such technology now exists in the form of Telescreens people carry with them everywhere they go; larger versions of the same – the “smart” TV, which can send and receive and which listens and watches – are in almost every home.https://www.youtube.com/embed/LazUZz3K6IY

Are you ready for Captain Freedom’s workout?

All of this – and worse – will inevitably become regularity once the principle is allowed that the government – or corporations, which are the creatures of government – can force anyone to be injected with this medicine (whatever it actually is). It will no longer be a bulwark against such to claim bodily autonomy, that your corpus belongs to you and thus no one else has the right, morally, to tinker with it.

It will no longer be a defensible (in law or practice) argument to state – factually – that you, as an individual, have no need of this or that medicine or procedure, since you are not sick and the putative sickness which perhaps threatens others doesn’t threaten you much, if at all. The good of the body – as Landru, in the old Star Trek series styled it – will be all that matters.

The collective – as defined and decreed by a handful of technocratic Landru-bureaucrat-politician-doctor-priests, all for our own good, as they see it.

No questions. No disobedience. No independence – of mind or of body. No life, except that which we are allowed – like cattle in a pen. Does this sound good to you? Is it worth easing your fear that someone, somewhere might be “unvaccinated”?

Will your lust to make them suffer be satiated once we all suffer, together – forever?

Published by

Ungekrzte

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity ... the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This immaturity is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the [European] Enlightenment. "Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet [or vaccine], and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind ... should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts. "Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas [e.g., Leftist ideology, identity politics] these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting immaturity. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from immaturity by cultivating their own minds." - Kant, "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment"

One thought on ““It’s Not the Jab – It’s the Precedent” (the slippery slope argument)”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s