COLLECTIVISM AND COGNITIVE DISSONANCE LIKELY INTERFERE WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

 Collectivism expects the individual to give up his/her rights, for the greater good.  Case in point, authorities, at all levels, strongly suggest that young children and young adults become vaccinated to save the lives of the older generation, i.e. for the greater good.

For the longest time, our young generations were raised with the idea that communism and socialism were bad, bad ideas because one required that the individual relinquishes his or her rights for the common or greater good, while the other demands that all means of production are owned by the State.  In other words, we are asking children and the young to expose themselves to possible severe vaccine reactions, like heart muscle inflammation, for example, to maybe prevent infections of the older mature population, for the greater good.

"Communism

• Anti-capitalism.
• Class conflict.
• Class consciousness.
• Classless society.
• Collective leadership.
• Collectivism.
• Common ownership
• Commune."

"Collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized."

Collectivism | sociology | Britannica

 

It would be comical if it were not so serious an issue that suddenly Communist principles fit the bill when it comes to the goal of having everybody vaccinated with experimental products, not fully approved by the FDA.  Governments, and private entities make this now a requirement for employment status.

The fact that this dictate violates basic universal human rights, the Constitution, and possibly other rules of law, is totally ignored by the dictators.

"Intro.2.2.4 The Constitution's Basic Principles: Individual Rights"

"Another important area of constitutional law is individual rights that should be protected from government interference. While the Constitution limits and diffuses powers of the federal and state governments to check government power, it also expressly protects certain rights and liberties for individuals from government interference.¹ Most of these individual rights are found in the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment's prohibition on congressional enactments that abridge the freedom of speech² and the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms.³ Other rights, however, reside elsewhere in the Constitution, such as Article III's right to trial by jury in criminal cases⁴ and the protections found in the Civil War Era Amendments, such as the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.⁵ Many of the individual rights protected by the Constitution relate to criminal procedure, such as the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures;⁶ the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination;⁷ and the Sixth Amendment's right to trial by jury.⁸ While the text of the Constitution specifically enumerates many individual rights,⁹ other rights are anchored in the Court's interpretations of broadly worded guarantees in the founding document.¹⁰

Two notable trends characterize Supreme Court jurisprudence on individual rights in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. First, the Supreme Court's present-day decisions addressing the Constitution's limits on government power over individuals focus on protecting individual rights of minorities from the majoritarian political process.¹¹ Second, the Court's constitutional jurisprudence on individual rights focuses on how the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects certain fundamental constitutional rights found in the Bill of Rights from state government interference.¹² Although the Civil War Era Amendments have served as the textual basis for the Court's decisions protecting these rights from state interference, the Court did not recognize that much of the Bill of Rights was applicable to the states until the mid-20th century."  Emphasis added.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro_2_2_4/

"Harassment"

"Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA)."

"Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy), national origin, older age (beginning at age 40), disability, or genetic information (including family medical history). Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws."  Emphasis added.

https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment

 When vaccination becomes a condition of employment, it is akin to blackmail.  In other words, if an employee refuses to be vaccinated, and then faces being fired, it is a kind of do as I say or you will be terminated.  If, that is not blackmail nothing is.  It is especially egregious since the Government's or employer's demand for vaccination violates the employee's civil rights.

"2012 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Part I - CRIMES (§§ 1 - 2725)
Chapter 41 - EXTORTION AND THREATS (§§ 871 - 880)
Section 873 - Blackmail"

"EXTORTION AND THREATS - 18 U.S.C. § 873 (2012)

§873. Blackmail"

 

Cognitive Dissonance,

When we are subjected to orders by powers that be, and we realize that these orders violate existing laws, or human norms, or a fundamental civil right, we are in a state of Cognitive Dissonance.  Following these orders will assure our continued employment,  for example, on the other hand, refusing to execute these orders will have serious consequences, including loss of employment.  However, executing illegal orders can get us into trouble with the law, unless the law is ignored.

Often times people will rationalize and make these illegal orders appear as acceptable, and thus eliminate their dilemma, in their minds, and life goes on.  Super educated or not, we all have the innate knowledge of right and wrong.  Those who make wrong acceptable, already damaged their souls.  Refer to https://frankjm-socialconcerns.blogspot.com/2017/08/socrates-greek-philosopher-469-299-bce.html

However, a few will stay the course and oppose these illegal orders, in spite of any serious consequences for them.  These few are responsible for proper changes to come in a society, as a result of their disobedience; it takes a strong character to belong to this group of people. 

"The Psychology of Obedience and The Virtue of Disobedience"

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWMkmljltvo

 

It is time to insist on our civil rights, if not our children and grand-children will look at us as cowards, who made their world worse than the world we inherited.  Every generation must try to make a better place for those who follow us.  When the Constitution is disrespected, the nation governed by it is no longer a nation of honor.