What kind of solidarity locks up children and legalizes poisons?
The immunity of human rights
Human rights are the most important achievement of our civilization; they should not be jeopardized: Even a temporary elimination of human rights means a fundamental negation of their inviolability.
Sweden had average corona casualty rates compared with the EU, without a lockdown. This is the scientifically incontestable proof that the lockdown was ineffective and useless.
The pandemics of panic
The lockdown caused disproportionate fears of death: Covid-19 was involved in about 3% of annual deaths, like most of the normal seasonal pneumonias.
97% of all deaths in the last 12 month were not caused by Covid-19.
Nonetheless Corona served as a pretext for a global captivity.
It was not predictable that Corona would only be dangerous in exceptional cases? The statistics are clear: The bird flu pandemic in 2005, the swine flu pandemic in 2009, and the EHEC pandemic in 2011 caused much less than 1% of the annual deaths.
The Taboo: The real Great Pandemic
The vast majority of deaths have other causes: Every second person gets cancer, the chances of recovery are small.
Governments not only approve toxins, they often even subsidise them. In many countries, the authorities are now increasing the limit values for glyphosate in water. The barely effective, but overpriced cancer therapies are bleeding out a profit-oriented health system.
But civilization diseases are not pandemics? Because the word is ancient Greek, and at that time it was forbidden to poison people with food.
Shock strategy and Stockholm syndrome
The medicine should never be more dangerous than the disease, the protection should never be worse than the danger.
The lockdown was a great sacrifice, this must not prevent the acknowledgement that science, effectiveness, proportionality and legality got lost out of sight.
The shock strategy of a “killer virus” used the weak point of democracies, the emergency law. And the idealistic key word “solidarity” was misused for a Stockholm syndrome, to force a self-censorship on people and media, in order to accept a global imprisonment and a temporary abolition of human rights.
“Together against the virus”, with this motto designed to unite the leading elites, the idealistic politicians and the press were committed into pseudo-scientific and pseudo-humanistic disguised repressive strategies.
Next virus lurking
The almost global, militarily secured curfews reveal the true intentions and the almost unbelievable power of irresponsible industries and interests.
Governments have not yet admitted that it was disproportionate to impose the legal status of convicted criminals with electronic shackles and house arrest to the entire population, even children, in order to save maybe a few people. It would have been far more efficient, cheaper and far more solidary not to close “unprofitable” hospitals.
The war against the virus was a disguised war against the people, a panic brainwash and a professionally engineered, organized crime against humanity: The (provisional) abolition of human rights.
The next virus is bound to come, a legitimization of the lockdown is an invitation for a remake, in an optimized version.
If we do not admit that we have been double-crossed by a policy of austerity. The liberal opinion leaders are looking forwards to an era of “freedom brokers”, who can abolish human rights thanks to seasonal viruses, contact tracing and emergency laws.
Real solidarity!
A true commitment of the governments could really save lives:
- Cancer and other diseases caused by industrial toxins kill more than 10 million people worldwide per year, a ban on toxins could stop this.
- A climate collapse could kill billions of people, CO2 taxes would avoid this.
- More than 10 million people are starving to death each year, despite a massive food waste.
Why is it solidarity to put almost the entire world population in captivity in order to save a few people? But laws that require small sacrifices to save millions and even billions of people are … harmful to economy?
All products that are harmful to health and climate should be replaced by unproblematic alternatives, if they are lacking because the industries don’t want to fill this market niche, the governments should support start-ups that develop them.
Win-win-solutions or vicious circles?
The solution of all of our problems is simple: An implementation of the idealistic trends and demands.
With the thousands of billions of the lockdown, we could have financed a paradise on earth, a global transition to a fair, sustainable economic system that protects all: People, nature and climate.
But this is not the goal of the most powerful.
“The sleep of reason produces monsters.” Francisco de Goya