Communism has reincarnated under the flag of environmentalism. Are you a useful idiot?

In his April 2, 2021, article,¹ “Vaccine Passports and the Recalibration of Social Ethics,” screenwriter Tom Moran opines on how vaccine passports “undermine one of the most fundamental rights in a civilized society: autonomy over one’s own body.”

You’re now being bombarded with propaganda disguised as “news” telling you, either directly or insinuatingly, that getting vaccinated is a patriotic duty, and refusal is selfish and immoral at best, or an act of domestic terrorism at worst. However, as noted by Moran:

“The failure to participate in a noble act is not immoral. To put it another way, giving blood saves lives. Failing to give blood is not murder.”

Indeed, this is particularly true in the case of COVID-19 “vaccines,” seeing how the sole benefit reaped is that you might suffer milder side effects if or when you get infected with SARS-CoV-2. Perhaps it’ll prevent a more serious case requiring hospitalization, but the shots do not make you immune; you can still get infected, and they do not prevent you from spreading the virus if you’re infected.

Should We Demand Personal Sacrifice ‘for the Greater Good’?

Since the vaccinated individual is the only one getting any conceivable benefit, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is clearly not about saving other people’s lives. Some insist that if enough people get vaccinated, herd immunity will develop and the virus will peter out, but no one explains how this is supposed to work since the shot doesn’t prevent infection or spread.

But even if that best-case scenario were true, the choice to gamble your health by taking an experimental gene intervention must remain a personal one, made with full informed consent, which is nearly impossible due to the censorship of anything but complimentary information on the vaccine. For some, the potential benefit might be worth the risk. For others, the potential risks may far outweigh the potential benefit. We’re not all the same.

“If you have a rare blood type, your blood is even more valuable to society than someone else’s — but this does not mean you have a moral, social or legal obligation to protect other people by donating,” Moran writes.

“The right of the individual to choose is more important than the ‘greater good’ of society. We have always known this. That is why giving blood is voluntary. This is why there is no punishment for abstaining. This is why there is no reward for participating, other than receiving a sticker and biscuit. Any form of coercion would be morally reprehensible.

Autonomy over one’s own body is absolute — one of the most fundamental rights in a civilized society. So important is this autonomy that it even extends beyond our own death. Our organs may only be harvested for life-saving transplants with our prior consent. Becoming an organ donor (another good thing to do) was, until very recently, an opt-in system. Again, there is no reward for participating and no punishment for abstaining.

Any medical intervention that is for the benefit of society, with no conceivable benefit for the individual, must always be voluntary. The rights, freedoms or opportunities conferred on an individual in society should never be contingent on participation in such an act.”

Moran asks you to consider the theoretical situation of having to donate blood in order to get tickets for a Broadway show, or show your organ donor card to get into a restaurant. What if you had to donate bone marrow in order to gain the privilege of attending a sporting event?

The fact that the right of an individual to assess personal risk, and to prioritize their own quality of life is now being derided as something heinous is a dangerous and inhumane development. The idea that your physical body belongs to the state, and that you have no right to make your own decisions about what is to be done to it, is nothing short of slavery.

Vaccine Passports Eliminate Basic Human Rights

While the mainstream narrative is that vaccine passports are the best way to eradicate the pandemic and your “path to freedom,”² they are neither. Again, the “vaccines” are not designed to prevent infection, only lessen symptoms, and if rights you had before are now removed, how can it be a path to freedom? This narrative requires some kind of double-think straight out of “1984.”

No, as Zuzana Janosova-Den Boer warns in her article ”I Survived Communism — Are You Ready for Your Turn?”³ signs point to a place diametrically opposed to freedom. Den Boer emigrated from Czechoslovakia to Canada, and in her article, she details the “all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda” starting to permeate her adopted country.

Interestingly, the article was written in January 2019, a year before COVID-19 ushered in authoritarianism for all to see. She recounts a statement by a professor lecturing on “scientific communism” in her native Czechoslovakia.

“It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality — 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!” he said. However, “Science is not about consensus; ideology is,” Den Boer says.

The New ‘Green Communism’

While there are plenty of parallels between COVID-19 pandemic responses and communism, Den Boer’s 2019 article highlights the reincarnation of communism under the banner of environmentalism. Her commentary is more easily understood today than even two years ago, as the reality of the Great Reset is now becoming more widely known.

Part and parcel of that “reset” is the introduction of an energy-based economy and “sustainable development.” What many fail to realize is that this pleasant-sounding verbiage hides some rather nasty plans because the technocrats, whose plans these are intend to enslave mankind under the guise of protecting the environment. This is hardly a trade-off most people would voluntarily agree to. Den Boer writes:⁴

“In March of 2007, the website WorldNetDaily published an article entitled ‘Environmentalism is new communism.’ In it, the former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stated: ‘It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.’

He goes on to describe environmentalism as ‘the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.’ Klaus has also written a book: ‘Blue planet in green shackles,’ in which he states ‘communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.’

He also warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of ‘protecting nature’ is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism — new communism …

Since I received my own vaccination of communist propaganda, during the first 27 years of my life, I … am immune to this disease. If someone is trying to ‘save me’ against my will, I’m instantly wary and ready to fight back — if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

So try to imagine how I feel, now as a Canadian, when I see the same tactics and hear the same phrases I saw and heard for years under communism, only this time in English!”

Trick of the Trade: Deception

“Communism can be characterized by a single word,” Den Boer says, and that word is “deception.” Real intentions are never disclosed. A range of slogans and programs may be presented, but they all have a singular goal, and that is “totalitarian enslavement.”

She points out that communism has been subverting the environmentalist movement since the 1970s, as it was then recognized as a field ripe for sowing its ideology. In 1972, then-chairman of the Communist Party USA, Gus Hall, published a book called “Ecology,” in which he stated that:⁵

“Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements.”

Den Boer writes:⁶

“This idea was incorporated into the U.S. Green Party program in 1989 (the same year soviet communism collapsed), in which the fictitious threats of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used to scare the public into believing humanity must “save the planet”:

‘This urgency, along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time …

First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.’”

What the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) promotes is not climate science, but socialist ideology, Den Boer insists, citing as evidence comments made by Ottmar Georg Edenhofer, former co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, who in a 2010 interview⁷ stated that climate issues are about economics, and that “One must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics.”

Tracking Passports Was the Plan All Along

I’ve written many articles, at this point, detailing “dress rehearsals” and various globalist plans that show our current responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have been the plan all along. Different papers describe a variety of catastrophic scenarios that might facilitate the rollout of a global technocratic system.

It just so happens that COVID-19 fit the bill, allowing these globalists to implement a variety of different agendas and control systems all at once, including lockdowns resulting in the “natural” destruction of private businesses and increased surveillance and data mining in the form of COVID tracking apps and, now, vaccine passports.

As reported by The Guardian, vaccine passports were planned long before the idea was ever brought up publicly:¹²

“A government-commissioned report in December examined how COVID certificates could be used to decide whether people should be allowed into sports events, pubs and other crowded spaces, months before ministers publicly confirmed the plan.

A document prepared for NHS test and trace and seen by the Guardian shows that the research also looked into whether certificates could be made a condition of entry for family events such as weddings or even small casual gatherings.

The report, dated 17 December, was prepared by staff working for Zühlke Engineering, a Swiss-based consultancy that has worked closely on the UK’s COVID contact-tracing app, and has a number of staff embedded within the test-and-trace team.”

Implementing Vaccine Requirement Through Deception

While both U.S. and U.K. government officials have denied that mandates for vaccine passports will be implemented at the federal level, it’s important to realize what they’re actually doing here. Remember De Boer’s key word for communism: “Deception.” Government leaders in democratically-run countries know the constitution forbids them from requiring health passports as a condition for engaging in normal social functions.

What they’re doing instead, is encouraging and putting the onus on private companies to require them. The end result is the same, but the government cannot be accused of circumventing the U.S. Constitution.

The hope is that enough private companies will require vaccine passports that will essentially make them mandatory if anyone wishes to engage in normal activities, likely as fundamental as shopping in a grocery for food. People will essentially have no choice but to comply.

So far, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds¹³ have stepped up to the plate and are issuing executive orders and writing state laws to ban state requirements for vaccine passports and/or bar private companies from requiring customers to prove their vaccination status. They wisely recognize that these certificates will infringe on their constituents’ right to life itself.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little’s ban on vaccine passports is limited to state government entities,¹⁴ and lawmakers in Tennessee are reportedly considering legislation to ban requirements for vaccine certificates as well.¹⁵ Hopefully, more state leaders will see these passports for what they really are — a totalitarian control mechanism — and will pursue legislation to forbid private companies and government entities from requiring them.

We clearly have some major challenges in front of us, but I remain highly confident that we will succeed in stopping this insane power grab and move towards slavery. So, alert everyone who trusts your judgment and encourage them to get their heads out of the sand and recognize that they are being fed pure propaganda, the primary goal of which is not to liberate them from the virus but ultimately to enslave them to the state.