Indeed.
Paul Ziegenbalg: Aligned with Hitler! | in: German Health Post, June 1, 1933
"Aligned with Hitler!"
The anti-vaccination movement was a true reflection of the inner German turmoil. Many hundreds of thousands were inspired by a great idea, the idea of the divine purity of the human body, which is fundamentally something perfect and in a healthy state cannot be improved by any artificial intervention. Nevertheless, the German opponents of vaccination were unable to come together under a unified leadership and to jointly strive for and enforce the mitigation or repeal of the murderous vaccination law of 1874 [...].
How deplorable it is that until recently there were still numerous anti-vaccination associations and splinter organizations. What wouldn't have been possible if we had followed the ideas of our Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler earlier [...].
Strictly speaking, there is no difference of opinion between the anti-vaxxers and Adolf Hitler. But there is a chasm between the state medicine that still reigns today and the People's Chancellor. […] That's why we opponents of vaccination can be firmly convinced that we have found our greatest ally in Hitler. But becoming worthy of it requires complete devotion to the idea. Opponents of vaccination, [...] fight for the purity of your children, for their unbroken, uncontaminated life force, for their future and thus for the future of the German people.
Professor Siegmund W. van Kapff was a member of the National Socialist association “Reich Committee for Public Health Service”. The association examined, among other things, medical research according to the criteria of racist Nazi ideology. In the Interior Ministry's consultation on abolishing compulsory vaccination against smallpox, it was recorded as follows. | quoted from: BAB R 1501/3648, minutes from March 14, 1934, pp. 13-14.
He is convinced that the majority of the German people reject the vaccination. This also confirms the assumption expressed here that if the conscience clause were introduced, not 40 percent, but 75 percent would make use of the exemption. If compulsory vaccination continues, the majority of the people will doubt that National Socialist principles are decisive in Germany's medical policy. […] He could not see that there would be great dangers if the vaccination requirement was relaxed. If the justification refers to the vaccination as “a minor intervention”, this would not be the case. You have to keep in mind that in most cases the damage does not appear immediately after the vaccination, but often only after years. […]
If the conscience clause is introduced, he thinks it is right that the public is informed that vaccination damage could occur. It is intolerable if the justification states that enormous propaganda must be made for the vaccination, but that any danger of the vaccination should be concealed. That is not decent. The people must know the truth.
As a representative of the Reichswehr [Reich Defense], Anton Waldmann also commented on the lifting of the vaccination requirement. Waldmann was a doctor and, as an army medical inspector, was responsible for medical care and health in the army. In the Interior Ministry's consultation on abolishing compulsory vaccination against smallpox, it was recorded as follows. | quoted from: BAB R 1501/3648, minutes from March 14, 1934, pp. 19-20.
Mr. Waldmann explains that he is convinced of the necessity of compulsory vaccination. Every thing has defects. […] Vaccination damage must be largely prevented. The conscience clause is unsustainable from a military point of view. It would not be considered for the army because it contradicted the Führer principle. If one is convinced of the necessity of vaccination, it cannot be left to the individual whether to have the vaccination or not. […]
If the children were not vaccinated, vaccination at a later age would likely mean a delay in the event of mobilization, which could have disastrous consequences. Relevant experiences were made in 1914 with the vaccination of older officers in particular. Since most of them had not been vaccinated for more than 20 years, they developed a severe fever after the vaccination and were often unable to work for days. Nor could one be responsible for allowing outbreaks of epidemics to arise among the people in the event of a future war forced upon us, which would perhaps take place on German soil, which would hinder the army's freedom of movement. […] The danger of smallpox being introduced into Germany is significantly increased by the black troops [meaning black people here] that our enemy could lead against us. The conscience clause, which should be made very clear here again, is not necessary and is not acceptable from a military policy point of view.
— Source (specifically, from a link within the source)
Interesting snippet about Anton Waldmann:
According to his statement from 1951, he had received an order by Generaloberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer General] Anton Waldmann in October or November 1939 to observe the experiments conducted in the concentration camp of Sachsenhausen. During his visit to Sachsenhausen, Wirth met with physicians who presented to him about “6, perhaps also 10 persons who had injuries approximately the size of the palm of the hand.”(Footnote 28) Wirth also remembered seeing a film screening at Sachsenhausen that documented the course of the disease on photographs. From what he had observed, Wirth drew the conclusion that he “could not determine a difference between persons who had been treated with the antitoxin and those who remained untreated” (Kopke and Schultz 2001, 249).
Footnote:
- Regional court councilor Meyer (Der Untersuchungsrichter des Landgerichts Duisburg), Vernehmungsprotokoll von Wolfgang Wirth, August, 28, 1951, AMMS, JD 1/22, fol. 23–25; Kopke and Schultz (2001, 248–249), Woelk (2003, 277–278).
— Source
Waldmann does not have an English wiki and his German wiki is entirely wiped of his involvement with the NS besides an entry at the bottom of the page in which Hitler ordered a wreath to be placed on the grave at Waldmann's funeral.
When he died on March 26, 1941, Adolf Hitler ordered a state funeral in Munich for March 30, 1941. On behalf of the Nazi leadership, Reich Health Leader Leonardo Conti and his deputy Kurt Blome laid a wreath for Hitler's deputy at the grave.
— Source
I mean, she can't answer, can she?
Yes. She can. But to paraphrase another banger: "Call everything misogynistic until you control it" really fits well.
At this point in this particular process, when someone begins asking for definitions, it's over.
This podcast is an incredibly soft debate where Brian gives them an open forum to hold their ideas up to sunlight to see if they lilt.
The problem for many who come on the show is that Brian is so very calm, mild and understanding (most times). He isn't very mean. He isn't very presumptuous. He'll follow them all the way down to the bottom of their own conclusions with them socratically, carefully, to the point where they're basically answering their own questions.
So if they're calling him names, who else would stand a chance? Who would believe her accusations after watching the exchange? It's transparent.
Said another way: she's basically on the verge of tears, for what? She called him a misogynist, he wasn't being one: everyone saw the maneuver where she made herself a fake victim of supposed misogyny in front of millions of people.
It would be like if I walked up to you, you did nothing, but I called the cops to say you hit me, all in front of the jury members who would be deliberating on the situation.
She fucked up, not just for her, but for a lot of women who do this, and she knows it.
That's why she left. It wasn't that she couldn't explain the word itself, it's that she already tipped her hand, giving away the game she was trying to play on him.
snopes
usatoday
bbc
npr
lol
When she mentioned her friend only makes $600 or whatever it felt like she's trying to reveal something like 'with this one simple trick, you can get paid for doing nothing' kind of thing. I hope I'm misreading that.
When I couldn't afford to live in a certain area, I had to move. Tough shit for me. Not sure why New Yorkers act so insolent when it comes to their dick-in-hand refusal to change lifestyle when hard times hit.
Maybe I'm just an asshole, but are coastal people really so pampered by the gov when it comes to this stuff? Or am I just stupid for not trying to suck the gov dry whenever I stub my toe on the nightstand?
Sorry, kind of yelling at the clouds with this. It's not at you.
$3500.
Hmm. Why does that sound so familiar...
For the year 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the median annual earnings for all workers was $41,535
— (wikipedia, accessed 1/14/24)
Divide by 12 months = $3461.25
So equivalent pay for... nothing?
There isn't anything she can do?
What's even going on anymore?
"Something feels off, the vibes, they just don't check out; give me $3500/mo."
Why is it so hard for me, someone who qualifies for the O1 Visa
First answer:
It's because you qualify for an O1 Visa and may actually help the country.
They apparently don't want that right now. You might not be 'cheap labor.'
Everything the Biden Admin is doing right now essentially devalues labor.
- Inflation - devalues currency by making more currency; same for QE
- Illegal Immigration - creates higher competition for lowering real wages
- Shuttering small businesses - fewer places of competition for the above
- Mass foreign aid - tax money burned in a fire would be more beneficial
- Higher taxation - both you and your employer have less money to spend
- C-v!d restrictions - less potential to move to another job without red-tape
- AI and automation - fewer openings for machine-replaceable positions
- High energy costs - stalling energy production to limit 'unplanned' growth
Once they devalue labor, they have more control because people have fewer options.
They don't want people who are 'helpful' except to pursue goals of lowering labor costs.
Perhaps if you send a letter directly to the president saying, "I want to come here to screw over the current Americans and make sure they're controllable, miserable little serfs with no hope for the future" then you might have a chance.
But even so, having watched what's happening in the country, are you so sure you won't just be treated like we're being treated now after you eventually overstay your welcome?
Not trying to dissuade you from the attempt, but you are watching this shit show, too, right?
Second answer:
If you tried to do the old "hitchhike from Panama" you may find out much more than you bargained for upon hearing the punchline of the joke currently being played on the US.
Understandable. Wikipedia is also essentially functions the same in many instances.
Even as a propaganda machine, if you look far enough back, they've been eating their own for decades.
That's all.
The Huffpost piece shows that Fauci ran the same op in the 80's that he ran this time around with familiar consequences, e.g.: slandering a medication that works for medication that was personally profitable to him to the detriment of the people he claims he was 'helping.'
If I posted sources from the 'right', which are already available to everyone, the 'left' can just slander it as 'misinformation' or 'fake news'. If it's posted from one of their "Trusted Sources" they have much less footing to argue with and usually take it as scripture. If I can get them to dispose of their own propaganda rag, that's just an auxiliary 'plus' in the long run.
It probably doesn't work all too well, but that's my rationale.
- From Huffpost, (2014):
Had Fauci listened to people with AIDS and the clinicians treating them, and responded accordingly, he would have saved thousands of lives. In the two years between 1987, when Callen met with Fauci and 1989, when the guidelines were ultimately issued, nearly 17,000 people with AIDS suffocated from PCP. Most of these people might have lived had Fauci responded appropriately.
Fauci refused to acknowledge the evidence and, according to one account, even encouraged people with AIDS to stop taking treatments, like Bactrim, that weren't specifically approved for use in people with AIDS. Longtime treatment activist Richard Jefferys wrote in 2001 that Fauci "went as far as telling activists attending a 1987 meeting that there was no data to suggest PCP prophylaxis was beneficial and that it may, in fact be dangerous." Fauci's close colleague, Dr. Samuel Broder, who was head of the National Cancer Institute, even suggested -- in the absence of any evidence at all -- that the newly introduced antiretroviral, AZT, would make prophylaxis against PCP redundant!
In his comment to the Blade, Fauci fails to mention how skeptical he was of Bactrim as a preventive treatment, that he questioned the existing science, was unswayed by how frontline clinicians were treating people with AIDS and had suggested stopping a treatment that was already saving lives.
Comparison:
- From Wikipedia:
About 5,000 to 6,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in the concentration camps.[133] Sociologist Rüdiger Lautmann examined 2,542 known cases of homosexual concentration camp prisoners and determined their death rate was 60 percent, compared with 42 percent of political prisoners and 35 percent of Jehovah's Witnesses.[56] Assuming a death rate of between 53 and 60 percent, at least 3,100 to 3,600 men died in the camps.[134]
Release date 2005:
Once thought only to be fictional, Miranda in fact was an experimental colony where the Alliance tried to chemically modify its populace to be peaceful. This worked too well; it eliminated violence, but in the process it had a fatal side effect. The inhabitants lost all ambition; they stopped doing any work, stopped talking to each other, stopped reproducing and eventually stopped even feeding. For 0.1% of the population it had the opposite effect and caused extremely violent behavior, beyond mere psychosis but animalism. The "survivors" of Miranda were the Reavers who started to menace the Rim planets.
The Alliance managed to cover up their mess fairly well, erasing all official records of the planet. Those who had heard talk of Miranda heard false tales that terraforming was attempted but ultimately failed, and that the planet was an uninhabitable Blackrock. Of course, being in the heart of what was to become Reaver space, not many people made the trip to see if it was true or not.
River Tam had knowledge of Miranda through gleaning it from the mind of one of Alliance Parliament officials who surveyed her during her training, which was one of the reasons the Alliance sent the Operative to retrieve her. When the Alliance recording was discovered, it became the perfect example of what would happen if the Alliance sought to interfere with self-determination. At risk of their lives from both the Reavers and the Operative, the crew of Serenity used Mr. Universe's broadwave equipment to transmit a recording of what the Alliance did on Miranda to every planet and moon in the system.
The (translated) excerpt below was written by German medical historian Malte Thießen in 2013.
Notice anything strange about this window into history compared to the current circumstances?
From today's perspective, the "Third Reich" began with a surprise: in 1933, the vaccination practice, which had been liberalized shortly before, was not only retained, but even politically codified. Since the "seizure of power" there has been a noticeable skepticism about vaccination, even a rejection of coercive measures, which Winfried Süss rightly expressed astonishment about: "In a country [...] that [...] since the [...] seizure of power the individual rights to bodily self-determination in favor of the health of an imaginary 'national body' and thus increased the chances of such a vaccination being enforced, [...] this development can come as a surprise."60
How could the reticence in this important area of public health care be explained? Why was it that in 1933, of all things, were government claims to power abandoned when it came to providing for the “national body”? The ongoing debate about the Lübeck vaccination scandal offers an initial explanation for the concerns at the time. A second factor is rooted in the NS ideology itself, since vaccination raises serious problems from a “racial hygiene” point of view. Finally, immunization against disease is in sharp opposition to the idea of hardening and selection.
This was at least emphasized by numerous opponents of vaccination, who sensed the dawning of the dawn since the "seizure of power", especially since they were able to refer to authorities from the NS leadership in their criticism. The reference to a statement by Julius Schleicher, “Vaccination is a racial disgrace” 61, or the assertion that the Reich vaccination law “demonstrably was passed by the Jewish deputies Löwe, Lasker and Eulenburg, who called themselves the 'fathers' of this Law of April 8, 1974," 62 as the "German anti-vaccination medical association e.V." warned in October 1935. Rather unusual, however, was the rhyming form in which the “Vaccination research sheets” published at the end of 1933 declared the “elimination of compulsory vaccination” as a “basic condition [...] for the development and advancement of people and humanity”: “German people, have ' Nothing in common with vaccinations, / It is a mockery of all true health care, / And you don't want to be your gravedigger yourself, / Then you resolutely commit to the anti-vaccine nation!”63
The initial reluctance to vaccinate evidently reflected a programmatic contradiction in Nazi health policy: the contrast between “racial hygiene” ideas that aimed at optimizing hereditary biology on the one hand; and a prevention policy on the other, which envisaged population and defense policy goals. More than ever, vaccination raised the question of how the “national body” should actually be understood and treated. Therefore, in the discussions since 1933, medical considerations have by no means been in the foreground. Rather, it was about the weighting of the needs of the "national comrade" compared to the requirements of the "national body" as well as threatening dangers from which the "national community" had to be protected. Answers to these questions seemed more urgent than ever “in view of the […] low risk of smallpox” 64 and the growing criticism of vaccination, as observed by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick therefore assumed at the beginning of 1934 that a "revision of the vaccination law [...] would probably bring the conscience clause" 65 . 66 This revision also makes sense because it takes “a far-reaching popular feeling into account” 67 so that previous measures against vaccination opponents “should be lifted as soon as possible” 68 .
Such considerations formed the starting point of a commission in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, which worked on a revision of compulsory vaccination in March 1934. In this meeting, Johannes Breger from the Reich Health Office summed up the fundamental dilemma. If the motto used to be that possible damage to the individual was “the price” “with which the German people pay for their protection against smallpox” 69, then after the “seizure of power” one had to “check whether it corresponded to state ethics to demand such a sacrifice”. An examination is all the more urgent because "a large part of the German population rejects compulsory vaccination", as Ministerial Director Arthur Gütt from the Ministry of the Interior added. His colleague von Kapff took another step further, when he stylized the compulsory vaccination as a touchstone of the National Socialist world view: "Should the compulsory vaccination continue", "the majority of the people will doubt that in medical policy [...] National Socialist principles are decisive". Kapff received support from the President of the Dresden State Health Office, Weber, who saw “limited voluntariness” as a contemporary answer to the vaccination question. After all, “the conditions today are very different than they used to be. Thanks to the education of the National Socialist government, the people's views had changed so that more could be achieved voluntarily than previously with repeated forced vaccinations. Not all members of the commission could agree with this view. From Hamburg, Professor Paschen protested that the state was carelessly giving up its powers. Vaccination should “not be left to the discretion of the individual” but should “be enforced by law”.
The objection of the army medical inspector Anton Waldmann weighed more heavily. A personal decision of the "comrade" when vaccinating would contradict "the leader's principle" and thus increase the risk of epidemics "among the people", which "in the event of a future war forced upon us [...] would prevent the army from freedom of movement". At the end of the meeting, these military-political reasons led to the realization that there were still reservations about the abolition of compulsory vaccination. The commission therefore did not come to a conclusive conclusion, from which an important finding can be gained: in 1933 there was no concept ready for a main instrument of modern population policy. After the "seizure of power", an unusually open discussion was held about the modern precautionary measures70. The fact that the self-responsibility of the “national comrade” was an important argument, and that state coercion was even seen as a contradiction to National Socialist ethics, shows two things: the programmatic contradictions of health policy and the ambiguity about the legitimacy of state coercion vis-à-vis “national comrades”. One could summarize that vaccination mutated into a litmus test for the “consent dictatorship”71 in the early phase of the “Third Reich”. After all, when it came to vaccinations, it was the “completely normal Germans” who one wanted to win for the “National Community”.
Except endnotes:
-
60 Süss, "National Body" in War, p. 217 f.
-
61 BArch Berlin, R 1501/3647, letter from the Reich Health Office to the Reich Minister of the Interior, November 12, 193562 Ibid., letter from the German Association of Vaccine Opponents to the Reich Interior Ministry, October 25, 1935
-
62 Ibid., letter from the German Association of Vaccine Opponents to the Reich Ministry of the Interior at, October 25, 1935
-
63 StAOL, 136/5002, leaves for vaccination research, 4th quarter, H. 5, year 1933.
-
64 BArch Berlin, R 1501/3648, circular from the Reich Minister of the Interior, March 2, 1934.
-
65 StAOL, 136/5002, circular from the Reich Interior Minister Frick: “Regarding: Vaccination”, February 1, 1934.
-
66 Ibid., circular from the Reich Minister of the Interior to the state governments, April 4, 1934.
-
67 BArch Berlin, R 1501/3648, Appendix “Justification for the draft amendment to the Vaccination Act” to the circular from the Reich Minister of the Interior to the Reich Minister and the Robert Koch Institute, March 2, 1934.
-
68 StAOL, 136/5002, circular from Reich Minister Frick to the state governments, February 13, 1934. Two months earlier, a circular had declared a “ban on anti-vaccination propaganda”; BArch Berlin, R 1501/3121, circular of the Ministry of the Interior, December 20, 1933.
-
69 BArch Berlin, R 1501/3648, transcript of the provisional consultation in the Reich Ministry of the Interior on March 14, 1934, attachment to the circular from the Reich Minister of the Interior to all Reich Ministers, Reich Health Office, Robert Koch Institute, May 24, 1934 Here also all the following unsourced quotes.
-
70 Alfons Labisch and Florian Tennstedt emphasized that the NSDAP lacked "concrete ideas about the organization of the health care system"; Alfons Labisch/Florian Tenn-stedt, health department or public health department? On the development of the public health service since 1933, in: Norbert Frei (ed.), Medicine and health policy in the Nazi era, Munich 1991, pp. 35-66, especially p. 43.
-
71 On the "consent dictatorship" see Frank Bajohr/Dieter Pohl, The Holocaust as an open secret. The Germans, the Nazi leadership and the Allies, Munich 2006; Frank Bajohr, The consent dictatorship. Basic features of National Socialist rule in Hamburg, in: Hamburg in the “Third Reich”, ed. by the Research Center for Contemporary History in Hamburg, Göttingen 2005, pp. 69-121.
The Adam Curtis 2016 documentary "Hypernormalisation" dives into this issue fairly well.
Spoiler: The gubberment did UFO stuff prior to the stealth bomber tech being revealed to the public.
Unknown Foreign Intruder (UFI)
"Oh, so like a ufo, but a person?"
Could be unidentified, unrestricted, uncontrolled, etc. Something that notes the chaotic and unpredictable nature of the intrusion.
Compare it to our legal immigration system, which will likely collapse if the UFI's don't stop. Compare it to the fact that you can't just take a boat to Iceland and get free room and board because you're afraid of the roving bands of rioters in your blue state city.
Remind people it makes the US look like a 2nd world country at best, a pseudo-lawless borderland with an asterisk by its name on the map where you're not quite sure if you have neighbors or unvetted potential hostile combatants.
There is no actual 'public'; there are individuals which make up the 'public' in the abstract.
All public health leads to is central planning which is communism which is evil and kills the most people each time it is attempted which defeats the point of 'public health.'
These totalitarians need to be done playing God with other peoples' lives. Lord what I've lost...
Centrally Planned Parenthood
It doesn't matter to them. All they want is some object of communication for them to gain attention.
That's it. That's how the socialists steal your life away. "Oh, I have such a terrible illness, blah blah blah blah, pay attention to me!"
"Look at how much I CARE about everyone else! Give me money and attention!"
"Do as I say so that we have some fad to communicate about privately away from the unfashionable."
"No no no no, don't listen to them, I'm the one speaking now, I sound like I know what I'm talking about, attention please everyone!"
They're all narcissists with weapons-grade social media bullhorns. Though it's beyond narcissism in that it is a completely new emergent property that occurs when a critical mass of narcissists get away with stealing so much attention from others without any consequence. It's a narcissistic system.
How would they even know if what they make is safe if they are not competent?
This is an abject disaster. Each one of those 2000 CEOs is less than worthless.
Put option on every company, they're going down in flames one way or another.
Metanoia:
[A] change in one's way of life resulting from penitence or spiritual conversion: "what he demanded of people was metanoia, repentance, a complete change of heart."
Enantiodromia:
[T]he tendency of things to change into their opposites, especially as a supposed governing principle of natural cycles and of psychological development: "the remorseless enantiodromia between good luck and bad."
Unreal.
Isn't the governor from Kansas or something too? What's up with the outsiders fucking up the state?
Sounds like a great way to sell SSRIs.
Russia, former home KGB, lead by former agent KGB?
They know.
It is rumored that she polished off an entire feminebuchadnezzar later that night.
It isn't shocking to me. The usual dipshits need to quit pushing international communism.
It will always end in world war.
I, again, dedicate this to the public health nurse (friend of my ex) who so often blurted out how much she hated white men.