Skip to content

Are Conservatives Overreacting by Calling Vaccine Mandates a New Form of ‘Apartheid’?

¿Es exagerado hablar de “segregación sanitaria”?

Leer en Español

[Leer en español]

The health and not so health situation resulting from COVID-19 is not history. According to official statistics, there has been a “serious upturn” in Central and Eastern European countries since the vaccination rate is not as high as, for example, in Spain and Portugal (but not because of lack of financial means, but because there is a much higher proportion of skepticism.)

At the same time, there is a warning about the spread of a variant known as Omicron, which allegedly spreads faster than other variants.. It originated in South Africa, which prompted a few states in more western regions to consider banning flights with this African country (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and Spain.)

Although the effectiveness of vaccines against this new strain is being “researched” (for example, Pfizer-BioNTech is in favor of applying a third dose) it is also true that its symptoms are minor and that, so far, no deaths have been reported as a result of its infection.

In any case, this was simply intended to put the reader in context, since the crux of the article is none other than to discuss the denunciation thesis on the basis of which most modern States are currently perpetrating a kind of “vaccine apartheid.”

Similarities with past totalitarianisms?

Among the critics of the so-called “COVID passport,” which is nothing more than a kind of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) guideline, there are those who draw comparisons with the infamous South African apartheid, as well as with the cloth stars that the forces of the Third Reich (Nazi) imposed on citizens of certain religious orientations.

Initially, apartheid was a system of rules that kept black people as isolated and separated as possible from the rest of the South African population (social acceptance, “right” to electoral participation, etc.) Now it is still going on, but against those inhabitants with white skin, with absolute silence on the part of the “pro-green” agit-prop.

On the other hand, the previously mentioned cloth stars, with a silhouette practically similar to the Star of David, were habitually used to mark the Jews, who were among the most harassed and persecuted by the racist and eugenic criteria of Nazi Germany.

Thus, in denouncing the liberticidal overtones, there are those who draw these comparisons. Some may think that this is a superficial and simplistic homologation (although others understand that the path of servitude is now “just as bad,”) although all agree that several specific freedoms are being restricted as a result.

Considering that in order to enter certain public premises (bars, museums, universities and open shows) the interested party is required to have a vaccination dose or, failing that, a test with a negative result, which can be an antigen test or a PCR (polymerase chain reaction.)

segregación sanitaria
Is it an exaggeration to talk about “sanitary segregation”? (Archive)

Oppression is neither a medical, ethical nor recommendable solution

I, personally, believe that COVID-19 exists and I am inclined to the thesis that attributes its origin to human action in a laboratory that is somehow or other subordinated to the CCP. At the same time, I have no automatic dogma that would allow me to be considered as “anti-vaxxer” or as an enemy of “modern science.”

I can be critical, on the other hand, of the existence of corporatist or crony capitalist relations between modern states and large pharmaceutical corporations (the same goes for Big Tech, ) or understand that the emergency procedure that authorized the first types of vials could be “too hasty.”

However, just as I am not going to completely “demonize” so-called “modern medicine” or the fifth generation of mobile technology (known as 5G), neither am I going to accept as valid an artificial hysteria that allows us to assimilate a progressive loss of liberties on the part of individuals.

That there are people who have not suffered side effects after receiving a vaccine dose against COVID-19 is true. That according to official data there may be fewer deaths and people in the ICU may be true. That the media give confusing information, not committed to the pursuit of the truth, is not a lie either.

However, we cannot consider certain immunology solutions as a kind of “manna” or “absolute truth.” Rather, they should be treated as one more solution on the market, which can be freely and reasonably discussed by academics, scientists, pharmacists and healthcare professionals.

Not every treatment that does not come from the corporatist health care network should be banned. I give as an example the hydroxychloroquine that facilitated the recovery of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro or the monoclonal antibody therapy that DeSantis has authorized in Florida.

Thus, the vaccine cannot be considered as a sine qua non condition to be able to lead a certain “normal life.” It is basically a pharmacological solution that has adverse effects like almost any drug. Therefore, it makes much less sense to use it to “discriminate” against the population.

We should let whoever wants to get vaccinated with the dose he/she wants, how, where and when he/she wants (sincerely and frankly). But whether for conscientious objection or mere justified opposition, no one should be forced to accept a particular treatment, which is contrary to medical ethics (not only to the Nuremberg Codes).

Whoever has symptoms or feels weakened, let him receive medical attention and recover as soon as possible. But this does not mean that the social life of individuals should be jeopardized or that greater economic restrictions should be applied.

Mental health also deserves to be taken care of, and I say this because if we seek to isolate ourselves under the pretext of “prevention,” it is more likely to develop anxious-depressive symptoms. The same, because of desperation, if certain harassment is promoted or if a business is economically and politically strangled.

UK Covid-19 booster rollout (EFE)

A full-fledged social trial

Requiring the “COVID passport” not only discriminates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people but also violates the privacy of patients, since, in principle, the medical history, insofar as it covers the person, would be part of the categorization of personal data—unless the identifying information is omitted in previous data extraction.

Creating “isolation camps” for those infected with COVID-19 (as it is being done in Australia) who do not require hospital care and who are not absolutely destitute is of no benefit (further isolating patients from their families and everyday environment may cause some psychological trauma.)

However, I prefer to point out that a virus supposedly resulting from some very suspicious and intriguing human actions is being used to apply an iron strategy of social engineering on the population, which is helped by the spiritual vacuum, the fear of the hereafter (short-sighted posturing among other things.)

Because the matter could have been dealt sanitarily without further ado, thinking of the common good, without new laboratory political ideas. But no, they chose to increase the government powers to violate our freedom of movement and to look for niches of opportunity for the invasion of privacy through technology.

Thus, rather than “vaccine apartheid” we could speak of a “perfect excuse” for a social trial to serve the purposes of socialism, which in one way or another is the ideology that sustains statism, the constant domination and threat to the inner self of the individual and the idea of a strong, fertile, free and prosperous society.

Ángel Manuel García Carmona es ingeniero de software, máster en Big Data Analyst, columnista y tradicionalista libertario // Ángel Manuel García Carmona is a software engineer, master in Big Data Analyst, columnist and libertarian traditionalist.

Leave a Reply