Comments on Vaccination Mandates
This page consists of posts made by the author of this website (Peter Meyer)
to CJ Hopkins’ blog The Consent Factory (with some links added).

October 31, 2021

The old normal is never coming back. This is a huge assault on the world as we knew it pre-2020, with the aim of culling the human population (a massive die-off is in our future), ridding the world of “useless eaters” and installing a global tyranny which Stalin could barely have imagined. If you are not actively resisting this then you are helping to bring it on, with consequences that probably you can barely imagine, if at all.

November 13, 2021

The “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen” is a document which was created by the French National Assembly in 1789. It thus precedes by over 250 years the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948). It is also superior in several ways. The 17 Articles of the 1789 Declaration can be read (with a commentary) here.

Articles in the 1789 Declaration which are relevant to the present state of medical tyranny in the U.S.A. and Western Europe are (with comments added by this writer):

Article 2: The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man. These rights are personal freedom [liberty], the [ownership of] property, personal safety and resistance to oppression [that is, the ability to resist tyranny].

Comment: The medical tyranny, headed by the U.S. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), and the health departments in many countries, is clearly a tyranny, that is, cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others.

Article 4 Freedom consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others. Thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has limits only to the extent of those which ensure that the other members of society possess the pleasure of these same rights. Such limitations [on personal actions] can be determined only by the law.

Comment: The United Nations Declaration uses the word freedom 21 times but nowhere defines this term. Instead it refers several times to particular kinds of freedom, namely, five cases of freedom of, two of freedom to, and one of freedom from. It thus appears that according to the UN Declaration one has a right to do only what it says one has a right to do, and thus that one’s rights are only those that are ‘granted’. This is not consistent with the 1789 Declaration, which says that one has a right to do anything (whether or not it is specifically mentioned in the Declaration) which does not harm another (which is the basic principle of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of Libertarianism).

Article 5 The law has the right to proscribe actions harmful to society. All that is not forbidden by the law cannot be prevented, and no one can be constrained to do what the law does not specifically order.

Comment: The involuntary confinement of people in their homes, the mandatory ‘social distancing’, the arbitrary restrictions on travel, the requirement to wear face masks, the dismissal from their workplace of people who refuse to be ‘vaccinated’ are not prohibited by law — they are imposed by self-styled ‘health authorities’, and infractions are ‘punished’ by heavy fines and occasionally by imprisonment, with the possibility in the near future of incarceration in concentration camps for ‘the unvaccinated’.

Article 7 No man can be indicted, be arrested or held in custody except under those circumstances determined by the law, and according to its forms which are prescribed. Those who solicit, dispatch, carry out or make others carry out arbitrary commands must be punished; but any citizen summoned or seized under the terms of the law must obey immediately; [otherwise] he makes himself guilty by resistance.

Comment: Hopefully the appropriate punishments will be ordered and carried out as a result of Nuremberg Trials 2.0 in The Hague in the not‑too‑distant future.

Article 10 No person should be afraid to express opinions, even religious ones, provided that the manifestation of their opinion [advocacy] does not disturb the established law and order.

Article 11 The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most valuable rights of man: any citizen can thus speak, write, print freely, except that he must answer for his abuse of this freedom in such cases determined by the law.

Comment: Clearly censorship of any denial of the Official Story (that an experimental “vaccine” administered to everyone, including to small children, is the only way to avoid widespread death and social disruption) is rife, as well as (worse!) denial of employment (and thus livelihood) and basic human rights to anyone who has the courage to oppose the medical tyranny.

Article 16 Any society [or government] in which the guarantee of [these] human rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers set forth, has no legal constitution [basis].

Comment: The obvious conclusion is that the governments of the U.S.A., France, Germany, Australia and many others have now forfeited whatever legal basis they once had. According to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [and] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

November 21, 2021

The vaccinologist Geert Vanden Bossche (see the BitChute video here) basically says that the current drive for “vaccination” of everyone (backed up by the threats from the “health authorities” of lockdowns and deprivation of basic human rights for those who have the temerity to remain “unvaccinated”) is a colossal blunder which will have disastrous results (read: many millions of deaths) because it is the “vaccine” itself which is causing the emergence of variants of the virus which are more infectious.

This is additional to the damage that the spike protein — released from mRNA-infected cells and intended to act as an antigen for the immune system’s production of antibodies to the (now less common form of the) virus — is doing to the heart and lungs of the “vaccinated”.

To promote their agenda the “health authorities” (now increasingly desperate) are doubling-down by means of their implementation of mandatory “vaccination”, fines and incarceration for refuseniks, and so on. Reminds me of the definition of “insanity” — doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. In this case what they are getting is a *worse* result (more infections, more hospitalization, more deaths). But, since they are insane, they will keep doing it until — if they are sufficiently “successful” in their quest for total “vaccination” — our economies and societies will collapse due to lack of people who formerly kept things running. Or global nuclear war (perhaps closer than you care to imagine) will *really* bring about their “Great Reset” (though not in the form they are hoping for).

November 22, 2021

Whether it be an individual person, a group of people, a community or a whole society, it’s true that violence is not justifiable unless it is first used by an aggressor against that person, group, community or the whole society (or even upon civilization itself). Then, on the basis of self-defense, it is justified. Indeed, unless there is some reason for restraint (for example, to respond at a later time from a more advantageous position), it is obligatory unless any vestige of individual self-respect is to be maintained.

New Normal society is characterized by state-sanctioned violence or the threat of violence, as should be clear to anyone who has kept themselves informed as to what has been happening since March 2020. Coercion is as bad as a threat of violence. When a man can feed his family members and keep a roof over their heads, and he can do that only by being paid to work, and he is confronted by the choice of being injected with a potentially deadly so-called “vaccine” or with being prevented from working (resulting in probable homelessness and starvation for his family), and he does not wish to comply, then that is a form of coercion comparable to having a gun put to his head to force him to act contrary to what he knows in his soul that he should do.

So in the present situation of the so-called “pandemic” serving as a cover for an attempt to bring about a global totalitarianism (as CJ Hopkins so accurately and eloquently describes) there are obviously grounds for replying to violence with violence (where feasible). However, some might prefer to oppose tyranny and coercion by non-violent means. Helpful advice might possibly be found in a book published in 1993, Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century, by Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler. A reviewer notes that “The authors examine six historical episodes of nonviolent resistance undertaken by populations that lacked access to effective military power.” It makes for interesting reading. Whether it offers realistic options in the present situation is unclear. It might be better to look at the tactics of the French and German resistance to the Nazi regime from 1933 to 1945. Unfortunately the defeat (by superior military means) of the 12-year-Reich led to the rise of a new imperialist regime, emerging in 1945, which is only now collapsing, chaotically and probably according to plan, with consequences no-one can predict, but it looks like hard times are coming.

November 23, 2021

Coercion of people to be “vaccinated” using an “experimental” genetic technology is widespread and does not just consist of the threat of being fired from one’s job, thus losing one’s livelihood. I personally know of three cases: (1) Someone who runs a chemical supply company cannot in practice supervise his employees and run his business without getting the jabs. (2) A retiree cannot attend seminars at a university near where he lives without getting the jabs. (3) A graduate student was granted a PhD scholarship but it was conditional on his getting the jabs. In two cases the persons involved suffered severe health consequences within days or weeks, and in one case the person can now barely function.

Believe it or not, but a covert war is being waged (and has been for 21 months) by governments and “health authorities” (presumably acting on behalf of “higher powers”) on the populations of all Western countries. People who do not understand this are, by their compliance with tyrannical directives, complicit in an attempt at a global genocide. People who do understand this can choose either to remain complicit or to resist and to fight back as best they can. If enough people fight back, and these war criminal are exposed, then we might be fortunate enough to witness within a year or two the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal 2.0, and to see those who have initiated, directed and carried out this war upon us receive what they deserve.

See Covid "Vaccines" and the Nuremberg Code

November 23, 2021

Mandatory vaccination is already legal in the state of Western Australia. See here.

Australia is well-known as a testing ground for the New World Order. If something works there (for example, gun confiscation) and the population does not fight back then they can try the same thing in other countries. But what works on sheep may not work on more ornery critters.

November 26, 2021

The word tyranny has a long history. First recorded in 1325; Middle English tyrannie, from Old French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, equivalent to Latin tyrannus, “oppressive ruler”. Tyranny is now being re-imposed upon us by covert powers in the West and spreading rapidly around the world (thus “global tyranny”). It masquerades as “authority”, especially “medical authority” and “the authority of ‘the science’” (or rather, pseudo-science), and its aim is total control (which is why it is called “totalitarianism”).

Tyranny can only be successful if all (or almost all) adults (those who are not just overgrown dumbed-down adolescents) succumb to cleverly developed subliminal mechanisms of mind control (delivered mainly through television), and as a result abandon their innate autonomy, integrity and dignity, and submit to externally imposed power — generally the power of the state, which is enforced by the threat of violence and backed up by frequent public displays of violence (intended to reduce everyone to fearful cowards).

Defeat of the developing global tyranny will occur only if enough people (mainly in Western societies) wake up from the belief that they will be saved by something external to themselves (such as political elections of so-called “leaders”) and manifest the courage to defy “authority” and go their own way, guided by an innate sense of what is right, even if this involves some degree of risk or even injury.

For inspiration listen to Terence McKenna in After Skool’s “Reject Authority, Trust Yourself” at

November 28, 2021

CJ Hopkins has done fine work over the past 21 months in exposing the evil intent of the proponents of “Agenda 21” and their minions in the U.S. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — headed by Dr. Rochelle Walensky), NIH (National Institutes of Health — headed by Dr. Francis Collins), NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci), EcoHealth Alliance (headed by Dr. Peter Daszak) and the leaders of the national health departments in many (mainly Western) countries.

Outrage is the appropriate response to reading CJ Hopkins — outrage at the lies, deception and arrogant tyranny of officials (and many non-officials) whose actions over the last two years have resulted in physical and mental devastation, impoverishment and death to millions of people, and which portend global genocide if not stopped.

But that deception and tyranny is unlikely to be stopped simply by widespread, or even general, popular outrage. It would be stopped by global nuclear war devastating whole countries, but as a result most of us would die from the direct and indirect effects. But that solution can be avoided if the plans of Walensky, Collins, Fauci, Daszak and their like can be defeated by non-violent, legal means. This is both possible and feasible. The way has been shown by Dr. Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, and author of the book, Biowarfare and Terrorism. It is explained in detail in Dr. Joseph Mercola’s “Roadmap for Prosecuting COVID Crimes”, in which we read:

“The problem we face today is that our federal government has been captured by forces that seek to destroy the U.S. from within. As such, we cannot trust the federal judiciary to prosecute and hold those responsible for the pandemic and the toxic COVID shots accountable. To circumvent the corrupted federal judiciary, we need to focus on locally elected prosecutors instead. Depending on the state, they may go by titles such as district attorney, state attorney, prosecuting attorney or county attorney. Organize locally to find people willing, as a group, to call on your local, elected district attorney to convene a grand jury and indict the individuals suspected of being involved in the creation of SARS-CoV-2, and those responsible for the COVID shots. The charge that applies is ‘murder and conspiracy to \ commit murder.’”

According to official reports, over half of the world’s population has now received at least one injection of the so-called and misnamed COVID “vaccination”. Almost the only way to prevent the other half (including about two billion children) from suffering infertility, injury and death is through the actions of U.S. citizens using grand juries to bring criminal indictments against those responsible for this horrendous crime against humanity, in this case the heads of the “health authorities” named above and the heads of the pharmaceutical companies (Pfizer, etc.) that developed, manufactured, promoted and sold the so-called “vaccinations” for their personal financial enrichment and for the callous implementation of an irreversible global tyranny.

November 28, 2021

For a lot more on EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak see Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance Has Hidden Almost $40 Million In Pentagon Funding And Militarized Pandemic Science.

December 1, 2021

There’s a lot of talk about “mandatory” vaccinations for residents of Austria, Greece and Germany. When one looks up a dictionary definition of “mandatory” they mostly say, “Required or commanded by authority; obligatory.” This is quite vague. Commanded by whom or what? Is failure to comply with a “mandate” a criminal act? A misdemeanor? A felony? According to the law of which country? Or is it a “directive”? if so, is compliance voluntary, and what is the penalty for non-compliance, by whom is it set, and how enforced? Is the proposed enforcement both legal and ethical?

In the case of “vaccination” the most important distinction (legally or otherwise) is not between “forced” and “deliberate” but rather between “voluntary” and “involuntary”.

A person who agrees to be injected even though they hate agreeing to it (but are coerced and agree, for example, out of fear of the loss of their job) is technically submitting voluntarily. In this case it seems that they cannot sue if they suffer injury as a result. (Nor can their family sue if they die as a result.) But if a person does not agree to be injected, but is forcibly held down and jabbed, then that is an involuntary injection, and by any reasonable definition it is a crime against that person — and legally and morally indefensible (as was made clear in the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials).

So when an official advocates “mandatory vaccination” we should ask, do they advocate “forced’ or “involuntary” so-called “vaccination” (that is, injection by hypodermic of a foreign substance into a person’s body). If they do then by any reasonable definition they are advocating the commission of a criminal act. And if that act is part of a general action against a population then it is genocide and a war crime. For which, obviously, there should be consequences.

December 3, 2021

(A) Suppose a person is pressured (by some “official health authority”) to receive an mRNA injection (such as what is misleadingly called a “Covid-19 vaccination”).
(B) Suppose that person is told, or has good reason to believe, that if they do not agree to this then they will suffer severe harmful consequences (for example, social ostracism, loss of job and income, substantial fines, jail time, abduction and incarceration in a concentration camp, or forcible removal of their children).
(C) Suppose that person submits to receiving the injection only because not doing so would result in (to them) unacceptable harm.
(D) Would that amount to “coercion” by that official health authority?
(E) If so, and keeping in mind the precedent of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, does this imply that that person’s submission to receiving the injection is “involuntary”?
(F) If so, does that mean that that official health authority (or one of its agents) has committed a criminal act (possibly justifying classification as a “war crime”) against that person, or at least an act which by any reasonable standard is unethical?
(G) If so, does that mean that that the pursuit of criminal or civil penalties (or both) are justified and (in a society which the legal system has not been irreparably corrupted) morally obligatory?

We need the advice of a civil rights lawyer regarding these questions. If any lawyers are reading this, would they care to respond? If there are none, or they do not care to respond (not even pseudonymously), could some reader forward this to a civil rights lawyer (or to some legal blog) and post their reply?

December 3, 2021

The Nuremberg Code (formulated in 1947, following the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials) is concerned with what constitute a permissible medical experiment. See here The first of the eleven articles of the Code states: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”

Note that Article 1 refers explicitly to coercion. The subject of the experiment (such as anyone among the many millions of people who have received a Covid mRNA injection) should be able to exercise free power of choice, without coercion. A person who submits to receiving a Covid mRNA injection because not doing so would result in (to them) unacceptable harm (as described in my previous comment) has been coerced into submitting.

Any person, such as an agent of an official health authority, who coerces a person into receiving a Covid mRNA injection is thus guilty of a war crime as stated in the Nuremberg Code. What could be clearer? And that such agents should be prevented from inflicting further harm and should receive appropriate punishment for their actions?

Any government which condones this war crime is, by that fact, guilty of waging war upon its citizens. Whether its citizens choose to defend themselves (and their loved ones) by fighting back using any means at their disposal (which is their right) is a choice they must make (or not) themselves.

December 5, 2021

Quoted from

Prominent [Italian] historian Alessandro Barbero has argued that the [Italian] government should be upfront about what is effectively mandatory vaccination instead of “blackmailing” its citizens. “They say, ‘the vaccine is not mandatory, it’s just that if you don’t have it, you can’t live, you can’t go to work or university.’ ...

Giuseppe Cataldi, a professor of international law at the University of Napoli L’Orientale and a human rights expert said: “If a worker doesn’t want to get vaccinated, and at least formally retains the right to not get vaccinated, but in the end is forced to because he supports his family and cannot spend 10 percent of his salary on tests, that’s not okay.” [“is forced to” = is coerced into receiving the (possibly lethal) jab.]

December 6, 2021

[In reply to a previous post:] Those of us who refuse to submit to the ‘mandatory’ Covid-19 mRNA hypodermic injections can debate this further in the concentration camps (in this project Australia is leading the way).

For those readers who have not yet seen the following oft-quoted extract from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s novel “The Gulag Archipelago” here it is:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? ... The [State Security] Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If... if... We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more — we had no awareness of the real situation. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

December 10, 2021

[In reply to a previous post:] As to who or what is there to limit "them" ... Firstly, the Nuremberg Code is, or was before 2020, officially respected by the governments of all countries (for good reason). It is no longer respected by those governments giving prominent air time to the lying "vaccination" shills such as Fauci and punishing their citizens with fines and jail time for non-compliance with the demands of the health mafia.

Secondly, despite the intentional dumbing-down of public education in the West (quite visible since about 1970), the impoverishment of people by the financial shenanigans of the ruling elite (led by bankers), and the imposition of increasingly dictatorial parasitic government, most people are not yet totally enslaved, and a significant minority (those who are not cowards and who are not willing to grovel before 'authority', even when it uses the threat of violence) will, when pushed hard enough, fight back, and will not be defeated.

January 2, 2022

The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has said in his article Biosecurity and Politics:

"What is striking about the reactions to the exceptional [Covid-19 'pandemic'] measures implemented in our country [Italy] ... is the inability to observe them beyond the immediate context in which they seem to operate. Rare are those who try instead, as a serious political analysis would require, to interpret them as symptoms and signs of a wider experiment, in which a new paradigm of government of men and things is at stake. ... At issue is nothing less than the creation of a sort of 'health terror' as an instrument to govern what was defined as the worst case scenario. ... It is clear that ... what is at issue is the design of a paradigm of government whose effectiveness far exceeds that of all forms of government that have been known so far in the political history of the West."

The "pandemic" is a well-orchestrated "psyop" (a psychological operation upon the more gullible members of society — which is most of them), ostensibly a health "crisis" but actually intended to increase (massively) the political power of a small group (in this case, the international bankers) who seek to control the world for their benefit (and because they are power-mad psychopaths).

January 6, 2022

I don't know whether the photo of "Nazis celebrating" is a photo of Auschwitz staff, but certainly they seem to be having a good time, despite (perhaps) having to return later to their routine duties of running the camp. It's those routine duties, not the good time, that Hannah Arendt referred to as "the banality of evil", that is, the commission of evil acts as if they were simply required as part of one's job, with no awareness of their evil nature.

The photo at the end of CJ's article is a much better illustration of the banality of evil. It shows a boy being restrained by two nurses (and presumably the boy's father) while the boy is involuntarily injected with an experimental mRNA concoction which (as we now know) has (and had then) a significant likelihood of killing him or causing lifelong damage to his heart, lungs or other organs. Yet the nurses (presumably with the approval of the boy's father) are just "doing their job", not thinking of the possible harm they are inflicting upon the boy. "Just following orders", as many of the defendants in the 1947 Nuremberg Trials said. Those nurses should also stand trial at Nuremberg 2.0, since they are as guilty of criminal acts as were the day-to-day routine Nazis who ran Auschwitz.

See Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil and also Covid "Vaccines" and the Nuremberg Code.

Serendipity Home Page