The limitless moral paternalism of one single opinion

One of the striking phenomena of opinion formation is the moralizing trend that is there now. This is a kind of dictatorship of morality, which in itself is of course contradictory. But man is a being with an individual conscience, and in moral matters he engages individually with that conscience. And although we are dealing with universal moral principles, we have to fulfill them ourselves , according to our conscience. This is one of the freedoms of man, which we should not put on hold, especially in this corona crisis.Watch video on YouTube

We are forced to adopt a certain morality. And this is done with a violence, with a vehemence for which I have no other word than to say that it is disgusting. Last time I referred to a message on the WHO website about the use of the RT-PCR test, that message was posted on 14 December and to our surprise it was no longer there. However, we have published a link to a pdf with the full text of that article and furthermore, a kind of summary of it can be found as a kind of newsletter, dated 20-01-2021 and we will publish that link as well. The interview with Professor Levi was published in the NRC as I would almost say a relativising piece under a piece about the disastrous situation in London, so it was published in the NRC under the title "it seemed worse than it is". For the time being, I will not stop being amazed by everything that happens and since it appears that there are people who like to share their amazement with me, I will continue to make these videos. One of the striking phenomena in the formation of opinion is the moralising trend. And that is a kind of dictatorship of morality, which is of course a contradiction in itself. As far as I am concerned, the human being is a being with an individual conscience and, in moral questions, let's say individually, talks to this conscience, although the conscience is, of course, universal. It's not that everyone can make up their own moral principles, but what and how you deal with them I see as an absolute freedom of the human being, which may not be immediately available, but which we certainly shouldn't put on hold right now. And in a certain sense that is what happens, because we are forced to adopt a certain morality. And this is done with a violence, with a vehemence for which I have no other word than to say that it is disgusting. Look, in the past people also died from infectious diseases, and these were often people who died from the complications of flu and these were people who were old. And these people, when you spoke to them, they spoke of themselves as I am old and tired of days. What does that mean? Life is worn out, I have to go. And in the hospital there was a friend of the old man and he was called ‘the old man's friend'. That was the pneumonia that occurred in old people who had no chance of a longer healthy life and who then died of an infectious disease. Now, when you say something like that, what are you? You are actually saying something criminal, something immoral. And what is not immoral, what is not criminal, is to let your old father or your old mother or your grandfather or your grandmother die in solitude. That is not so bad, but bad is when you respect the natural course of life. And you can sometimes be surprised at how that morality is reversed. Because when we look at vaccinations, the possibilities of doing so and the practice of vaccinating on a large scale, then of course side effects are to be expected and the more you vaccinate, the greater the chance of side effects. And I quote an interview with Marc van Ranst. Published in the NRC, he is professor of virology at the Catholic University of Leuven and sits on the expert group that advises the Belgian government on Corona measures. He is a man with a certain charisma, liked by certain people, appears a lot on television and he has a certain way of expressing himself and of course you have to take that into account, but I want to read it anyway because it makes one think. He says: 

How do we ensure that enough people get vaccinated? 

"These are actually the honeymoon period of vaccination. People are fighting to be the first to be vaccinated. But there comes a time when people die after being vaccinated. If you vaccinate a hundred thousand people, a few will always drop dead the day after. They would have dropped dead otherwise too, but it's going to be an enormous boost for the anti-vaccine movement. So you shouldn't make vaccinations compulsory; that would be the biggest gift we could give the movement. You don't want a vaccine? Be my guest. I'm not going to try to convince those people. But they should realise that their choice has consequences.

"As long as everyone hasn't had the chance to be vaccinated, we're not going to make a distinction. It would be a dystopian society if some people were allowed to go to parties because they are vaccinated and others are not. But if everyone has had the chance, then it is something else. As far as I am concerned, countries or airlines should be able to say: you cannot get in without a vaccination certificate. Decisions have consequences; that's the case with every choice in our lives."

Well, that is clear language, I read it mainly because of the falling dead, so apparently that is not so bad after a vaccination, but after a coronavirus infection it is. Of course I understand that this man does not mean it, but he does say it. And he says it rather rudely, which is something I wanted to bring to your attention.

Furthermore, this week is the week of Davos 21. The conference in Davos will not take place because there is no possibility because of COVID-19 and has been moved to May in Singapore, that will be the location. But there is a digital form of this meeting week, and while the meetings that take place there are always closed, this is not be done now, of course, so this digital conference you can more or less follow and you will see that all the major world leaders will be speaking there. For example, the Chinese president, the French president, the German chancellor, the secretary-general of the United Nations and so on. And what's more, you can click on different themes and you will find certain documents that deal with that theme. I wrote down what I wanted to read the day after, so I could still find it the day after because I had the title, but the day after that this article had already become untraceable, so in that sense it's difficult to keep track of it because there are so many themes that come up. But what interested me, among all the other things that interest me, was the question of a vaccination passport. There is a very clear idea about that in this meeting of the World Economic Forum. Also a, you could say, plan, which is being worked out and a collaboration with the WHO. And I will read a bit from it, although of course it always disturbs the speed of the speech when I read it out, but I have to do it so that it is also literal and I will also do it in English, as well as I can and I will call the WHO "who" so when you hear "who", that is the WHO.

Citaat: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/what-is-a-vaccine-passport-and-will-you-need-one-the-next-time-you-travel/

The expectation is that with a vaccine, some aspects of life will return to normal – especially when it comes to travel – which has been particularly hard-hit. This is where a “vaccine passport” or “e-vaccination certification of compliance for border crossing regulations” to enable seamless border-crossing and the harmonization of varying national laws might become a required travel document.

There are important questions to be asked, however, around whether vaccinations prevent transmission, the difference between evidence of inoculation and evidence of immunity, and the rights of those people who may be unable to have the vaccine for health or other reasons. 

What is the WHO’s role?

There is currently an effort at the WHO to create standards that would process data on the types of vaccinations, how these are channelled into health and healthcare systems registries, the use cases – beyond the management of vaccination campaigns – include border control but also possibly in the future access to stadia or large events. By establishing in a truly ethical fashion harmonized standards, we can avoid a scenario whereby you create two classes of citizens – those who have been vaccinated and those who have not. 

So rather than building a set of rules that would be left to the interpretation of member states or private-sector operators like cruises, airlines or conveners of gatherings, we support the WHO’s effort to create a standard for member states for requesting vaccinations and how it would permit the various kinds of use cases.

It is important that we rely on the normative body (the WHO) to create the vaccine credential requirements. The Forum is involved in the WHO taskforce to reflect on those standards and think about how they would be used. The WHO’s goal is to deploy standards and recommendations by mid-March 2021, and the hope is that they will be more harmonized between member states than they have been to date in the field of diagnostics.

So it all sounds very honest, and so there will certainly be a passport as far as this forum is concerned, still with a number of critical questions being asked, such as how do you decide when someone has not been vaccinated, he has the right to do so, and how do you deal with this, but the intention is that a system is developed at supra-regional, supra-national, i.e. global, level by which travel, but also participation in large events can be properly regulated, in such a way, as is possible with information technology, that you combine various aspects in a programme and can then see exactly whether someone can participate safely or not. The idea is that all this data will eventually result in a qr code that can then be scanned, revealing whatever lies behind the code, or let's just say that a red or green light will start flashing, so that you will or will not be admitted. The intention according to this plan is that the WHO will devise and design the supra-national security measures so that this can be applied in a fair manner.

We have experienced in the past that in the government every now and then a statement was made that either vaccination will not be compulsory, or yes, people who do not get vaccinated may no longer be able to do everything that the people who do get vaccinated can do, it may have consequences as Marc van Ranst also clearly states. Now after reading this report it becomes very clear that it is already in an advanced stage, This is a global agreement that was made in such a way that the various national governments more or less signed the agreements before they were visible in terms of content and then had to abide by them. So our government can say no, we won't do that, but they also have to say yes, we will do that, because eventually that will come about, of course, it has already been decided. And the only thing the citizen can do is to delve into what else has been laid down and try to fathom where it goes back to, what the basis of it is. And that has nothing at all to do with conspiracy theories because, as I said, it is open, you can find it everywhere, it can be found not only at the WEF but also in the agenda 2030 of the United Nations, only here in this article Davos 21 it is very concretely stated as already existing and worked out, only there are still a number of questions that need to be answered but that it is going to happen seems to be beyond doubt and the governments have long since agreed to it.

I started by saying that the trend in our time is now that people are moralising. You are told by government leaders, and if you don't hear it from them, then you are told by certain citizens' groups, what you have to abide by, what you have to think, how you have to judge things, and if in good conscience you come to have a different opinion, then you have actually become an outcast in the eyes of public opinion. There was a tendency in the development of humanity towards freedom, and this freedom was supposed to take place above all in the realm of conscience. Again, every human being has an individual conscience. And it seems to me a very good thing, if every person consults his individual conscience and listens to it well, doesn't hide it but tries to hear what his conscience has to say, and then tries to improve himself, because everyone can do that. I mean everybody has to improve. There is no one who can live completely in accordance with a moral conscience, that is a process of development. That's what we should do, start with ourselves, of course it's a worn out saying: improve the world, start with yourself, but it's so true.

Criticism of scientific content should always be possible, of course. Because that is the hallmark of science, that it is possible to bring in and present other research findings and to enrich the scientific discussion with them. But this is no longer allowed. Scientists who come up with research results that do not fit the moral standard that is currently being imposed are put aside and given very nasty names. And in their place has come the limitless moral paternalism of one single opinion.