Three Reasons to Oppose Mandatory Vaccinations


One SolutionI’ve always claimed that if I have children, I’ll try to vaccinate roughly half of them at random. Everybody finds this Solomon Solution offensive, of course, because everybody’s pretty convinced of their position that vaccinations save children’s lives or that vaccinations poison and endanger them. I reckon I’m just indecisive like that, open to different opinions and inclined to hedge my bets.

Vaccines are vexing. They have indeed saved millions and millions of lives, and will surely save millions more. They’ve been a public health revolution. Furthermore, much of the research on the supposed dangers don’t really stack up to peer review. The evidence that vaccines cause autism and the concerns about this or that ingredient being dangerous haven’t been convincing for me.

I am, however, strongly opposed to mandatory vaccines for the following reasons:

#1: Diversity is Our Strength!

Medical science is not exact, with the science relating to the nature and function of the human immune system being perhaps the least exact of all medical sciences. Humanity’s immune system signatures are as diverse and distinct as our fingerprints and faces, and that diversity is a strength. Humanity’s been battling viruses since long before germ theory and modern vaccinations came along. While vaccinations might be a powerful new weapon in our arsenal, if we make them mandatory and universal then we’re depriving ourselves of the very diversity of responses which are a time-proven survival strategy for the human herd.

#2: Unknown Unknowns

Donald Rumsfeld famously opined that…

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.

There, in the insidious unknown unknowns, lies another reason for my strong stance against mandatory vaccination. Playing with the human immune system is playing with fire. And vaccinating the entire herd is clearly unwise. Perhaps a vaccine currently being administered results in infertility, or Alzheimer’s Syndrome, or in Multiple Sclerosis much later in life? This is all scientifically illiterate and implausible speculation, but have all the potential problems that could come along been so definitively ruled out that we’re willing to place absolutely all of our eggs into that basket? Is the science really that reliable and precise that it warrants taking that kind of all-or-nothing gamble on it? Over and over again?

Mandatory Vaccinations#3: My Body, My Choice

A rich irony is that the Center for American Progress think tank which published “Idea of the Day: Voluntary Exemptions from Childhood Vaccinations Threaten Our Public Health” and their fellow travelers are the first to demand personal freedom from government intrusion when the subject is abortion. In the case of abortion, there’s a valid debate over whether it is really the mother’s body. After all, a separate human being (whom the father also has a valid stake in the future of) happens to developing in her womb. There’s no such nuance or complexity in this debate; however. It’s a debate about whether the government has the right to inject chemicals into our children with syringes.

Is “public health” more sacred than our civil liberties? Founding Father Patrick Henry famously shouted, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” It’s bad enough that these Leftists are already orchestrating pervasive mandatory social experiments on us, but can we really tolerate them orchestrating pervasive mandatory medical experiments on us? With gene therapy and other options for meddling in our bodies coming up in the near future, what other “public health” choices will they unilaterally make about ourselves and our children?

Conclusion

I’ve been critical of the philosophical and political emphasis on individualism which has pervaded the West in general and America in particular for the last few hundred years. Taken to the extreme it’s been taken to, it results in selfishness, moral relativism, and an alienation from our ethnic and historic identities. But there’s an organic individualism, rooted in our human dignity, accountability, and equality in the eyes of God, which does confirm our right to free speech, our right to bear arms, and our right to raise and care for our children as we see fit.

While mandatory vaccinations would be overreach for even the most noble and righteous of governments, our current regime evidently can’t be trusted with the most rudimentary elements of statecraft. It certainly can’t be trusted with the power of life and health of our children. Most Americans aren’t yet ready for our identitarian or radical traditionalist message, but the millions of Americans who are choosing homeschooling and the millions more who are willing to take a stand against mandatory vaccinations are taking that necessary first step, losing faith in this system’s authority.


  • Niemca

    Every day white people are being killed by blacks, and to a lesser extent by hispanics – literally at this point it’s almost every day. Every week, there are hundreds and hundreds of black-perpetrated rapes of white women, and of black attempted murders of whites.

    With every passing second, minute, hour, day Obamanation works feverishly to attain it’s final goal – total subjugation and genocide of the White race. Congress is a willing participant.

    Yet you choose to write about vaccinations. It’s not that it might not be interesting and relevant if we had time, but we don’t. Your choice of topic also reflects a seeming refusal to address the larger issues.

    I’m not sure why Tradyouth does this – indulge in the fantasy that these issues are pivotal at this point.

    But what should be expected from a man professing to champion the cause of white rights who claims black women are oppressed compared to white women, or from another ‘pro-white’ advocate who criticizes eastern european women who fight against their sexual enslavement by jews.

    Pro-White America is a ‘freakshow,’ claims a european nationalist. I’ll just splice that with ‘bonfire of the vanities.’

    The more time passes and I get to study your group, the more likely it appears that White Fail may just be the point. Because otherwise it’s hard to figure such self-destructiveness, such delusions.

    Free Matt Heimbach

    • Matt Parrott

      1. Buhls was obviously not objecting to the anti-sex-slavery component of Femen’s work.

      2. TradYouth is not a race-only project, and it’s rather explicit about that.

      3. Every time you post one of these nasty little off-topic tantrums, I’ll go down to Heimbach’s basement dungeon and kick him in the ribs.

    • Niemca

      Femen was originally created, to the best of my knowledge, to fight against the sexual enslavement of white women. Tom did not in any way delineate about what parts of their work he respected, and seemed to pretty categorically condemn them. So your first point really isn’t accurate.

      Your second point doesn’t follow, as I never separated tribe from race. Tradition isn’t fully divisible from tribe, although I don’t recognize my celtic and germanic tribes too much in TYN’s interpretation of tribe or tradition.

      How on earth is this ‘off-topic?’ With point 3, here, Matt P, you sort of fulfill my chronic characterization of you. You describe me as having a ‘nasty little tantrum,’ which clearly references ‘temper tantrum,’ which is pretty much how one would describe the behaviors of a child. It is also incredible to anyone who actually has like, an iota, of respect for women that you experience my concern for the hate crime murders and rapes of white women (as white women make up the prime targets of both, although more disproportionately the latter) as a ‘nasty little tantrum.’

      I’m bold and blunt at times, and that is unfeminine, whatever. But tantrum? C’mon Matt, that’s just so classic misogynist.

    • Matt Parrott

      Niemca,

      So your first point really isn’t accurate.

      It’s clear from the context that Buhls was objecting to their anti-traditional message. Given that your entire vendetta kicked off with a gross misinterpretation of a retort to an MRA, reading comprehension’s not your thing.

      How on earth is this ‘off-topic?’

      The topic is vaccinations, not your strongly dislike for the project and its participants.

      I’m bold and blunt at times, and that is unfeminine, whatever. But tantrum? C’mon Matt, that’s just so classic misogynist.

      Anybody, regardless of race, gender, or political affiliation, who squats on a website and flames every author’s post regardless of topic or context is accurately described as throwing a tantrum. Neither this post nor my calling your tantrum a tantrum to it had anything to do with gender.

    • Tom

      @Niemca- If your single largest enemy (almost exclusively, too, it would seem…) is the “Obamanation”, then you’re really missing out on a lot of other important things.

      I’m a both/and kind of person, not an either/or. The Obama administration continues to be a problem for Americans, but it’s hardly the only problem we have. Don’t lose sight of other problems because of your concern with the current White House administration.

    • Lew

      I’m not sure I would have “gotten” TYN without a prior “background” in these perspectives gained from reading MP and others who use these ideas.

      Consider these two hypothetical statements:

      “TYN is for tribe and tradition for all peoples.”

      “The White Student Union is about helping white folks.”

      The second statement is clear and concrete in a way the first is not. I doubt N is a person of truly bad faith. More likely, she is just impassioned about white interests and doesn’t fully get what TYN is up to here. Whatever the merits of the point, a paragraph spent discussing blacks and their problems is a paragraph not spent discussing whites and theirs.

      This is the inherent disadvantage, IMO, of linking the fight for the extended white tribe to every other tribe. It creates a fundamental lack of clarity about who the ingroup is that is being fought for by subsuming the fight for white folks into a larger fight on behalf of whites and many others.

      There is at least one person here who goes in the opposite direction from N. He/she argues for a full-on dropping of the tribe element and defining the key ingroup as anyone who takes up traditionalist perspectives including Jews. I see comments like that that while not as rudely presented as N’s are far more subversive and undermining of TYN than anything N has to say.

    • Niemca

      Lew, I think one main problem is that Tom and Matt P are horribly pedantic, in that they seem to think their sense of ‘tribe’ and ‘tradition’ is everyone’s. I’m probably pretty close in tribal background to them, but my sense of my tribe’s tradition is about as far from theirs as it is from the average New Black panther’s. I don’t think the problem is in me, as Matt P tries to assert, nor do I negate that perhaps some of my tribespeople might resonate with their conception of ‘tribe’ or’ tradition.’

      There is just a range of somewhat chaotic and even profoundly clashing experiences of what it means to be a celt, for example, or an anglo or germanic person. Or White, or White American, etc. etc. Tom and Matt P seem to feel that only theirs is somehow valid, and that one has to somehow agree and identify with their sense of these things. I assert that not only am I closer, on perhaps the other end of the spectrum, to what most of my tribespeople sense as their identity and tradition, but that further, to try to reach a broad spectrum through any overly narrow prism of ‘tribe’ or ‘tradition’ will by definition fail.

      Both Matt P and Tom do appear to me to have issues with women, and Matt P seems to not have any sense of his own distance from what I perceive is a more common white middle class perspective. It’s as if both men think ‘white’ regardless of ethnicity is somehow defined according to basic precepts and beliefs they hold personally. It’s a failure of concept of the larger agenda and the intersection of that with their own personality issues.

      I’m sure I’ll be considered a tantrum thrower for saying this, but it needs to be said nonetheless. I am the only pro-White person I know of who has ever succeeded in getting an uncommitted person (someone who is white and concerned but who would never hang out in a pro-white site, etc.) and a fairly high profile international human rights organization to endorse the White Student Union that Matt H. founded. I accomplished this by not hewing to these narrow, dogmatic definitions of what it means to be white, but just by championing the value of truth, and civil rights. From that place I’d think more whites would then integrate their own sense of tribe or tradition.

      I didn’t go race realist (which is not to say TYN does), nor did I attach some whimsical, personally-determined set of criteria to what is pro-white other than just truth and justice and decency. Tom thinks about fighting over abortion is more important than fighting for the survival of white people, or that somehow those two things are inextricably linked. Newsflash: they are only in his and perhaps in some white people’s minds, but those minds are not in the majority.

      That is simply one example.

    • Matt Parrott

      Tom and Matt P seem to feel that only theirs is somehow valid, and that one has to somehow agree and identify with their sense of these things.

      Our contributors and supporters have a multitude of ideas about what their “tribal” and “traditional” identities mean to them. I challenge you to point out where I’ve been pedantic or dogmatic about either.

      It’s as if both men think ‘white’ regardless of ethnicity is somehow defined according to basic precepts and beliefs they hold personally.

      No.

      I accomplished this by not hewing to these narrow, dogmatic definitions of what it means to be white, but just by championing the value of truth, and civil rights.

      Finally, we’re arriving at the root of the problem. You have a Modern worldview, one inclusive of attempting to endorse and embrace the “civil rights” mythos of our age. It’s great that you’re pro-White, but this particular faction of the pro-White movement probably isn’t for you.

      Tom thinks about fighting over abortion is more important than fighting for the survival of white people

      And now you’re just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks.

      That is simply one example.

      Please, spare us the additional ones.

    • Niemca

      I ask this question sincerely: for whom is this faction of the pro-White movement?

    • Niemca

      This post goes out to Matt Heimbach. I caught part of what seemed like a recent radio interview you gave, somehow it came up on an Iphone instead or as part of this site, which doesn’t seem to include it.

      You spoke about abortion and I extend this example because TYN has made it a signifcant issue judging from posts and interviews. You referenced Margaret Sanger, and asserted that she had some perhaps de facto plot to genocide black people or babies. This rumor was given life by one Angela Davis, who, while bright and charismatic, has proven on various famous occasions to be fairly whacked out at times. While I was at university two friends attended a speech she gave, one from Ireland and the other England, and both were shocked at how fundamentally wrong Davis was on basic facts of the situation in Ireland, not just on her interpretation of them. The same is true for Davis’ willful distortion of something Sanger wrote.

      So caution sometimes is a good thing to observe when making historical analysis or even commentary. Both MLK, Jr. and WEB Du Bois supported Sanger’s work, as did many black organizations.

      You said, and here is a larger point I’m getting at, that somehow Sanger was victimizing the poor, when in fact she sought to free them. During the MIddle Ages, the Black Plague killed huge swathes of the european population, particularly the young and the old. This had the effect of destabilizing the feudalistic system and helping to usher in the beginnings of economic and social change – one can start to trace the formation, and even conceptualization, of a middle class in this period, and the Plague was one pivotal influence in this development. The Plague not only left a huge mass of young and middle aged adults who are the most prone to making change, especially without the moderating presence of children and older people to take care of (the latter being also prone to counsel caution), it also ‘taught’ the european peasants that biology didn’t have a class. The rich died at rates very similar to the poor.

      But the biggest influence it had was on labor. Without endless amounts of these peasants available to work the land, the aristocracy couldn’t divide them so easily; they, in fact, needed labor more than labor needed land.

      The Catholic Church has always tried to keep it’s see poor and unable to control the size of their families (I come from a mostly irish and german catholic family). Margaret Sanger sought to free poor families from the bondage of having too many mouths to feed. She wanted them to have the energy and resources to maintain the children they planned for, so as to give them opportunity to fight for the economic rights that would sustain them. This is one reason why she garnered much support from a range of black leaders and activists.

      I’m not really over-invested in abortion per se, but will say that to make it an issue of ‘tribe’ seems extremely arbitrary. Your tribe, Matt, meaning the celts, deeply resented the romanized influence of the jesuits – particularly of their foreign, mediterranean misogyny. They were also known to be gender egalitarians prior to their catholic conversion. Celtic women even accompanied their men into battle at times; some tribes were led by women.

      In some ways ‘tribe’ and ‘tradition’ are at odds, given that tribe is sort of non-bourgeois and ‘tradition’ according to TYN involves this imposing on ‘tribe’ of very bourgeois constructs.

      I also caught some beginnings of Matt P’s radio interview, and want to make the point that my white people had nothing to do with genociding indigenous peoples of the New World for the most part. They came in the early and mid-1800’s and may have come to inhabit previously fought over lands, everyone in the US benefited.. White people in general have nothing to account or apologize for on that front and it struck me as really contrived that you would claim they did. You did say whites genocided the ‘indians.’ I can’t say native americans because there was no ‘America’ they inhabited. These peoples divided among themselves, and their own lack of unity and participation in the war(s) between Whites and various native tribes contributed to their demise as much as any other factor. To try to score points against the enemies of Whites in power by revising history to suit ridiculous black nationalists seems either pretentious or tragic or both. I don’t assert all black nationalists are inherently ridiculous, just that all I’ve seen contemporaneously pretty much fit the bill. Why would black nationalists want to withdraw from Whites when the white middle class is funding black people?

      You had yet another chance, Matt P, to point out in your discussion of Ignatiev that jews really don’t look too much like Whites. All over this country, White women are targeted for murder and rape – and the vast majority are anglo or gemanic celts. It’s a lie by omission to pretend that blacks, hispanics and jews don’t recognize that Whites look different from jews.

      Matt H, I disagree with some of your views and here offer some critique of some of your facts and some of your interpretations, but somehow all I’ve seen of your work spells strong character to me. I don’t sense this need that your cohorts seem to have of sacrificing the middle class or the ultimate sacrificial lamb, the lower working class white female, on some altar of ‘legitimate’ White Nationalism.

      I hope that as you continue to learn and grow, you follow your conviction and not some elitist mirage of ‘a small vanguard.’. Stay strong, brother, and fight the good fight.

    • Matt Parrott

      Niemca,

      I ask this question sincerely: for whom is this faction of the pro-White movement?

      For White folks, more specifically White Americans.

  • Niemca

    Oh I want to add another point. Liberty Lamp provides another Tradyouth unteachable moment, and he’ll inevitably chime in here to sow dissent, distract, spam, etc. Hi LL. One tactic he likes to use is to try to divide white women from their white men. To this aim he employs various strategies, as you’ve likely noted.

    I can call you the biggest asshole on the planet and that wouldn’t change my stance on my white men, and yes, they belong to me figuratively – my fathers, brothers, sons, my people. LL stands zero chance of ever dividing me from the white men whom I love and who are part of me. When I became racially conscious as to how white women had been targeted in society (and as to the specific mechanics both micro and macro through which Diversity accomplishes this targeting), it took me all of, say, five minutes to grasp the parallel; my white men had been being genocided for years in various ways, most recently through zionist neo-con wars. Their loss was my loss.

    Your weakness, Matt P, as a white man, is not mine, nor the white men’s I call ‘my people.’

    Feed Matt Heimbach

    • Matt Parrott

      LL stands zero chance of ever dividing me from the white men whom I love and who are part of me.

      LL didn’t have to do anything. Sooner or later, somebody on here was going to trip over your hobby horse and it’s a blood-on-the-walls no prisoners “boys vs. girls” MMA brawl for you.

      Feed Matt Heimbach

      Heimbach is well-fed, I assure you.

    • Hi Niemca! Happy Thanksgiving!

      I have to admit…Heimbach is looking rather under fed…lol…did you at least have him vaccinated? <—— see staying on topic.

    • Niemca

      One of us does have a reading comprehension deficit, Matt P, but that’s already been sort of established. I have never grounded my criticisms of you, or of Tom, in terms of ‘boys vs, girls.’ I personally think gender *is* mostly an economic and political construct, and that the struggle for liberation of white middle/lower men and women is a function of class, not of some conflict between ‘boys and girls.’ This is not something I haven’t expressed overtly so your unwillingness to comprehend the difference seems like a cultivated ignorance, maybe even an abject refusal.

    • Niemca

      ETA: stick ‘class’ in between ‘middle/lower’ and ‘men and women.’

  • Leslie H. Higgins

    I believe our friend Niemca is looking for VNN. “My body, my choice”? Touché.

    • Niemca

      I honestly don’t get either of your first two sentences.

  • Mandatory vaccinations is a mixed bag.

    On the one hand it has really minimized diseases that were pretty common and even deadly back in our grandparent’s day, on the other hand there is concern about what is really in these vaccines.

    Most of us are lucky never to have faced polio, measles, mumps …. and yet there is mumblings (mostly from the silly Alex Jones crowd) that vaccines can be controversial if they are the root of other problems. There is a back and forth on whether they are the reason for this apparent increase in autism, but maybe were we not as aware of the symptoms of the various kinds of autism we know about today so we are spotting it better.

    I heard the stories of how horrible it was before the vaccinations, I would not like to go back to those times. From what I gathered polio was one of the worst nightmares society was facing at the time it was an epidemic.

    It’s easy to be hypothetical about disease and children but the reality is none of us want small helpless beings facing deadly illnesses, for that I am pro-vaccine.

  • Lew

    I’ve been critical of the philosophical and political emphasis on individualism which has pervaded the West in general and America in particular for the last few hundred years. Taken to the extreme it’s been taken to, it results in selfishness, moral relativism, and an alienation from our ethnic and historic identities. But there’s an organic individualism, rooted in our human dignity, accountability, and equality in the eyes of God, which does confirm our right to free speech, our right to bear arms, and our right to raise and care for our children as we see fit.

    Organic versus atomistic individualism is an important distinction. Individualism, properly understood, is a long tradition in the West. It’s a concept that ought to be recovered for our side rather than surrendered to libertarians and degenerates.

    When Dominique Venner wrote on The Iliad, he used a nice formulation, “rooted individuality,” to distinguish healthy from pathological emphasis on the individual.

    Homer honors rooted individuality, not “individualism,” which is its perversion. With the respect of the adversary, in spite of implacable combat, they are bases of our tradition. One finds traces of this in the modern Iliad, Ernst Jünger’s In Storms of Steel. These living roots dominate the whole European psyche: tragedy and philosophy. They are engraved into art beginning with Greek sculpture; they sustain law and political institutions.

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/homer-the-european-bible-part-1/

One Solution

By: Matt Parrott


Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: