It is not news that the World Economic Forum wants to sell the controversial Covid vaccination as the only way out of the beloved “pandemic”. Klaus Schwab has never made a secret of the fact that he wants to use Covid-19 to implement his globalist “Great Reset” agenda – the green “health pass” is not just a welcome, but simply a necessary control instrument for the world’s population the WEF thinks it is perfectly legitimate to give up its own anti-discrimination course, which is otherwise enthusiastically swept out, as soon as it comes to the fight against unvaccinated people.
A comment by Vanessa Renner
When it comes to manipulable fringe groups such as the LGBT community, the WEF is constantly raving about Equality and human rights – and in the course of this also repeatedly accuses companies of disregarding the rights of these people, for example transsexuals are often not hired or only in poorly paid positions.
The question of whether compulsory vaccinations (and thus the massive discrimination against unvaccinated people) represent a violation of human rights, on the other hand, is a calm one: one appeals to one Articles on the topic quite loosely on WEF-related “experts” – and notes: No, since everyone in the world has a basic right to “protection” from Covid-19, compulsory vaccination is probably well tolerable. Ultimately, it’s their own fault: Vaccination obligations and other coercive measures ultimately come from the fact that too few people are vaccinated.
Napoleon did not go far enough
One does not shy away from the comparison to the “strong man” from France, Napoleon Bonaparte. So it says literally in the article of the WEF:
Even Napoleon couldn’t force everyone to get vaccinated. The strong French man managed to subdue most of Europe to his will, but when it came to smallpox, all he could do was encourage his compatriots to be immunized against the deadly disease as a civic duty.
One could almost feel sorry for the tyrant and dictator who killed the 3.5 million people is responsible for: he certainly always wanted the best for his compatriots. A Klaus Schwab would certainly say the same of himself, who should be in no way inferior to Napoleon when it comes to megalomaniac and dictatorial ideas.
It also says:
In a way, not much has changed. Governments and private sector employers around the world have urged those lucky enough to have access to COVID-19 vaccines to take them – sometimes with targeted mandates, but often only with civic prompts, much like at Napoleon.
Compulsory vaccination is not a violation of human rights
The fact that unvaccinated people refuse the saving shot seems to be the point of ingratitude. Of course, “civil requests” do not go far enough for the WEF here. Napoleon could undoubtedly have learned a lot from politicians of today about direct and indirect compulsory vaccination: The WEF itself cites a few examples from all over the world – the loss of jobs and the denial of the right to education for unvaccinated people are also mentioned. These measures served the “security” of the people, it is said. People show little understanding for protests:
Some argue that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are human rights violations. Not really, experts say actual Human rights violations.
In fact, some point to that more basic Everyone’s right to protection against COVID-19 – especially since the delta variant is becoming more widespread, especially among the unvaccinated.
We hang on to: According to the WEF, critics of compulsory vaccinations seem to have no idea of “actual human rights violations” – the right of the world’s population to “protection” for Covid-19 is much more “fundamental”. The only difference is that it has been proven that the vaccinations do not offer any protection worth mentioning – especially not for people in the vicinity of vaccinated persons. This was well known at the time the article was published at the end of August.
Vaccine damage irrelevant
Incidentally, as “experts”, the WEF brings the EU-funded “Global Campus of Human Rights”, Who is openly committed to the UN 2030 Agenda, the goals of which are congruent with those of the“ Great Reset ”. One of the goals that people particularly refer to on campus: “Reduced Inequalities” (number 10, in pink).
The only problem that the Global Campus has with vaccination requirements is that they particularly affect those ethnic minorities who are generally known for being unwilling to vaccinate. The “common man” is not interested in this. And as long as you can buy enough scientists who describe the vaccines as “safe”, serious side effects can be dismissed as irrelevant individual cases:
For example, only safe and effective vaccines can be part of a national vaccination policy. However, that is a matter for the scientific community, not for the General Court (paragraph 291). If experts consider a vaccine safe, a few children with severe and persistent side effects (around five or six in 100,000 children per year) will not make a vaccination requirement disproportionate (para. 301).
This is the tax money of EU citizens at work: Dead children are officially allowed here – pardon – get shit.
Compulsory vaccination as an “attractive option”
The WEF closes its article with the fact that in view of the doubts sown in the past about “science” (for example due to the harmful swine flu vaccination campaign), under certain circumstances “maybe” the focus should be on building new trust – but only maybe. The obligation to have a Covid vaccination certainly appears to be an “attractive option” to “curb the spread of the disease”.
The article ends with a tweet from journalist Dan Rather with the following wording (translated into German):
Wear a mask. Vaccinate. Maybe another booster. Serious sacrifices for personal freedom? For real??? It’s not that we’re asking you to storm Normandy’s beaches. It is the bare minimum to save your life and maybe the lives of others – including the children. Smdh [Anmk: shaking my damn head].
The “few dead children” who died after the vaccination could of course see it differently.