The most important morally - ethically - socially and otherwise important question at the moment with regard to vaccine passports, which is not discussed by any media or legal 'expert', is whether it is legally and morally acceptable to restrict people's rights to force the government to experiment with syringes. ?

Apart from, of course, the statements of the greatest experts, as the father of the nation, that the rights of the whole person end where the rights of the squirt begin. But who are the ones who decide such questions, where does such a concept come from?

The public as a whole hardly has an idea of ​​what is currently being used and what the consequences will be, because the Pandora's box is open. But the main argument of the Crown Cult, which is used in favor of the syringe and the Crown passport, is the so-called 'social contract'. 'public good' In other words, this team has the right to intervene or micro-manage the personal life of each individual if it can affect the larger group in some way. In general, this concept appeared several centuries ago, it was already discussed by Plato, but in the Middle Ages the idea was addressed by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. An entire wikipedia section in Latvian is dedicated to this.

However, this idea was most radically expressed in socialism and Marxism. Strange as it may seem, so far the ideas of Marx and the Bolsheviks were something terrible for us as well - there was collectivization and common property, there was no right to individual private expression in business and so on.

But now the very idea of ​​Marxism is the basic argument of the vaccinators. Those who now chant it are exactly the same Marxists and collectivists, and their current motives are very different from what it was then, when collectivization was the only way to save the country and win the coming war. Swab Resets is the complete opposite process. This is neotrockism, and these people who impose it see themselves as entitled to decide on behalf of society as a whole - when they talk about society, they think very differently. You live in our society, they say and we decide here what is better for you.

And that is why this public contract is a fundamental element of this propaganda. They argue that being squirting is no longer a personal freedom because we are a risk to others. Consequently, this agreement is being violated and they have the right to interfere with our bodies or expel us from society if there is no way to force us to inject this syringe. And there is no evidence that healthy people are in any way at risk for injectors. If masks and syringes work, then it is not possible at all. But we know that nothing works, but the reasons are completely different.

But the most amusing thing is that they use the exact same logic when it comes to, for example, the right to abortion. Every year in the United States alone, 800,000 abortions are performed, there is Planned Parenthood around the world, which is the same Eugene movement and the same vaccinators - the Bill and Melinda Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and everyone else. efforts to legalize it in as many countries as possible.

What is their main slogan? My body, my choice! How so? It turns out that it works when you need to kill children and reduce the world's population, but it doesn't work when you don't want to inject yourself with a potentially lethal substance - that doesn't allow you to reduce the population the way globalists plan.

And they are exactly the same organizations, the same propagandists, who are defending these abortions and the woman's right to choose to kill her child at the same time, but at the same time chanting that the right to the body does not exist when it comes to choosing vaccines. It can be seen everywhere. The most striking example in the United States is CNN medical expert Leana Wen - this Chinese woman is constantly demanding that everyone be vaccinated and discriminated against - they must have no rights. But her previous job was directly at the Planned Parenthood organization. Before the plan, she was its president and constantly engaged in abortion propaganda. Today, she is engaged in propaganda propaganda. Such an example is endless.

These double standards are quite blatant, but where are the human rights experts on these issues - no one has even imagined comparing these things. You have the right to choose whether to maintain or terminate your pregnancy. This choice is part of your human rights, namely the right to privacy. And this choice is not threatened by any sanctions, there is no discrimination.

Now try to apply the same to injections or masks - here magically the right ends. Because the main aim is to restrict access, not to save lives - it is not possible to promote abortion and vaccines at the same time. If people understand this absurdity, it will open the eyes of many.