Freedom of conscience vs. global population policies (Part 10)
By Alan Mercer
Continuing from Part 9
Disaster Preparedness
Also, with the same document, readers might notice the section on “Disaster Preparedness” (page 14).
The tone of the document presupposes the legitimacy and truth of declared pandemics and health emergencies, as well as the legitimacy of the types of treatments that are lined up by the supposed authorities. So it discusses the ethics of how doctors should be treated in order to convince them to serve, but it doesn’t discuss the possibility that those directing the response to the crisis might be spewing pure crap–propaganda–day and night for the sake of a political agenda or undemocratic or malevolent policy decision made behind closed doors (most decisions are made at international meetings).
This means that doctors are just part of a command and control structure. As with everyone else, they are supposed to act like mindless machines which follow orders from this magical organism we call the government–the new God. If you’ve noticed, more and more, the government tells us when there is an “emergency” or “crisis” or “disaster”. Otherwise, how would we know? And they tell us how to jump and how high. And then we turn over our power and independence to the government, and maybe they’ll give us a pat on the head or stick us in a camp if we’re “lucky.”
And apparently, automatic mindless obedience to the State is the role of doctors also.
Another word for receiving and following instructions (authoritarianism) is Cybernetics. That’s what it’s all about.
The sequence is:
Opportunistic use of an emergency (sometimes created through terroristic means) – “Red Alert” – God is speaking – Feel the fear – Insert brainwashing guilt-inducing politically correct slogans instead of real information – OBEY – As an unthinking robot, don’t think about the consequences (legal or moral) of your prescription or your injection or your forcing people into camps, etc. – Receive your Pavlovian pat on the head afterwards
One of the purposes of government-controlled health care and “public health” is centralized control of society. And nowadays, that centralized control is more and more globalized and seemingly directed from the United Nations. As designed. So you may have noticed the vaccination advisories coming directly from the United Nations World Health Organization to your workplace email in some cases. Your attention is captured. Your job, whatever kind of work it is, is interrupted by “something more important.” “Pay attention.” “It’s an emergency. It’s a lock-down. It’s a crisis.” Blah blah blah. No need for you to think or question. Just obey. Think of the amazing possibilities in such a world–where you can switch off your mind and just do what you’re told by the new “God.”
Well, in my view that’s what disaster preparedness is all about, whether it’s about a weather event or an alleged “pandemic”, or an alleged terrorist act (always has to be defined by the government–you’re not allowed to decide yourself what it is). That’s what declaring “emergencies” is all about. The money is called up (comes from us) and the servants go into action. Nobody asks you what you think. Just get really worried and do what you’re told.
The point is that doctors are just being told to participate in “pandemics” and “public health emergencies” regardless of their own judgment. What about the ethics of the recommended treatment? What about issues of responsibility as doctors for the actions they are being recruited for? This is what I think of when reading pages 14-16 about “disaster and pandemic preparedness.” Doctors have a natural ethical obligation to be thinking very carefully about what they are doing with that needle or with those pills. It doesn’t matter what kind of “authority” is handing out the latest products to them and telling them what to do.
It’s obvious where things are going with the collectivist agenda.
Look at the number of deaths experienced in the twentieth century with all the wars and the construction of nuclear weapons. Do you really think the power structure is trying to look after everyone?
Here are a couple of links with the nice round numbers:
- The famous discussion by Bill Gates: the reason we have the religion of climate change and carbon reduction
- The message of the Georgia Guidestones
WMA Statement on Family Planning and the Right of a Woman to Contraception (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c13/)
. . .
The WMA recommends that National Medical Associations:
Promote family planning education by working with governments, NGOs and others to provide secure and high-quality services and assistance
Attempt to ensure that such information, materials, products and services are available without regard to nationality, creed, race, religion or socioeconomic status
Why is this seen as so important? Why isn’t effective treatment of disease the most important thing?
The WMA recognises that no person, regardless of gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, medical condition or disability, should be subjected to forced or coerced permanent sterilisation. . . .
Nevertheless, forced sterilisation continues.
A full range of contraceptive services, including sterilisation, should be accessible and affordable to every individual.
Why is that more important than effective treatment of disease? Why is there so much provision made for sterilisation and other contraceptive measures? In any case, it is a priority. No wonder there is pressure on people to be sterilized.
Genetics: Another Area Where Conscience Can Come Into Conflict with the Population Reduction Machine–the pressure to abort babies based on supposed genetics information which we’re supposed to believe is “scientific”:
This statement was adopted in 1987 and rescinded in 2005.
Part of it:
. . . Physicians who consider contraception, sterilization and abortion to be in conflict with their moral values and conscience may choose not to provide genetic services. However, in appropriate circumstances, the physician is nevertheless obligated to alert prospective parents that a potential genetic problem does exist, and that the patient should seek medical genetic counseling from a qualified specialist. . . .
Comment:
I’m just using doctors as an example for freedom of conscience. The same concern applies to everyone.
I find it very frustrating that the Brave New World humanistic world dictatorship puts so much pressure on our individual freedom of conscience and always endlessly finds ways to violate and interfere with our religious, cultural and moral values.
This has been my experience since I was young when I attended high school in Canada.
I think people should be sick to death of all the pressure that is put on them to conform to the “scientific” views of the dominant oligarchy.
It makes me sick to think of it, and to think of all the frustrated families and young people out there who are put in the situation where their own values or their family’s values are put under pressure by teachers, corporations and government “authorities.”
The news flash is that people didn’t use to abort their babies based on some alleged “genetic” flaw. Canada used to be a different kind of society with a different set of values. Then suddenly, one day, that changed, and we were all told we had to change. That’s sold as a “choice.” And all the other evil came along with all the “choice” and new “rights” about how you can kill people you don’t need any longer. Who needs medical care when you can just die now? And, in fact, at one point we were praying in the public schools every morning that God “deliver us from evil,” and then that stopped around about the same time. We didn’t need deliverance from evil any longer. Go figure. A whole new world of possibilities.
Other WMA Resources
There is some awful one about climate change in 2014–as if climate change policies aren’t going to lead to less energy to run hospitals and poorer health due to less affordable heating. As a result, I wouldn’t be surprised if the advocacy of climate change policies (based on hearsay from “authorities”) violates some of their ethical codes that used to forbid them from harming patients. But they’re always “evolving” (http://www.wma.net/en/40news/20archives/1997/1997_05/) and “updating” their ethical codes to bring in things like “climate change” (http://www.wma.net/en/45blogs/01wilson/2012_pblog07/) (because they’re told to), and collectivist “public health” justifications for policies of administering something that might hurt somebody (must be very common actually), such as “communicable diseases.” As we touched on already, war, viruses, earthquakes, floods, terrorism–all of these things can be used to justify tyranny and evil at any time. In other words, ethics becomes more of a faith-based matter–faith in propaganda and fear-mongering and collectivism–“the needs of the many”– instead of a matter of rationality and principle and respect for the rights of the individual human being.
This document gives us a sense of the standard idea of human-oriented ethics, and doesn’t include anything yet about “climate change” measures such as turning down the heat or rotating blackouts or other forms of rationing to “save the earth” because a few alleged “scientists” at the United Nations say so. Cutting off access to resources is unlikely to contribute to health, especially to the most vulnerable, but what do I know? I’m not a “medical professional” who received the latest “scientific” indoctrination on “climate change.”
The WMA still has a lot of great documents with ethical guidance, because, unfortunately, the world is still filled with human beings doing evil to other human beings. It would be great to reduce some of this before trying to “eliminate” all viruses (because we’ve seen how that works with polio–tends to increase polio) or “climate change” (because we know what that’s going to lead to also).
For all the senseless politically correct up-and-coming torturers out there who don’t know this, it’s never too late to learn. I know this sounds old-fashioned to you “because everything changed on 9/11” and you got your nice new job, but this is the way people in Christian countries used to be trained to think about other human beings:
Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable. Even if intended to benefit, feeding accompanied by threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment. Equally unacceptable is the forced feeding of some detainees in order to intimidate or coerce other hunger strikers to stop fasting.
I’m just making a note of this now in case this document “evolves” at some point.
To be continued
Value for value. If you appreciate this post, please donate a small amount to encourage more research and commentary.