Monday, February 2, 2015

Some Brief Points on Vaccination


Looking at anti-vaccine propaganda, we have the monkeypox lie: that "smallpox was not really eliminated, it still infects people and has been renamed as "monkeypox."  

No, monkeypox is a separate disease.  I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. Human smallpox was eliminated via worldwide vaccination.  Animals carry their own viruses, and some are transmittable to humans. Given the similarities to humans, non-human primates are important reservoirs of such viruses, which are similar to the human form.  Africa is a breeding ground for infection: combine many animal types including primates, tropical climate, a subhuman population of Negro savages who live cheek-by-jowl with the animals and slaughter them for bush meat (and do who knows what else with them - bestiality?), and then given globalism that transmits Afro-Negro diseases to the human world, is any of this surprising? The White man eliminates smallpox, and the Black man is ready to unleash monkeypox on the world.  It's also no surprise that non-human primates carry pox viruses similar to human forms (an analogy - RNA viruses like SIV and HIV).

A nitwit claims that in my national socialist regime, it would be a "crime to get sick."

No, and let me explain it so even the cognitively deficient can understand: it would not be a crime to get sick. It WOULD be a crime to be an ignorant, selfish freeloader, free-riding on the immunity of others, spreading preventable diseases, causing morbidity and mortality, and then to have the nerve to have your hand out for "medical care" when you inevitably contract avoidable diseases.

Although, to be fair, if we close off human traffic from the Colored World, fresh influx of disease could be avoided, and possible we could avoid droolcup retards and their Luddite paranoia from causing new plagues.

This is actually an interesting political and philosophical issue about conflicting rights and the individual vs. collective spectrum of rights and responsibilities. One side asserts the absolute right to control their own bodies (to be consistent they should support - as I do - euthanasia) and not be forced to have those dastardly vaccines injected in their arm.  On the other side, the rest of us do not want ourselves, our families, our friends and neighbors, to be needlessly exposed to dangerous viruses (and make no mistake, measles can be deadly to the very young, the elderly, the infirm) simply because of the opinions of the first group.  We also do not want to incur the costs to society due to these preventable diseases.  This is similar to the smoking debate: one group says they have the right to smoke if they wish; the other group doesn't want to be exposed to the smell and toxins of someone's habit, and do not want to incur the societal costs from smoking.

Now, if in a hypothetical scenario, the anti-vaccine crowd posed no health risk to others, and if they agreed to pay for their own care, then I would have no problem with their stance.  In fact, I would encourage them to avoid vaccination, with the hope they all got sick and died off as quickly as possible (the same with smokers).  Unfortunately, we do not at the current time live in a sealed-off society, so the rights of some impede the rights of others.  As a national socialist, I favor the collective good, but I understand that libertarians feel differently.

It is I think very naive to consider all "pro-White individuals" to be on the same side. These are differences that are fundamental.