It is early February 2015 and already there have been over 25 reported cases (partial listing) of medical kidnapping in the US this year where the government or CPS remove children from parents who opt out of conventional medicine in favor of alternative remedies. In many cases, the children are subsequently given chemotherapy, vaccinations, or psychotropics against their will or the will of their parents.
Assuming that this reported number is only the tip of the iceberg, this story is a complex and sinister nightmare slowly unfolding as more attention is drawn to it. With nearly 1 child kidnapped everyday for medical reasons alone, it would seem that the most pertinent question is this: Whose right is it to make medical decisions for minors, the parents or the government?
The State as a Surrogate Parent
Let’s explore this step by step. It is the parents’ right to have a child. It is the parents’ right to decide how to give birth, what to name the child, where to send him/her to school, what subjects and languages to teach, what religion to force, how to discipline, at what age they can stay home alone, what sports they can play, when they can start dating, when they can start driving, whether or not drinking and smoking are allowed at home, etc. Many of these have the potential to screw the child up for life, but they are all virtually unsupervised and parents can exercise full discretion. When parents make a well-informed, cautious decision to turn down chemotherapy, pharmaceuticals, or vaccines, those parents immediately incriminate themselves legally.
When a parent chooses to feed their child fast food and junk food, predisposing that child to myriad of health issues and a compromised lifespan, the government does not step in to protect the child. When a parent spanks a child, even though there is over 30 years of data irrefutably linking corporal punishment to lowered IQ, violence, and sociopathy, the government does nothing to protect the child.
The truth is a large percentage of parents would rather outsource the most critical duties of parenthood to the State. Whether it is education or health, they beg the government to do the job for them. Parents willingly send away their children for 14 years, (from age 4 to 18) 7 hours a day/180 days a year to be with a set of complete strangers who are given carte blanche to indoctrinate your child however they see fit. With children’s health, the story remains the same.
CPS & the Underground Child-Trafficking/Pedophilia Syndicate
Carlos Morales is a former CPS employee who has come forward with testimony of the billion dollar child trafficking ring within the US government. There have been other testimonies detailing the CPS’s child abduction quota, pedophilia, and “disappearing” children who simply vanish into the cracks of the system and are untraceable. This report shows that children who are taken away from parents by CPS routinely wind up in the sex trafficking trade.
No Longer Conspiracy Theory: Mandatory Vaccinations a Hot Topic for 2016 Presidential Race
Three of the GOP candidates – Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal – are campaigning for the office of presidency with the stringent devotion to make mandatory vaccinations enforceable by law. For over a decade, those warning of a day when inoculations would be forced on the public were excoriated as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Unfortunately, the “I told you so party” will be a somber one as rampant autism is a bit of a downer at social gatherings.
Last year, 58 bills were proposed in 24 US states to mandate inoculations. This is actively happening.
Recently, Alex Berezow, a troll of a journalist if ever there was one, wrote an opinion piece for USA Today calling for the imprisonment of “anti-vax parents.” Infowars invited Berezow to debate vaccine science publicly and to defend his position, but Berezow backed out before giving the interview.
There is currently a petition on WhiteHouse.gov to prohibit and laws mandating the force and requirement of vaccinations of any kind which has over 16,000 signatures at the time of this writing.
3 Philosophical Inconsistencies
- If the majority of the public chooses to vaccinate themselves, that is their right to do so. Theoretically, they have then preemptively armed themselves against whatever it is the vaccine was intended to prevent. So when an individual opts out of a vaccination, there should be no conflict between those vaccinated and those unvaccinated.
- A forced inoculation is rape (see my related article comparing fluoridation to rape). Without consent, society is essentially admitting that governments or health agencies do not have to abide by the same civil law that the public has to abide by. This “do as I say, not as I do” attitude is hypocritical at best and teaches that “might is right” and those with power can break any rules they deem irrelevant.
- Whistleblowers on corruption are labeled ‘threats’ … or worse: terrorists. WTF? Both Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Dr. William Thompson were slandered in mainstream headlines although their testimonies shook the medical community with grave implications for a massively orchestrated public health conspiracy.
Brainwashing the Public to Accept Small Amounts of Harm
To those within the box of conventional medicine, there is no such thing as passive immunity, or natural resistance to pathogens, or immunoglobulins, or the body responding naturally to the flu and healing itself, or herbal remedies. What worries any sane man is the downright scary philosophy that underpins the vaccination dogma.
Pro-vaccination zealots propagate the belief that man should willingly and happily accept a small dosage of something harmful, toxic, or dangerous. Here, we are only talking about the known dangers of the dormant flu virus contained in shots – leaving aside the issue of adjuvants, heavy metals, etc. for now. These control-freaks believe man should accept the health risks willingly to improve his health insofar as to make him a better member of society.
By extension, this philosophy, when applied socially, entails that man must concede to emotional and psychological injustices for the ‘greater good’ of the collective. Beyond that, we are being trained to allow the State access into our bodies. The very symbolism of piercing the flesh with a hollow tube that can both inject and withdraw eerily nods to control, vampirism, and transhumanism.
The ‘Greater Good’ & ‘Means to an End’
Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a code of morality arrived at logically. Therefore, the universality of that moral code holds up to rational criticism and does not contradict itself. Kant’s social position, often referred to as his “Humanity formula,” therefore states that it is explicitly immoral to use another person as a means to an end. Rather, he argued that one must act with a means that is an end in itself.
This is frequently interpreted in many fashions, but there is some consensus that Kant believed that no will is justifiable if it uses someone solely as a means for personal desire. Two individuals engaging in a consensual business transaction is ethical as it solely pertains to this example, for each party is considering the other’s benefit as well as their own. However, any social action where one party is shorting another in value as a means to obtain that which is desired as an end is immoral because it cannot logically be applied universally.
Universally Preferable Behavior
Modern philosopher Stefan Molyneaux, host of FreeDomainRadio, the largest philosophy show worldwide, in his freely available book Universally Preferable Behaviour: a Rational Proof for Secular Ethics, he takes Kant’s proposition further.
Ethics cannot be objectively defined as “that which is good for man’s survival.” Certain individuals can survive very well by preying on others, so this definition of ethics does not overcome the problem of subjectivism. In biological terms, this would be analogous to describing evolutionary tendencies as “that which is good for life’s survival” – this would make no sense. Human society is an ecosystem of competing interests, just as the rainforest is, and what is “good” for one man so often comes at the expense of another.
Molyneaux states that UPB is, by definition of its own, the only logical code of morality that does not contradict itself. UPB is a priori objectively required actions which are specific to stated, or logically deduced, desired outcomes. Furthermore, UPB is action that can be proposed as a rule binding upon all members of a given biological category, in all places and at all times, without engaging in performative contradiction. The philosophy presupposes the Non-Aggression Principle and syllogistically argues its legitimacy.
According to Universally Preferable Behavior, and piggybacking on Kant’s Categorical Imperative, forced inoculations are logically immoral and violate rational ethics by essence of self-contradiction. This is evidenced by its a) non-universal applicability, b) existence as a means to an end, and c) violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.
Those Who are Most Afraid & Neurotic are the Loudest & Most Forceful Members of Society
In Carl Jung’s 1917 dissertation Psychology of the Unconscious, on page 261 he writes of men and women who, due to doubt, discontentment, internalized oppression, or repressive tendencies, fight reality in a representative way of their own inner war. Jung says that those who are most hostile are the most fearful and resort to externalizing their own doubt in the form of an adversary.
Much is said of pious people who remain unshaken in trust in God and wander unswervingly safe and through the world. I have never seen this Chid-her yet. It is probably a wish figure. The rule is great uncertainty among believers, which they drown with fanatical cries among themselves or among others; moreover, they have religious doubts, moral uncertainty, doubts of their own personality, feelings of guilt, and deepest of all great fear of the opposite aspect of reality, against which the most highly intelligent people struggle with all their force. This other side is the devil, the adversary, or expressed in modern terms, the corrective of reality, of the infantile world picture, which has been made acceptable through the predominating pleasure principle. But the world is not a garden of God, of the Father, but a place of terrors. Not only is heaven no father and earth no mother and the people not brothers nor sisters, but they represent hostile, destroying powers to which we are abandoned the more surely, the more childishly and thoughtlessly we have entrusted ourselves to the so called Fatherly hand of God.
Jung points out that the “adversary” is the “corrective of reality” that elevates one to a new level of understanding. When we fight the “adversary” (a new truth) we are resisting our own spiritual growth. We have allowed ourselves to operate with an incomplete and outmoded “infantile world picture” or belief system because we seek the pleasure of complacency and not the pain of growth. It is only after making peace with our inner adversarial demons that we can understand the enemy without is the teacher within.