Application of Universal Vaccination Narrative to Climate Change

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 31 May 2021

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens – TRANSCEND Media Service

Implications for Biodiversity, Human Equality and Anti-Otherness

Introduction

30 May 2021 – There are now numerous authoritative sources justifying universal vaccination, especially with regard to COVID-19 — and many others clarifying the reasons for it (Benefits of Getting Vaccinated, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12 April 2021; 10 Reasons To Get Vaccinated, National Foundation for Infectious Diseases).

However many other sources highlight the arguments for vaccine hesitancy, whether in relation to the current pandemic or more generally (Raymond Wolfe, 160+ Experts Slam COVID Vaccines as ‘Unnecessary, Ineffective and Unsafe’ in Powerful Letter, Global Research, 22 May 2021; Great Barrington Declaration, 20 October 2020). The controversy bears a very strong resemblance to the poisonous discourse currently evident between opposing political parties in any country — except that the enforced total dominance of public discourse by pro-vaccination authorities is more consistent with the dynamics of a dictatorship.

It is of the course the case that response to the pandemic has virtually obscured all meaningful debate on other global issues such as climate change — together with others framed by the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals. It has been argued that the pandemic, whether engineered or not, is in process of being exploited as part of the Great Reset agenda promoted by the World Economic Forum (Tim Hinchliffe, The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit, Global Research, 27 May 2021).

The following exercise is firstly an attempt to clarify the narrative associated with promotion of universal vaccination — especially in relation to the coronavirus and its variants. It resulted below in a Universal vaccination narrative. Sources used have been official documents and those clarifying such arguments.

That exercise is followed by an attempt to apply that narrative to climate change by the simple process of replacing “vaccination” by “climate-change indoctrination” (and its grammatical variants). It is presented below as Universal climate change narrative. The result raises the question as to whether public discourse with respect to climate change should be dominated in a similar manner to that relating to vaccination — and if not, why not? Anm alternative to “climate-change indoctrination” could have been used, but “indoctrination” is suitably reminiscent of both “inoculation” and the “indoctrination” associated with promotion of belief in its efficacy.

Over the past decades there have been sufficient authoritative analyses of the disastrous consequences of climate change in the immediate future to warrant such an approach. Is any failure to accord attention to climate change at this time simply to be recognized as a political failure of the “climate change community”, associated with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), in contrast with the “pharmaceutical community” associated with the World Health Organization (WHO)? The problematic dynamics of WHO leadership have been the subject of extensive commentary (F. William Engdahl, Can We Trust the WHO?  Global Research, 22 May 2021; Hanah Lola Johnson, Can We the People Still Trust the WHO? Inside Over, 29 April 2020).

The methodology of the above exercise can also be applied to human equality, notably evident in the widely recognized failure to accord appropriate consideration to developing countries — whether with respect to distribution of vaccines or to the projected consequences for many of them of climate change. The result below takes the form of a Universal human equality narrative. The challenge of human equality is of course evident within developed countries, most obviously with respect to income and to discrimination against minoroties, people of colour, and women. For that exercise “vaccination” is replaced by “human-equality indoctrination” (and its grammatical variants) — although clearly a different phrase might have been used.

Beyond issues of inequality, the exercise can be extended to the problematic challenge of “others”, whether understood in political, religious, cultural, or other terms. For that exercise “vaccination” is replaced by “anti-otherness indoctrination” (and its grammatical variants) — presented below as Universal anti-otherness narrative. In this case, such a possibility follows from a more extensive previous use of the method (Elaborating a Declaration on Combating Anti-otherness — including anti-science, anti-spiritual, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-socialism, anti-animal, and anti-negativity, 2018). This is of some relevance to controversies associated with vaccine hesitancy — given the preoccupation of authorities with the so-called “anti-vaxxer” movement (WHO Says Anti-Vaxxers Are Global Health Threat, WebMD, 17 January 2019).

The method used, and the articulation in each case, invite further refinemen — given the results of the exercise. The generic possibility, and the range of issues to which it could be applied, have been the subject of more detailed consideration (Towards a Generic Global Issue Statement: evoking an instructive pattern of unquestionable responses, 2009).

What is historically remarkable about the response to the pandemic is the apparent level of determined global consensus on a particular initiative — a determination and a consensus of a far higher order than for the challenges of climate change, human inequality and the discriminatory relation to others. Arguably this consensus could be recognized as a form of surrogate for the demonstrated failure of the past with respect to other such challenges. It is in this sense that the narrative with respect to the pandemic — now so widely adopted by politicians of most persuasions — needs to be applied to other challenges. Failure to do so would then merit condemnation with the same language and strategies now adopted with regard to any vaccine hesitancy.

Universal vaccination narrative

  1. Universal vaccination is vital: If 95 per cent of people are vaccinated, the spread of disease is reduced, which helps to protect everyone.
  2. Vaccination has helped eradicate infectious diseases
  3. Vaccine-preventable diseases have not disappeared so vaccination is still necessary: The viruses and bacteria that cause illness and death still exist and can be passed on to those who are not protected by vaccines.
  4. Vaccination helps to keep people healthy and save lives: A regime of vaccinations is strongly recommended throughout life to protect against many infections. Skipping vaccines leaves a person vulnerable to a range of illnesses, some of them fatal. Vaccination can mean the difference between life and death
  5. Vaccination is a means of protecting the health of immediate family and relatives
  6. Vaccination is an important protection for co-workers and the community — especially those who may not be able to be vaccinated.
  7. Vaccination is a protection for future generations.
  8. Vaccination ensures community immunity (“herd immunity”) — namely when a “critical portion” of the population people is vaccinated it is then unlikely that an outbreak of the disease will occur
  9. Vaccination enables social gatherings and travel — otherwise constrained by possible spread of infection
  10. Vaccination is safe following a robust approval process — for all licensed vaccines as attested by major medical authorities.
  11. Adverse reactions to vaccination are extremely rare — and much less severe than the diseases they prevent.
  12. Vaccination booster shots on a regular basis may be essential to maintain protection
  13. Vaccination saves people time and money — otherwise expended unnecessarily on hospitalisation and other medical costs — with their impact on education and employment.
  14. Vaccination provides economic benefits for society — since vaccine-preventable diseases are expensive
  15. Vaccination hesitancy is an act of arrogance — to be understood as slipshodness (even stupidity)
  16. Discouraging others to be vaccinated is an immoral disregard for the safety of others — a breach of the social contract, therefore justifying severe condemnation
  17. Reliable information on vaccination can only be obtained from government-approved health authorities — justifying official suppression of sources critical of officially approved information
  18. Immunisation surveillance by authorities — collecting and collating information on vaccination — is vital to keeping people safe
  19. Registration of access to public facilities using a QR code is a necessary precaution against spread of infectious disease
  20. For the unvaccinated, prohibition of access to travel, employment and other facilities should be envisaged

Universal climate change narrative?

  1. Universal climate-change indoctrination is vital: If 95 per cent of people are indoctrinated, climate change is reduced, which helps to protect everyone.
  2. Climate-change indoctrination has helped eradicate infectious diseases
  3. Climate-change effects have not disappeared so climate-change indoctrination is still necessary
  4. Climate-change indoctrination helps to keep people healthy and save lives: A regime of climate-change indoctrination is strongly recommended throughout life to protect against environmental problems. Skipping indoctrination leaves a person vulnerable to a range of environmental impacts, some of them fatal. Climate-change indoctrination can mean the difference between life and death
  5. Climate-change indoctrination is a means of protecting the health and safety of immediate family and relatives
  6. Climate-change indoctrination is an important protection for co-workers and the community — especially those who may not be able to benefit from climate-change indoctrination
  7. Climate-change indoctrination is a protection for future generations.
  8. Climate-change indoctrination ensures community safety (“herd immunity”) — namely when a “critical portion” of the population people has benefitted from climate-change indoctrination it is then less likely that environmental disasters will occur
  9. Climate-change indoctrination enables social gatherings and travel — otherwise constrained by possible environmental disasters
  10. Climate-change indoctrination is safe following a robust approval process — attested by environmental authorities
  11. Adverse reactions to climate-change indoctrination are extremely rare — and much less severe than the disasters it prevents
  12. Climate-change indoctrination booster updates on a regular basis may be essential to maintain protection
  13. Climate-change indoctrination saves people time and money — otherwise expended unnecessarily on recovering from environmental disasters
  14. Climate-change indoctrination provides economic benefits for society — since recovering from environmental disasters is expensive
  15. Climate-change indoctrination hesitancy is an act of arrogance to be understood as slipshodness (even stupidity)
  16. Discouraging others to benefit from climate-change indoctrination is an immoral disregard for the safety of others — a breach of the social contract, therefore justifying severe condemnation
  17. Reliable information on climate-change indoctrination can only be obtained from government-approved environmental authorities — justifying official suppression of sources critical of officially approved information
  18. Climate-change indoctrination surveillance by authorities — collecting and collating information on vaccination — is vital to keeping people safe
  19. Registration of conformity to restrictive measures is a necessary precaution against exacerbation of climate change
  20. For those unindoctrinated against climate change, prohibition of use of facilities exacerbating climate change should be envisaged

Universal human equality narrative?

  1. Universal human-equality indoctrination is vital: If 95 per cent of people are indoctrinated, human inequality is reduced, which helps to protect everyone.
  2. Human-equality indoctrination has helped eradicate human inequality
  3. Human-inequality effects have not disappeared so human-equality indoctrination is still necessary
  4. Human-equality indoctrination helps to keep people healthy and save lives: A regime of human-equality indoctrination is strongly recommended throughout life to protect against environmental problems. Skipping indoctrination leaves a person vulnerable to a range of environmental impacts, some of them fatal. Human-equality indoctrination can mean the difference between life and death
  5. Human-equality indoctrination is a means of protecting the health and safety of immediate family and relatives
  6. Human-equality indoctrination is an important protection for co-workers and the community — especially those who may not be able to benefit from human-equality indoctrination
  7. Human-equality indoctrination is a protection for future generations.
  8. Human-equality indoctrination ensures community safety (“herd immunity”) — namely when a “critical portion” of the population people has benefitted from human-equality indoctrination it is then less likely that social violence will occur
  9. Human-equality indoctrination enables social gatherings and travel — otherwise constrained by possible social conflicts
  10. Human-equality indoctrination is safe following a robust approval process — by attested human authorities
  11. Adverse reactions to human-equality indoctrination are extremely rare — and much less severe than the social conflicts it prevents
  12. Human-equality indoctrination booster information on a regular basis may be essential to maintain protection
  13. Human-equality indoctrination saves people time and money — otherwise expended unnecessarily on recovering from social disasters
  14. Human-equality indoctrination provides economic benefits for society — since recovering from social disasters is expensive
  15. Human-equality indoctrination hesitancy is an act of arrogance to be understood as slipshodness (even stupidity)
  16. Discouraging others to benefit from human-equality indoctrination is an immoral disregard for the safety of others — a breach of the social contract, therefore justifying severe condemnation
  17. Reliable information on human-equality indoctrination can only be obtained from government-approved authorities — justifying official suppression of sources critical of officially approved information
  18. Human-equality indoctrination surveillance by authorities — collecting and collating information on human equality — is vital to keeping people safe
  19. Registration of conformity to restrictive measures is a necessary precaution against exacerbation of human inequality
  20. For those unindoctrinated against human inequality, prohibition of use of facilities exacerbating human inequality should be envisaged

Universal anti-otherness narrative?

  1. Universal anti-otherness indoctrination is vital: If 95 per cent of people are indoctrinated, anti-otherness is reduced, which helps to protect everyone.
  2. Anti-otherness indoctrination has helped eradicate anti-otherness
  3. Anti-otherness effects have not disappeared so anti-otherness indoctrination is still necessary
  4. Anti-otherness indoctrination helps to keep people healthy and save lives: A regime of anti-otherness indoctrination is strongly recommended throughout life to protect against social problems. Skipping indoctrination leaves a person vulnerable to a range of social impacts, some of them fatal. Anti-otherness indoctrination can mean the difference between life and death
  5. Anti-otherness indoctrination is a means of protecting the health and safety of immediate family and relatives
  6. Anti-otherness indoctrination is an important protection for co-workers and the community (especially those who may not be able to benefit from anti-otherness indoctrination).
  7. Anti-otherness indoctrination is a protection for future generations.
  8. Anti-otherness indoctrination ensures community safety (“herd immunity”) — namely when a “critical portion” of the population people has benefitted from anti-otherness indoctrination it is then less likely that social violence will occur
  9. Anti-otherness indoctrination enables social gatherings and travel — otherwise constrained by possible social conflicts
  10. Anti-otherness indoctrination is safe following a robust approval process by attested human authorities
  11. Adverse reactions to anti-otherness indoctrination are extremely rare and much less severe than the social conflicts it prevents
  12. Anti-otherness indoctrination booster information on a regular basis may be essential to maintain protection
  13. Anti-otherness indoctrination saves people time and money — otherwise expended unnecessarily on recovering from social disasters
  14. Anti-otherness indoctrination provides economic benefits for society since recovering from social disasters is expensive
  15. Anti-otherness indoctrination hesitancy is an act of arrogance to be understood as slipshodness (even stupidity)
  16. Discouraging others to benefit from anti-otherness indoctrination is an immoral disregard for the safety of others — a breach of the social contract, therefore justifying severe condemnation
  17. Reliable information on anti-otherness indoctrination can only be obtained from government-approved authorities — justifying official suppression of sources critical of officially approved information
  18. Anti-otherness indoctrination surveillance by authorities — collecting and collating information on anti-otherness — is vitsal to keeping people safe
  19. Registration of conformity to restrictive measures is a necessary precaution against exacerbation of anti-otherness
  20. For those unindoctrinated against anti-otherness, prohibition of use of facilities exacerbating anti-otherness should be envisaged

Complementary considerations

With respect to the pandemic, the articulation of the vaccination narrative above does not include reference to the necessity of lockdowns, social distancing, facial masking and hand sanitisation — as may be recommended by health authorities, whether as a precaution or as a matter of urgency. All four raise questions regarding the necessity of corresponding measures in envisaging appropriate responses to the challenges of climate change, of human equallity, and of anti-otherness.

One framework for exploring all such remedial measures is through recognition that all four challenges (pandemic, climate change, human inequality, and anti-otherness) share a fundamental characteristic as lifestyle diseases broadly understood. As such they have cognitive implications which remain to be appropriately examined (Cognitive Implications of Lifestyle Diseases of Rich and Poor: transforming personal entanglement with the natural environment, 2010).

Although rarely mentioned, the response to the pandemic (with its implementation of lockdown, social distancing, masking measures) has made apparent the exacerbation of risk associated with overcrowding. This is rarely mentioned in public discourse because of the socio-political implications — to the point that any such reference is effectively proscribed in practice, with the possibility that this may take legislative form (Prohibition of Reference to Overcrowding: Draft Proposal for an International Convention, 2019; Social Distancing under Conditions of Overcrowding? 2020).

Overcrowding as a phenomenon can however be recognized as the “tip of the iceberg” of a more fundamental challenge exacerbating the need for responses even more controversial than lockdown, masking and social distancing (Prohibition of Reference to Overpopulation of the Planet Draft:Proposal for an international convention, 2018). Debate on overpopulation is even more controversial than that with regard to vaccination (Local Reality of Overcrowding — Global Unreality of Overpopulation, 2019; Scientific Gerrymandering of Boundaries of Overpopulation Debate, 2012).

As lifestyle diseases calling into question ingrained habits of the current civilization, the chaotic response to all four challenges merits appreciation in memetic terms, especially given its religious dimensions (COVID-19 as a Memetic Disease — an epidemic of panic, 2020; Comparability of “Vaxxing Saves” with “Jesus Saves” as Misinformation? Problematic challenge of global discernment, 2021).

_________________________________________________

Anthony Judge is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment and mainly known for his career at the Union of International Associations (UIA), where he has been Director of Communications and Research, as well as Assistant Secretary-General. He was responsible at the UIA for the development of interlinked databases and for publications based on those databases, mainly the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential, the Yearbook of International Organizations, and the International Congress Calendar. Judge has also personally authored a collection of over 1,600 documents of relevance to governance and strategy-making. All these papers are freely available on his personal website Laetus in Praesens. Now retired from the UIA, he is continuing his research within the context of an initiative called Union of Imaginable Associations. Judge is an Australian born in Egypt, a thinker, an author, and lives in Brussels. His TMS articles may be accessed HERE. (Wikipedia)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Share this article:


DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


There are no comments so far.

Join the discussion!

We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.

*

code

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.