What’s Wrong with “The Greater Good”?

Something everyone should know, & almost everyone doesn't!

Did you know that you can get to a substack home page by clicking on the title - What Do I No in this case? Find other articles and podcasts by the same author.

• This is a long article: you may prefer to listen to it instead. [Edit: …but there have been some minor edits bringing it up to date in the written version which are not in the aural version.]
  [50 min. at normal speed + 40 min. footnotes]

• It’s likely there are some details in this article that you disagree with, or even some that are just plain wrong: but don’t let that put you off taking in the main point of the article, which is surely right!]

1) A lesson from World War 2

Mandatory vaccines? “Health passports”? Masked children? What have you been doing every eleventh of November?

Why 11th November? Because on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, World War 1 came to a close and the guns fell silent. Ever since then 11/11 has been “Remembrance Day” (or Poppy day or Veterans’ Day). Many institutions (schools, businesses, churches ...) in many countries, have held a 2 minute silence at 11 o’clock on 11/11, to remember - not only those who died for us - but why they did so, and lessons we should "never forget" from WW1 ("The War to End All Wars") ... and, of course, all the wars since then.

As time goes by these incidents seem more remote, part of history, more irrelevant. But this is not so: humans learn from their mistakes. Some really big mistakes don’t recur for quite a while. So what should we remember?

And was it really so long ago? I'm certainly not geriatric yet; and my parents were adults, in Britain, in WW2. My parents are very real to me. I spoke to them. And when I was a small boy I asked them - as all my generation did - about WW2, and what it was like for them.

"If Germany invaded Poland, then how come Britain got involved" I asked. What do you think their answer was? Something to do with the meaningless treaty¹ that Britain had been inveigled into signing with Poland? No - for my parents it was personal.

"Well, we thought Hitler might invade other countries: we wanted to live in a free country, and not have men in uniforms constantly demanding ‘papers please’. "

Asking you to identify yourself to the state with "Papers please" was a common trope in movies of the time, emblematic of a repressive Nazi state which is constantly checking up on its citizens. In the UK, wanting to distance themselves from that, “being a free country” meant that the fact that you exist was regarded as sufficient justification for your being there: no ID card required. (Perhaps that’s rare amongst countries now). That attitude was still sufficiently prevalent in the UK to reject the recent attempt to introduce ID cards. I feel my parents and their generation turning in their graves in disquiet over the despicable so-called "health passports", which would give the state instant access to your movements, attitudes, genetic make-up and bank accounts; and without which you will not be able to buy food nor travel. (And soon to be expanded to include your current physiological state and reactions). Did so many die for freedom in vain? They thought it worth fighting for. Don’t you want to live in a free country?

The Remembrance day 2 minute silence was held in all the schools I attended, and in the places where I worked as an adult. In the week of Remembrance Day there would be related programmes on TV and radio; discussions in History lessons, and school assembly; related sermons in church, mosque and synagogue. So at first I was surprised to see Britain not automatically rejecting a mandatory vaccine. I think "What have you been remembering every Remembrance Day? Clearly not the same as me."

Most people will know that following WW2 there were the trials at Nuremberg in which we exacted retribution on Nazi politicians, bureaucrats, business men and military leaders. There were also trials of doctors who had been doing medical experiments on unwilling human subjects.

In their trials, the Nazi doctors' defence boiled down to 2 points:

1. that they did nothing illegal: there was no law against what they did in Germany (and other countries). And

2. that they did what they did for "the greater good". Whilst the subjects of the experiments may have suffered, society as a whole stood to gain from what was learned.

Now, both of these points may have been true – guidelines, but no law against human experimentation, and it wasn't the first time that the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" had led people astray.

So what was the Allies’ reaction to this two-part defence from these German doctors, living in Germany and not breaking any laws? In essence I think it was this.

"Whilst voluntarily doing things for other people's benefit is a wonderful human attribute, you should not force anyone to suffer for others. The "greater good" argument doesn’t trump the principle that all humans must be respected! There may not have been a law against it, but we regard doing medical experiments on people without their consent as SO egregious and SO obviously wrong that we're going to go so far as to break one of our own legal principles (that you cannot break a law that doesn't exist) and punish you anyway!”²

Apparently this was so obvious to people in 1946 that it necessitated breaking a fundamental legal principle³. Are we unprincipled zombies today? Well … I did recently hear someone quote “the ends justify the means” as if it were true, not the self-justification of a criminal. “I want the cake but don’t want to pay” (the ends or objective) “so I will steal the cake (means)”. “I want all the inheritance” (ends) “so I will kill my brother (means)”. “We want to change the World so that it runs more to the benefit of us” (ends), “so having searched and found that War is the best way to change society, we’ll start a few wars” (means).⁴ However good the objectives are, it doesn’t justify unethical means.

The “greater good” argument - “these individuals must suffer for the sake of everybody else” - is an example of this ethical fallacy, that “the ends justify the means”. The ends (learning things which could be useful to society) were used to justify the means (experimenting on people).

2 Not just WW2

This principle - that the "greater good" does not trump the principle that all humans must be respected - and others, were reflected in the "Nuremberg Code" in 1947. I have heard this referred to several times recently from people arguing against mandating vaccines; but to leave it at that invites you to think that it was all long ago and something peculiar to the Nazis; whereas in fact people have re-examined medical ethics continually since then.

Here are four examples from a longer list.

1981 - The World Medical Association formulated the Treaty of Lisbon, which re-iterated the following 3 medical principles (amongst others) inspired by the Nuremberg Code :

1. the right of informed consent before any medical intervention (notice – not just experimentation, but any medical intervention);

2. the right to patient confidentiality (including from the state, I would point out); and

3. medical treatment must be in the interest of the individual patient - not society generally. (Explicitly the opposite of The Greater Good argument).

1997 - there was the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which reiterated these three principles.

2002 - there was the European Charter of Patients' Rights, which reiterated these same principles.

2005 - The United Nations (through the Bioethics Committee of UNESCO) adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, in which they said (quoting)

• "Any ... medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information [to the recipient] …

• The privacy of the persons concerned and the confidentiality of their personal information should be respected. …

• The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society." [Emphasis added (obviously)!]

So these three principles are essentially international law.⁵ They have been repeatedly established every time anyone examines medical ethics. Whilst society at large may have forgotten these principles or not all been aware of them, all doctors and nurses should have been schooled in these principles as part of their medical education; indeed most have. But they are principles that we all need to be familiar with, and it seems almost nobody is.

In the March 2020 coup, in which declarations of a state of emergency and medical advisory panels were used to take power from governments world-wide ... (power still not returned to democratic governments as I write in March 2022)⁶ … countries everywhere didn’t just simultaneously abandon their plans and protocols for dealing with pandemics, that they had refined for decades, but abandoned these principles as well. Many courageous doctors have upheld them, despite being subjected to large financial and social “sticks and carrots”; however it would be unrealistic to expect all doctors to do so, unless society at large upholds the same standards.

The important question of the moment is not "should I get a vaccine or not". It is "should we mandate vaccines … ever?!"

To people who think "no, I shouldn't get this injection, there is too much risk for the benefit", answering the question "should we mandate vaccines" seems easy.⁷ But to people who think "yes, for the benefit of others, as well as myself, I should get this vaccine", it is much harder. They are required to think "although I believe it would be best if as many people as possible got the vaccine, I still think it would be wrong to force people to do so".

That’s a big ask: people need help in understanding this principle. Most find it hard to spot the flaw in "the greatest good for the greatest number" slogan; after all, surely many people must be more important than 1 person?

3 What is wrong with "the greater good"?

It is hard to see. And we humans kept getting this wrong in the 20th century; and every time we did so, millions of people were killed. So it’s vital to learn from history, as collectivists are invoking “the Greater Good” argument again - without the appropriate popular reaction.

I think the easiest way to see the flaw in this ideology is to look at what happened in collectivist societies in the past. (“Collectivist”means society generally – the collective - is regarded as more important than the individual).

So was Nazi Germany collectivist? Hitler said "Society's needs come before the individual’s needs" - the very definition of a collectivist society.

The result was medical experiments on the unwilling; eugenics (forcible sterilization of those deemed unworthy to reproduce); censorship, bullying, murder, genocide ...

Is that the sort of society you want to live in?

Communist governments are by definition collectivist. When they came to power in Russia (1917), China (1949), and Cambodia (1975) e.g., the result in each case was the murder of the middle class, and famine. Hundreds of millions of people were deliberately killed by their state. In fact …in the twentieth century, more people were deliberately killed by their own government (“democide”) than all the people who died in all the wars in that century!⁸

That bears repeating if it's news to you: a lot of people are under the impression that their government will look after them. You have to be very ignorant of history to think that.⁹ A lot of people died in wars in the 20th century; but 6 times as many were deliberately killed by their own government. And bear in mind that the same echelon of society who organised the democides organised the wars too!

If you have dissident thoughts in a collectivist society (one advocating “the greater good”) you are liable to be locked up in a mental institution, prison, work camp, or (latest ruse) a “quarantine camp”. Your organs may be harvested "for the greater good". (There are reports and documentaries about this happening currently in China). You will be less of a nuisance after "donating" your eyes, kidneys and heart, while those in power get a lucrative benefit. That’s a big financial incentive. In the minds of the people in power, society is better off without you.

Totalitarian governments are perfectly possible: but is that the sort of society you want to live in?

So, the flaw in "the greatest good for the greatest number" is this. If the individual is the highest priority, everybody is respected, as society is also made up of individuals. But if society (the state) is the highest priority, individuals are regarded as disposable.

I’m going to repeat that, as it is the lesson mankind learned in the twentieth century – the one we should have been remembering every 11/11.

The flaw in "the greater good" is this. If the individual is the highest priority, everybody is respected, as society is also made up of individuals. But if society is the highest priority, individuals are regarded as disposable, and the state does terrible things to the “disposables”, the untermenschen – immigrants, Jews, Gypsies, people with the “wrong” attitudes to sex or government policy … on vaccines, for example.

Before they attack these minorities, the state demonizes them to the majority, by calling them “terrorists”, or “vermin”, “cattle”, “sub-human” or “spreaders of disease”, so people see them as “other”, not “us”, the more-so when they feel threatened. So people can justify to themselves ratting to the state on these “others”, who then are “disappeared”.¹⁰

Here are four examples. Before the Irish holocaust¹¹ ¹² the Irish were called “sub-human”. Before the Jewish holocaust they were portrayed as lice-ridden (i.e. a typhus risk). Before the Rwandan holocaust the “others” were called “cockroaches”. In the Holodomor the kulaks were called “unclean bloodsuckers”. ¹³ Is that sort of dehumanisation happening now?

In the current … episode, people inclined to forgo the jab produced by criminal organisations¹⁴ - for whatever reason - were caricatured in the media as “anti-vaxers”, “spreaders of disease” and now “domestic terrorists” - despite scientists and manufacturers claiming from the start that the vaccine did not affect transmission, merely symptoms. Of course TV pundits and politicians promised you more, but they were lying. They knew – (and you should have) – that the unvaccinated were not spreaders of disease, any more than the vaccinated. It was a deliberate lie, propaganda. This demonisation doesn’t bode well, does it?¹⁵

Those in power in collectivist regimes do and will regard you, and your children, as disposable. Is that the sort of government you want? ... because it’s coming in - right now.

If you concede mandating a vaccine just for your job security, or because you want to see everybody vaccinated, you do not just concede that the government knows best in this matter, but you concede the principle that the government can know best, and acts for "the greater good of the greater number" - which always includes them, and always excludes anyone who disagrees.

That needs repeating too.

If you concede mandating a vaccine, it's the thin end of a very large wedge: because you aren’t just conceding that the government knows best in this matter (mandating a vaccine), but you concede the principle that the government can know best, and should have the authority to tell people what to do. And in case it has escaped your attention, governments do not know best: they are – in general, in the long-term, as a group - corrupt, venal, self-seeking, sociopathic, group-thinking murderers. This is probably not how you are used to thinking about them: so look at the evidence (starting in footnote 8).

https://www.bobmoran.co.uk/prints

4 Power Corrupts

History shows that all societies need protection from their governments, which over time slowly get more and more tyrannical. Democracy may be a terribly flawed system, but it is the least bad.

Prof. R J Rummell’s conclusion, from decades of research into democide is this:

“The empirical and theoretical conclusion from these and other results is clear. The way to virtually eliminate genocide and mass murder appears to be through restricting and checking power. This means to foster democratic freedom. This is the ultimate conclusion of this project.”[footnote 8]

Now, when Lord Acton wrote

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

he had learned it inductively - from experience; but nowadays we can learn the same about the effect of power from psychological research. The sad fact is that normal people become sociopaths naturally when they are in power - unless they are very principled people.

Combine that with the fact that then corrupt people in power select the corruptible, the sociopaths, and psychopaths to help them; and over time scum floats to the top and accumulates. 2000 years ago the Romans had already learned this lesson, from history. The struggle between those who feel themselves to be in power, and the 99.99%, has gone on forever. How good do you think we have been at civilizing the arrogance out of the hyper-rich for the last 150 years? Good enough to quell their instincts? If you want a clear illustration of how they think, go to YouTube (or less censored video sites like Bitchute, Odysee, Rumble etc.) and do a search for "Madeleine Albright" and "worth it" and see the "Sixty Minutes" interview in which she admits to thinking that - so that she and her pals could get their way politically - it was worth killing children - and they killed 500 000 of them (amongst other things). The epitome of a sociopath! … so naturally she progressed from being UN Ambassador, to Secretary of State!

So another - more concise - way of expressing what is wrong with “The Greater Good” argument is this.

Most normal citizens are usually good at considering others - the greater good; but if you give the the state the power to mandate that behaviour, it will abuse it.

The purpose of a democracy is to minimise the power that you give to government. The understanding is that “we give you the power to govern, but if we don’t like what you do we can boot you out”.

Government abusing its power to mandate your behaviour is the most serious threat; but there is another: commonly the state (being made of humans) will get it wrong, and would therefore be forcing people to do harm. This principle stands whether mandating or encouraging people to take “the vaccine” did any harm in this case. But did taking the vaccine do more harm than good? If you are not aware that it caused a rate of increased morbidity and mortality on a scale not seen since World War 2, then you need to do more research, perhaps starting with Andrew Madry’s August 2023 paper.

Note, as shown on the graph, covid did not arrive here until 9 months AFTER the vaccination roll-out and concommitant rise in mortality, so, unlike elsewhere, there can be NO doubt that it was NOT due to “long covid”.

5 It’s Happening Again

People like Henry Kissinger, Justin Trudeau, Klaus Schwab, Madeleine Albright … think the China political model is just great! If they manage to introduce the “greater good” idea into legislation, then by scaring people with fake pandemics, fake “terrorists” (research “Operation Gladio”¹⁶) or fake Climate emergencies (harder to research, but have a go) … they will be able to put an unelected technocracy in place. A technocracy is rule by “experts”, i.e. with the disastrous assumption that the government does know best. (And do governments know best? NO! on average they kill remarkable numbers of their citizens, remember)?! Great for the technocrats – if a dog-eat-dog existence¹⁷; terrible for everybody else.

Forcing you to take a "vaccine" breaks the principle of "informed consent".

Demanding to know whether you are vaccinated or not (or - more obscenely - demanding to see a "health passport") breaks the principle of "patient confidentiality".

Putting a mask on a child is a medical intervention purporting to be for others' benefit - not the child's.

Even if you didn’t know that these 3 things were wrong, on principle, they did. If this is what your government is telling you, then they are a criminal organisation¹⁸. Are these the things that your government has been saying?

Rewriting the law

We need to watch out for the exceptions for “the greater good” that they sneak into legislation. You may think that the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights is great, and seems to have just the attitude you would want on discrimination, free speech, education, torture, peaceful assembly, family, leisure, community etc. But look at the Trojan Horse in the least conspicuous place – the penultimate thing on the list.

“29.3 These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes ... of the United Nations.”

For those who lack imagination … suppose that in 2030 a “purpose of the UN” is e.g. to reduce the population of an area for the sake of the ecology? How would that sit with you and your various rights?

Some of you (too few) have already noticed various rights being scrapped over the last two years: your “right” to work, to education, peaceful assembly, to free speech ... to life in many cases. They did this, as totalitarian governments always do, by invoking “the Greater Good” principle, after declaring an emergency (which turned out not to be an emergency, if you examine the All Causes deaths data).¹⁹

The UK is currently in the process of updating its Human Rights Act. They refer to balancing individual rights against “wider public interest” (recognise “the greater good”?); and they refer to the section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says (absurdly)

“Everyone has duties to the community [spot it now?] in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible”.²⁰

Whilst most normal people will indeed feel obligations towards others in their community (unlike the sociopaths and psychopaths running the programme) this has no place in a bill of rights of the individual.²¹

It’s not really about consideration, but about giving the state more power over you. How will you react the next time they declare rights suspended, that you should be imprisoned in your home or a quarantine camp? ²² They seem largely to have got away with it over the last two years; but if they’ve established that principle in people’s minds – and it seems that they have - then things are about to get a lot worse.

Around the World legislation is progressing which makes clear that the world-wide “medical martial law” that James Corbett warned of more than a decade ago is being implemented. ²³ And how did he know? From simultaneous changes implemented around the globe giving power to the WHO. And now your government is about to legislate to give them even more power. See the footnotes for the example of South Africa, how its National Health Act is being amended. ²⁴ The WHO will be the supreme authority. Are you happy with a One World Government?

6 Your Government is abusing you

“Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it.”
Adolf Hitler

Your government has told you many lies recently, some of them requiring no special expertise to spot (… as well as many that did require some expertise, of course). For example "children are virtually unaffected by this virus; and do not pass it on - therefore we need them to wear masks²⁵ and keep a regimented distance from others …” and now – incredibly – “vaccinate them". Here are two quotations from Hitler illustrating “catching them young”:

“Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state.”

“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community’."

Just look at the obscene obedience training going on in schools today.

Even if you haven't managed to spot the many lies (almost wherever you are in the World) I hope you can see that governments are breaking international law and vital ethical principles - informed consent, patient confidentiality, and medical treatment for YOUR benefit rather than society's.

Humanity had to make the same mistake - falling for the collectivist lie (“the greater good”) - over and over again in the twentieth century in order to learn this, at a cost of hundreds of millions of lives. Let’s not do it again.

Let’s pay attention when there is a fascist coup. It crept up on the Germans in the ‘30s, but we’re going to learn from their example, aren’t we? not turn a blind eye or stick our head in the sand. We know the old, old collectivist canard, don’t we? If you can’t explain it, re-read section 3 (What is wrong with "the greater good"?) until you can.

7 The Right Attitudes

• So - the correct answer to the question "should we mandate a vaccine" is "no, of course not - on principle. I’ve read the Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights”! Compliance would be tantamount to complicity.

• The correct answer to “have you taken the vaccine?” is something like “thank you for taking an interest in my health, but that is a matter between me and my doctor (as you should know). You should read the Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights”. Compliance is tantamount to complicity.

• The correct response to a school forcing your children to wear masks – presumably for the sake of others, since they do nothing but harm to children - is simple after you’ve done a modicum of research. Persuade those in charge who are “just following orders” like good little Nazis, that their policy of forcing medical interventions on children for the benefit of others is unethical (even if there really were a benefit to others). Show them the Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights. If this proves difficult, recruit help. If this proves unsuccessful remove your child.

Compliance is tantamount to complicity.

8 Face up to unpleasant realities

The definition of terrorism is “the use of fear for political ends”. By their own admission, the government used fear to achieve their ends,²⁶ and their ends were political rather than health. This should be clear now, since they are not ending the state of emergency now that it is obvious there isn’t an emergency, but are introducing special ID “passports” and digital money. Using fear for political ends makes them a terrorist organisation. (Bear that in mind when you come to pay your taxes – there are laws against funding terrorist organisations)! ;-)

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”

… said Adolf Hitler – as well as those nice people at SAGE, apparently (SAGE being a group of “experts” advising the UK government).

At this juncture, most “governments” are run by terrorist organisations. There are probably some exceptions, but most have used the familiar tools of collectivist regimes on their populaces: create an emergency; declare special powers; remove individual rights; terrorism; lies; propaganda about “the greater good”; indoctrinate the young; and jack-booted, uniformed thugs (styled “police” rather than “Brownshirts” on this occasion). Hasn’t this just happened to you?

Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some of the United States e.g., run by agents of the World Economic Forum,²⁷ [DO check that footnote!] are not hiding the fact that they are now police states. Yet people indulge in wishful thinking, hoping that it’s all going to go back to normal, even though the implementers told you from the beginning that it won’t.

The fact that you didn’t have the automatic reflex to reject mandatory health interventions, prying into your medical history, and masking children shows a failure by those teaching history, or talking in school assembly or a pulpit, and of course the media.

And teachers - remember "ignorance of the law is no defence". It was through lots of little changes that seemed easier to comply with than not, that the Nazis came to power and changed society.

It is safe to say that the Nazis are generally agreed to be the "bad guys" in WW2 (to use George W Bush’s convenient if unsophisticated analysis). Well today’s tyrants are - or will be - much worse than the Nazis. Who will rescue you from a One World Power armed with drones, satelites and military robots? “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Are you looking forward to the World Economic Forum's "owning nothing and being happy"? Does that sound plausible to you? How does that chime with Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 17 - “Everyone has the right to own property ...” Unpleasant realities need facing, not burying your head in the sand. Look up Naomi Wolf’s 10 Steps to Fascism. ²⁸

The last two years were not about health, but “Health Passports”;

about obedience training when the state declares an emergency;

about accepting the idea that “the government knows what’s best for you”.

After WW2, to the Nazi populace who said “we didn’t know what was going on” we justified our condemnation of them by saying “well you should have done”. Well today – unlike the Nazis – we want to live in a democracy rather than a totalitarian state – where we are ultimately responsible for government decisions. And we have the internet. We certainly have little excuse for not informing ourselves about what is going on. Have you read the WEF website?

9 What to do

Your best hope of not slipping further into tyranny is to boycott²⁹ any unethical organisation, which mandates vaccines e.g.; and encourage others to do the same - whether you think this "vaccine" is a good idea or not. Always remember that it is the police – those who will be required to enforce the tyranny – who need convincing most, not antagonising. The reluctance of police to be cruel to people they are familiar with is why there is a campaign to replace police with UN troops.

“It is fortunate for governments that most people do not think” said Adolf Hitler.

If you have got to this day without realising that the biggest societal upheaval in human history is taking place around you, I would suggest that you should do something about it. Whilst you are zoned out in front of the TV you cannot think; … but you can be subjected to Pavlovian conditioning. Get rid of your TV; do some research; and practise thinking for yourself … or another of Hitler’s quotations will be demonstrated: “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched life as paradise.”

10 Principles matter: hold to them

If there is ever a pandemic in the traditional sense ³⁰ - i.e. one in which more people than usual die – you still won’t have to break your principles and coerce people to vaccinate. Explain; educate; encourage for sure; but in a real pandemic people will be easily persuaded: force will not be necessary. If you do use force, you will lose more than you gain; just as if you torture people, or break any other good principles, you lose more than you gain.

I have heard many people arguing against mandating this vaccine on the grounds that it is ineffective, or does more harm than good. Well, yes – that is getting increasingly obvious, and may be a bad idea in this case; but it misses the point. Even if there were a real pandemic, and the vaccine were a miracle cure, it would still be wrong to coerce, on principle!

You should have principles: practise applying them! We have learned from experience that these three principles -

• informed consent,

• patient confidentiality, and

• treatment for the benefit of the individual not society

are necessary to protect us from totalitarian government.

If you’ve got this far you know enough, that when you hear government spokesmen talking about mandating vaccines, you’ll hear what they are really saying:

“I’m a fascist, and you’re too stupid and ignorant to realise it”!

---

If you finished this whole article, well done! It’s wasn’t particularly difficult to read, but did require above average persistence. Amongst my other articles there are two (shorter, mercifully) which say something I think is important. Listen or read.

• Coping With Disagreement And Being Wrong
  which IS about the title, but various other things too. (One reader commented “this is lifechanging”)!

• Why You Should Stop Using the Concepts Left- and Right-wing

If you thought this worth reading, perhaps you know someone else who woud?

1. The agreement with Poland was a ruse to start a war with Germany, as can be seen by the following. Poland was led to believe that Germany would not invade if Poland had the backing of France and the UK; and so it continued to refuse to negotiate with Germany over the fate of the Germans in Danzig and E Prussia, geographically cut off from the rest of Germany by a strip of Poland (put in place in 1919 at the Treaty of Versaille), and subjected to increasing terrorism from Poles. But the secret protocol to Britain’s treaty of support to Poland stipulated aid not on principle, but only if Germany invaded, not the USSR - (which invaded a couple of weeks after Germany) - or any other European country. On the same day that Britain pledged its support of Poland, Lord Halifax stated, "We do not think this guarantee will be binding". Another British diplomat, Alexander Cadogan, wrote in his diary: "Naturally, our guarantee does not give any help to Poland. It can be said that it was cruel to Poland, even cynical" (as Poland learned at the end of the war). The Polish historian Paweł Wieczorkiewicz wrote, "Polish leaders were not aware of the fact that England and France were not ready for war. They needed time to catch up with the Third Reich, and were determined to gain the time at any price". Stanisław Mackiewicz (who had been prime minister of the Polish government-in-exile) stated in the late 1940s, "To accept London's guarantees was one of the most tragic dates in the history of Poland. It was a mental aberration and madness". [Quotations from Wikipedia]

2. I have put this in inverted commas, as it is as if this is what we “said” with our actions in response. This is not a quotation: it is just my distillation of our reaction.

3. An alternative view might be that these principles were NOT actually that important to the movers and shakers at Nuremberg, but it was part of a cynical PR exercise to convince everybody that the Nazis were really bad and the war had been worth fighting, having learned their lesson from their PR disaster of the end of WW1, when the populace learned that they had been lied to; that the war had been fought for power and resources, rather than principle; and had gone on twice as long as necessary killing even more sons and fathers, so that Germany could be destroyed; and du Pont et al. could make a lot more money. Russia spilt the beans when the US didn’t let them have the piece of land they had been promised for their contribution to the war. “Ah but you weren’t there at the end of the war, were you?” Look up the Sykes-Picot agreement.

4. A real example: look up the Reece Committee, starting with the 2 interviews on YouTube with Norman Dodd. (Do! It’s easy, and a great way of showing yourself that the gaps in your knowledge are serious, and preventing you from understanding what is going on)!

5. … (to the extent that such a thing exists).

6. I hope everybody is mindful of ... “on February 28, 1933, the government … proclaimed a state of emergency in a decree that suspended constitutional civil rights and enabled Hitler to decree further legislation without parliamentary confirmation.” [Holocaust Encyclopedia]

7. … even if for the wrong reason.

8. R J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/JCR.ART.HTM

9. Watch the movie “The Killing Fields” to get an intuitive idea of what it can look and feel like when there is a totalitarian takeover. The Khmer Rouge didn’t call it “The Great Reset”, but “Year Zero”. It’s free on YouTube at the time of writing.

10. First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, …
Then they came for the Jews ...
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me. Martin Niemöller

He said this slightly differently on different occasions, without a script; but always started with Communists.
I mention this dictum of Martin Niemöller’s for these reasons.

• First - this has happened before.

• They started with the most plausible group of purported villains. Communists made no bones about the fact that they thought you needed a bloody revolution in order to change society; and that their ambition was to do this world-wide. They had just murdered the middle class in Russia; and Europe was scared stiff it would spread there.

• They then adopted the gradual “boiling frogs” or Fabian approach: each step was only a little further than the last.

• Most people were not part of these groups, and regarded them as “other”. Niemöller’s group was ecclesiastical resistors.

11. Usually referred to as “the potato famine”. The failure of the potato crop was indeed real, but the main problem was most of the regiments of the British Empire’s army (at the height of its power) were in Ireland, removing all the other crops and livestock at bayonet point. The Times (of London) detailed cargoes arriving in London from Ireland, so the deliberate removal of all the food from the starving people who produced it can be verified.

12. In 1847 in “The Cork Examiner” newspaper (later called “The Examiner) used the term “holocaust” for that genocide.

13. Hatred Will Destroy You

14. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/biggest-pharmaceutical-lawsuits

15. Look up The Ten Stages of Genocide by Dr. Gregory Stanton.
1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality (antivaxer)…
2. SYMBOLIZATION (e.g. labling Jews with yellow stars) (mask, or lack of);
3. DISCRIMINATION: A dominant group uses law, custom, and political power to deny the rights of other groups (to travel, shop, work...)
4. DEHUMANIZATION One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases.
5. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias (UN troops in South Africa now).
6 POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda.
7 PREPARATION
8. PERSECUTION: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up (already done online, more effectively that the Nazis’ Hollerith computers – delivered & serviced for the Nazis by IBM subsidiaries DURING WW2).
9 EXTERMINATION
10. DENIAL
https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages

16. … by which I mean read a couple of books on it, not look it up in Wikipedia. You’ll discover that most of what you have been thinking of as self-motivated terrorists (like the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and the Red Brigade) were in fact run by the state – indirectly, on a need-to-know basis of course. If you hear of a terrorist action, your first thought should be that it was organised by the state.

17. For all the complicit - those of you who think that you are an “insider” - reflect on how that went for most of the “useful idiots” (as Stalin called you) implementing the Russian, Chinese and Nazi regimes! They all thought Utopia was coming, too. Did it?

18. … (even though not everyone in the government will be complicit of course).

19. I’m not saying there wasn’t a virus; nor that it didn’t kill lots of people, sadly and tragically; nor that many doctors weren’t put in a frightening, distressing position trying to treat sick people. I’m saying that it wasn’t a pandemic – as most people understand the word – because the total number of people who died was not significantly different from other years. To be sure it was a poor year – as you might expect when doctors and health “authorities” are instructed to close down lots of departments; to turn away people with chest infections rather than treat them; and, when they are admitted to hospital, to bribe health departments (tens of thousands of dollars per patient) to treat them with things that do more harm than good – Remdesevir or Midazolam, and intubation. But it was not exceptional – like the 1918 “flu”, AIDS or the Black Death.

I’m commenting on 2020, not 2021 and 2022, when there are serious increases in mortality, which seem to coincide with the novel injections.

20. You know you are in for trouble when law is written in such vague and undefined terms that can be construed however the state wishes.

21. This is not necessarily an obvious point. A helpful way to ponder it may be the following. This is a question of whether a “duty” is owed from the individual to the collective. Instead of putting yourself in the place the individual, trying to think of duties you may owe to society, imagine yourself in that “wider public”, and look over there at that individual they claim has duties to you. Can you think of any duty that that individual owes you – one that is not already covered by your rights (including basic laws, like theft, assault etc.)? I can’t; but this is what they are claiming. I would prefer to forgive or punish people’s occasional stupid or selfish acts than try and legislate for consideration (“duties to the community”).

22. … assuming they do ever revoke the “state of emergency”. I understand that the USA is still in the state of having their rights suspended in the state of emergency started on 9/11, renewed every year; organised as “Continuity of Government”.

23. https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-086-medical-martial-law

24. “15B Any person … must comply with an oral instruction ...[from] a medical practioner … subject himself to screening ...travel to … isolation or quarantine… pending the determination of his … notifiable medical condition status. If a person refuses to quarantine … compel …
A person who tests positive … must isolate …
An asymptomatic person who test positive for a notifiable medical condition listed in Annexure A, Table 1, 2 or 3 must… [Worth noting that Annexure A does not exist yet, but will enable them to amend the disease details without recourse to parliament].
15H The Department must develop… a national database to enable the tracing of persons who are known or reasonably suspected to have come into contact with any person known or reasonably suspected ...” etc. etc.

25. This is so easy to research I’m leaving it to you. They cut facial communication (possibly missing the window of opportunity in the case of young children), encourage infections, and lower oxygen levels. Bacteria grow on the warm damp interior, and fungi on the exterior, both of which you are better not inhaling. There’s 40 years of research demonstrating what you would expect, that masks do not affect respiratory viruses. Bacteria – yes, but viruses are a couple of orders of magnitude smaller. If you can breath through a mask without exhausting yourself, viruses get through. Just because a wire chain-link fence will stop a football, doesn’t mean it will stop a mosquito. Virions hang around in air so long that the distance travelled in the initial exhalation is irrelevant. The research they wheeled out in the “pandemic” purporting that there was a tiny advantage to wearing masks, was roughly equivalent to tossing a coin 20 times, getting 11 heads and 9 tails, and concluding it’s worth betting on heads for that coin.
Masks are splash-guards, not germ filters.

[Edit: see the 2020 Cochrane meta-study (study of all the studies) https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full

and the updated 2023 version
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full ]

26. Simon Ruda co-founder & Senior Director of the Behavioural Insights Team, January 2022:

“In my mind, the most egregious and far-reaching mistake made in responding to the pandemic has been the level of fear willingly conveyed on the public. Initially encouraged to boost public compliance, that fear seems to have subsequently driven policy decisions in a worrying feedback loop. Though I don’t think it’s fair to blame behavioural scientists [like me Simon Ruda!!] for propagating fear (I suspect that this was more to do with Government communicators and the incentives of news broadcasters). It may be worth reflecting on where we need to draw the line between the choice-maximising nudges of libertarian paternalism [excuse me if I vomit], and the creeping acceptance among policy makers that the state should use its heft to influence our lives without the accountability of legislative and parliamentary scrutiny.”
https://unherd.com/2022/01/how-the-government-abused-nudge-theory/

Just for fun lets paraphrase that.

“Yes, we taught the government how to manipulate you without your noticing, but don’t blame us! We’d like to pretend that our advice was innocent and helpful; but somehow - when the government and media actually followed our advice, bypassing legal restraints - (no, don’t mention Hitler) - somehow it became obvious it was egregious abuse.

"The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. " SAGE March 2020, 2 days before lockdown. [Hmm ... what emotion would that be? Joy, sadness … or fear?]

[Edit: and now we have the text messages from Hancock, including “frighten the pants off everybody” with the next variant.]

27. Here is a quotation from Klaus Schwab, in 2017, at Harvard. You’ll find video of this if you look. E.g. https://odysee.com/@DaAlternative:9/Our-Young-Global-Leaders-penetrated-half-the-cabinets-Klaus-Schwab-2017:2

"What we are very proud of, is that we penetrate the global cabinets of countries with our WEF Young Global Leaders." "... and I have to say, when I mention our names - like Mrs. Merkel, even Vladimir Putin - they all have been Young Global Leaders of the WEF. But what we are very proud of now, is the YOUNG generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau, the President of Argentina and so on. So we penetrate the cabinets. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I KNOW that half of his cabinet - or even more - are actually our Young Global Leaders of the WEF. Same in Argentina."

Organisations exist for manoeuvring the “right” people into lower positions in society too. Learn about “Common Purpose” functioning for decades in the UK.

28. 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create a gulag.
3. Develop a thug caste.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Dissent equals treason.
10. Suspend the rule of law

29. Research how effective the Jewish boycott of German goods starting in 1933 was, and how they went about it in the US, picketing any stores that had any German goods.

30. Most people understand “pandemic” to mean a temporary widespread disease which is serious, i.e. one in which significantly more people than usual die (typically at least 10% more). But the WHO changed their definition in 2009 to remove this last criterion. So now, by their definition, there is a pandemic every year, when the latest cold virus routinely sweeps around the Northern hemisphere each Autumn, carrying off those with immune systems that are too aged to cope with a new threat. So it is important to realise that a “pandemic” (in this definition) is not normally an emergency (if about the same number of people die as every other year – as happened in 2020). So no emergency powers should be invoked. In 2020 a lot of people died of a chest infection, from a new virus, as happens every year.

2009 just happened to be not only when they mendaciously changed their definition, but also, co-incidentally, the time when countries around the World changed their laws such that when the WHO declares a pandemic, they would hand over control to the “experts”. … which is how some of us knew a decade ago that a “medical martial law” would be coming sometime!