Jab tyranny rooted in 1905 Supreme Court ruling: ‘Three generations of imbeciles are enough’

by WorldTribune Staff, October 4, 2021

An extremely well-written synopsis of the larger threat to human freedom posed by the coercive coronavirus vaccine societal control matrix taking shape before our eyes is garnering significant attention. It deserves more.

In an essay titled “The Plague of the Poor” that appeared in The Tablet, an online Jewish magazine, on Sept. 29, Alex Gutentag highlights the alarming class-warfare aspects to the jab tyranny while destroying numerous dominant media-establishment-created myths. For instance (bold added throughout this article):

While national news outlets repeatedly run stories of unvaccinated patients taking up too much space in ICUs, almost half of the COVID-19 cases in hospitals are mild or asymptomatic. Many hospitals are actually facing a severe nursing shortage because of vaccine mandates, and overcrowding in American hospitals is mainly a symptom of chronic downsizing and cuts. In 1975 there were 1.5 million hospital beds available in the United States; in 2019 there were only 920,000. To make matters worse, hospitals lost an estimated $50 billion a month during lockdowns in 2020.  

The Fuller Court, 1888-1910. A century-old U.S. Supreme Court decision has been repeatedly and methodically cited by pro-mandatory vaccine forces to justify their groundbreaking medical despotism.

As workers are losing their jobs, this is happening:

Meanwhile, the provision of COVID-19 vaccines, personal protective equipment, and testing created 40 new billionaires the world over. Moderna, a company that had never brought a product to market before, received a license from the government to produce a liability-free vaccine and one year later reached a valuation of $100 billion. Pfizer projects that it will make $33.5 billion in vaccine revenue this year, and the company’s CEO now says that we will need “annual vaccination” to protect against COVID-19.

Gutentag importantly points out the inherent lie behind the “getting back to normal” mantra:

Proponents of vaccine mandates and passports claim that such policies will get us “back to normal.” But the increasingly unequal world that these requirements are actually building is anything but normal. It is a world in which the most basic forms of participation in society are contingent on submitting to an often unwanted medical procedure for which there is no long-term data. It is a world in which fundamental human freedoms — starting with the freedom to ask questions and to choose what substances go into one’s body — are now being suspended and mocked by politicians, judges, and journalists whose jobs are ostensibly to safeguard those freedoms.

She then carefully walks through the many false medical claims and faulty assumptions of the vaccine promoters before coming to the most valuable part of her piece: The coercion colossus behind this experimental vaccine is being justified via a gross distortion of American history.

A century-old U.S. Supreme Court decision has been repeatedly and methodically cited by pro-mandatory vaccine forces to justify their groundbreaking medical despotism.

Gutentag references a 2005 article published in The American Journal of Public Health, a peer-reviewed health journal. This very illuminating and prescient study, authored by thee Boston University medical professors and peppered at times with boilerplate progressive jargon on race and social justice, is titled “Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather’s Public Health Law.” It serves to show just how far progressives have drifted from a concern for civil liberties to support for ruthless government oppression in the span of 16 short years.

The article explicitly warns against the misuse of the 1905 ruling by modern would-be public health advocates today. From the introductory abstract:

We examined conceptions about state power and personal liberty in Jacobson and later cases that expanded, superseded, or even ignored those ideas.

Public health and constitutional law have evolved to better protect both health and human rights. States’ sovereign power to make laws of all kinds has not changed in the past century. What has changed is the Court’s recognition of the importance of individual liberty and how it limits that power. Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty.

The authors clearly state of the Jacobson case:

In 1902, when smallpox surged in Cambridge, the city’s board of health issued an order pursuant to this authority that required all adults to be vaccinated to halt the disease. The statutory penalty for refusing vaccination was a monetary fine of $5 (about $100 today). There was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person.

The Massachusetts state Supreme Court was quite explicit on the matter:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found it unnecessary to worry about any possible harm from vaccination, because no one could actually be forced to be vaccinated: “If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of $5.” Jacobson was fined, and he appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Jacobson appealed his fine. He was not appealing the threat of being forced to submit to a jab or forfeit his societal freedoms.

In upholding the right of the state of Massachusetts to impose a vaccination, the authors write, the U.S. Supreme Court did not give a green light to any and all measures of coercion:

The board of health was qualified to make that judgment, and, consistent with its own precedents, the Court said that it was the legislature’s prerogative to determine how to control the epidemic, as long as it did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner.

Despite this, Jacobson, not unexpectedly, was used as justification to expand coercive government power in the name of health or the “common good,” at times by future U.S. Supreme Courts as well:

One might have expected that these standards would be used to judge the validity of laws that restrict personal liberty. In later cases, however, the Court did not necessarily require states to meet these standards.

Disturbingly, this included the justification for a eugenics program that was very much in vogue among elites throughout a great part of the 20th Century:

In 1927, in Buck v Bell, the US Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded” persons in state institutions. Theories of eugenics enjoyed some medical and scientific support during the 1920s and 1930s. The Court found that the law served the public health and welfare because “mental defectives” would produce degenerate criminal offspring or imbeciles who “sap the strength of the state.”

Most people are familiar with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous pro-eugenics quote, “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.” But did you know he cited Jacobson immediately before making it?

Society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

So much for the sacred precedent of the Jacobson ruling.

The authors’ conclusion ends with a statement that is completely absent from the mindset of today’s vaccine bullies:

Public health programs that are based on force are a relic of the 19th century; 21st-century public health depends on good science, good communication, and trust in public health officials to tell the truth. In each of these spheres, constitutional rights are the ally rather than the enemy of public health. Preserving the public’s health in the 21st century requires preserving respect for personal liberty.

INFORMATION WORLD WAR: How We Win . . . . Executive Intelligence Brief