When you resist coercion, you're in good company

Erich Hartmann is the highest-scoring fighter ace of all time, recording a total of 352 aerial victories in World War II. After the war, he was imprisoned by the Soviet Union. During his captivity, the Soviets tried to get him to spy on fellow POWs and to adopt communist ideologies. Hartmann refused. He was offered a position in the East German Air Force, to which he responded:

If, after I am home in the West, you make me a normal contract offer, a business deal such as people sign every day all over the world, and I like your offer, then I will come back and work with you in accordance with the contract. But if you try to put me to work under coercion of any kind, then I will resist to my dying gasp.

Anne Askew was an Anabaptist preacher who was persecuted in England during the reign of Henry VIII. She refused to divulge the names of any of her co-religionists despite torture on the rack and eventual execution by burning at the stake.

There is, it would seem, a personality type that refuses to be coerced or bullied, even when the point of such coercion does not seem worth the effort to resist it. Recently, a 16-year-old girl in Laramie, Wyoming was arrested rather than comply with a mask mandate. These acts of defiance, as well as those who forfeit their employment rather than comply with COVID-associated mandates, are possibly representative of an innate obstinacy against authoritarianism. There appears to be a point of principle, as illustrated by Erich Hartmann's quote above, that is opposed to coercion, simply because it is coercion.

Someone posted that to me on FR. It was to an old article I posted. They did not indicate if they got it from somewhere else or if they were the originator.

It is in the same vein as what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote:

“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?”

There appears to be a point of principle, as illustrated by Erich Hartmann's quote above, that is opposed to coercion, simply because it is coercion.

Interesting. I hadn't really thought about it but that is pretty much right on the mark.

When the mask mandates came out I went along. Not because I expected them to be the be-all end-all of protection. I figured they wouldn't stop a virus any more than a chain link fence stops mosquitoes. But they might nominally capture and reduce the spread larger moisture droplets that could be keeping the virus viable for transmission longer.

When vaccine mandates started coming out I (foolishly, it turns out) thought "That's not right. This is America, we don't do that kind of thing." I'll admit personally I wasn't too concerned, thinking "Oh, we won't do that. My company is all about respect for the individual, acceptance, etc. A recognized leader in the industry in promoting respect..." Ha!

The day the company president announced the company-wide vaccine mandate (with no testing option mind you) was a very bad day for me for a couple of other reasons. That gutless weasel's announcement was just icing on the cake. But per the post here and Mr. Hartmann's sentiment... My first reaction wasn't "Great! Now I have to go get a vaccine!" instead it was "Eff you and the horse you rode in on, I'm out of here." I literally started cleaning out my office - just a little - that day. Within 5 hours I had another job prospect lined up. My last day will be a week or so before the vaccine mandate takes effect.

Mr. Hartmann is right. It isn't about a vaccine - it is being told I have to do something that I believe is none of their G-D business.

For me it breaks down like this. Is covid risky, a danger? Somewhat, but when you filter through all the BS being slung about it, it appears in reality for someone like me it is no more of a danger than seasonal flu. I've never bothered to get a flu shot, ever, trusting in my immune system.

On the flip side, are the vaccines risky, a danger? Somewhat. I know there are some here on FR that think the vaccines are intentionally dangerous, part of a dark plan to reduce the population by taking out a small percentage of people. I don't think the vaccines are an intentional danger. However they are new, some based on new technology, and are in-effect in phase 3 of an experimental drug trial. So there are risks. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or has drunk the kool-aid.

I'm not opposed to risk. I don't live my life in fear. I ride a motorcycle. I fly a two-seat aerobatic aircraft and do stunts and air-combat maneuvers in it. I drink (probably a little too much), I like cooking and fried/saute'd foods... All things that are dangerous and bad for you. I evaluate the risk/reward and act accordingly.

I have evaluated and continue to evaluate the risks associated with covid vs the vaccines. I have made the considered choice not to become vaccinated. I strongly believe that is my choice and mine alone. So when some {censored} resident-president like Biden or our company "leader" comes along and says I have to? No, actually I don't and you cannot make me. Take away my job, I'll find another. Take away all the jobs, I'll go to war with you. It is really that simple.

However they are new, some based on new technology, and are in-effect in phase 3 of an experimental drug trial. So there are risks.

They keep lowering the reward - while deliberately hiding the scope of the risk. There is no longer a clear picture of what good these vaccines are supposed to do.

Since they appear to be effective only against already extinct early (and deadlier) variants of COVID, it is incumbent upon the government and its medical establishment to make the case again - tell us how these experimental gene therapies add value to the battle against newer, weaker, more contagious variants of the disease.

They are steadfastly refusing to do this, and are instead using their MSM allies to scream inventive at anyone who dares to ask the question.

And people are therefore drawing their own conclusions.

Agreed. The virus is here to stay, it is in the wild, we are never going to spray enough disinfectant to wipe it out. ;-)

I believe - based on my understanding of how immune systems, vaccines in general, and the mRNA based vaccines in particular work - that ultimately we are going to realize that natural immunity, perhaps aided by something like the J&J vaccine (non-mRNA) are our best bets for managing the risk and getting back to normal. Yes normal. No more masks, no more mandatory vaccines. Just living life.

I base that on this assessment. I believe mRNA technology is very exciting. I think it has the potential to be the medical breakthrough of our lives. However, ultimately I don't think it is going to be very effective as a vaccine delivery technology against viruses that mutate. As I understand it, the mRNA is used to "program" your immune system to create spike proteins that interfere with the virus's ability to attach to cells and start reproducing. Bravo, well done. But the mRNA program and the spike proteins are very specific. A virus that mutates will always have minor variations. If one of those variations {cough delta-variant cough...} happens to not need/use that particular spike protein receptor, or can make use of a different one... Then your vaccine is going to succeed in wiping out a very specific version of the virus. Meanwhile other variations will thrive.

I believe a natural immune response is somewhat broader in it's recognizing and reacting to the virus. A natural immune response adapts to variations, isn't so single-minded. In that regard the J&J "normal" vaccine may also have an advantage over the mRNA vaccines. This is just my take on it, and it would tend to fit with what we're seeing.

What we do not need is to start chasing our tail. Performing a gene sequence on the delta variant and putting out an mRNA "booster" for that variant... That will just cause or allow the next variant that uses a slightly different protein to become more dominant. We will be DNA sequencing and producing mRNA vaccines/boosters every 6 months. I'm sure the drug companies would love that - billions of guaranteed revenue each year, with no end in sight.

I'm not only concerned with mRNA being too specific for vaccines, I'm concerned that it's over-use, this beating your immune system over the head with a very big, very sharp club, may de-sensitize it. If your immune cells become accustomed to a strong, specific message being delivered every few months... Eventually they aren't really going to listen or respond to more subtle cues and a common cold or an infection from a minor cut will come along and kill you because your immune system couldn't be woken up to fight it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.