In Germany, in the 1930s, you had to wear a yellow star, if the state deemed you unclean. In Britain, in 2021, a number of leading universities have pretty much done the same thing. The University of Bath’s Student Union, among others taking similar action, has issued coloured wristbands to students indicating covid vaccination status. Those deemed clean will get fast track entry to Freshers’ Week events, while the unclean will have to make alternative arrangements, and suffer segregation at entry, or even be refused entry at all. That a bunch of likely Trotskyite zombies posing as student union officials should dream up a controlling and coercive scheme comes as no surprise; of far greater surprise and concern is the fact — if a student union spokesperson is to be believed — that the “fast-track wristband has been the overwhelmingly popular choice with our students”. It’s a wonder that spokesperson didn’t add that “model individuals will be commended in accordance with regulations, and extensive publicity will be conducted through the news media to create a trustworthy and glorious student opinion atmosphere”. To which Dr No can only add: this time, the turkeys really have voted for Christmas.

It has become the norm for vaccine fanatics to accuse those who mark coercive vaccination and the use of covid passports as milestones on the road to a new Nazi hell of using absurd hyperbole and in so doing — this is the poke in the eye with a sharp moral stick — abusing the memory of those who died in the Holocaust. But that is to misunderstand what the objectors say. No one, least of all Dr No, equates the mindless adoption by some turkeys in Bath of covid status badges with the end stages of the Final Solution. Instead, it is an early but necessary step on the path towards the social oblivion of a final solution, a milestone that marks both deprivation of liberty — in this case, the trivial liberty to enter Freshers’ Week social events, but the trivialness is beyond the point, which is the unjustified deprivation of liberty — and the external and visible marking of unhygienic otherness.

The Final Solution could not have happened without these prerequisite steps, and so it behoves us not to prevent another Auschwitz — if it gets to that point, we have already travelled far far too far — but instead to rail against the early steps, the ostensibly trivial but in truth momentous milestones on the road to hell. Clive James made much the same point over a quarter of a century ago, reviewing Thames Television’s The Final Solution: Auschwitz. The entire review is very worth reading, because it is as relevant today as it ever was, but the key passages on when to act come at the end. In the penultimate paragraph, James observes that “it is useless to expect the mass of men to behave like heroes,” and exhorts us to “do our best to guard free institutions and not expect people [in today’s context, neither the Student’s Union, nor the turkeys who have embraced the trustworthy and glorious student opinion atmosphere] to improve”. But the real message comes in the last paragraph.

Taking the commentary to task for promoting pious rhetoric, James singles out the smug complacency of the presenter’s “We all have a responsibility to see that no one builds another Auschwitz” as being particularly misguided. “On the contrary,” writes James, “we should devote ourselves to preserving more immediate freedoms.” And that’s the whole point. If we find ourselves heeding a responsibility to see that no one builds another Auschwitz, we will already long since have failed. Instead we must devote ourselves to preserving more immediate freedoms. We cannot expect the Student’s Union or the turkeys to do it; instead, it is we — those of us who are not for a moment model individuals fooled by the trustworthy and glorious student opinion atmosphere of Freshers’ Week 2021 — who must devote ourselves to preserving more immediate freedoms. It is through gentle reason and peaceful protest, rather than through Semtex explosives, that we shall win our fight to protect essential liberties1.       

Footnote 1: there are as many explanations of what Franklin was getting at in the famous quotation as you care to find. Part of the confusion arises from the fact Franklin clearly found the words very much to his liking, and used them on more than one occasion. The first known use was in 1755, in a letter often said to be about taxation — and so has nothing to do with modern Big State concerns — but Dr No begs to differ. If we include the preceding sentence along with the quote itself, the meaning becomes clearer: “We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. Despite their distress, the Freemen of Pennsylvania do not wish for further interference. And then, in 1775, we have (link via last link in the post) “The Massachusetts must suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war, rather than admit the alteration of their charter and laws by parliament. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Again the context shows the words are about preferring risk to interference. It is also worth noting that on this occasion, although surrounded by events of war, Franklin wrote the words during an attempt to achieve peaceful conciliation through reason and protest, rather than through hostilities. Change two words, Massachusetts to British, and war to covid, and the words could not be more acutely relevant today.


  1. dearieme Reply

    Now that Indians prefer not to say “Untouchable” it means the word is available for us to use without the risk of ambiguity.

  2. James Robinson Reply

    Many of our institutions have progressively been infiltrated with wokeists. As such, they respond to the moral panic, gas lit by the media and politicians, with virtue signalling nonsense — like the arm bands as you describe above. Lack of critical judgment by the rule makers and their followers, allows measures like this to appear reasonable and moderate. Part of it is out of necessity (eg. I need to gain entry to the Student Union bar) and part of it is following the herd mentality.

    Historian, David Starkey makes some interesting points in a recent GB News interview, claiming that the Greta Saints we have created are part of a new ‘godless’ religion.

    But the point being ‘holier than thou’ appears to be the benchmark objective for the woke brigade. To the extent students are being demarcated as such, without any self awareness of the potentially perilous road wearing a band could lead us to.

  3. Tish Farrell Reply

    I can feel myself being worn to my wits’ end with all this – the never ending on and on and on of manipulation, the covert and not so covert coercion, and the outright all embracing lie that this is anything to do with human health. It doesn’t seem to matter how many eminent voices of integrity speak out against the vaccine juggernaut or point out how medical ethics and practise have been turned on their heads; or state the actual fact that no one knows the full short, medium or long term effects of these experimental interventions because they are STILL IN TRIAL and no one is scrupulously monitoring the millions of believing recipients who have no idea what they have consented to.

    I have just responded to the gov’s manipulative consultation questionnaire on the winter intro of vaccine passports should hospital cases rise – the questions framed in done-deal manner. So one way or another they will have their way. All they need to do is lie.

  4. Helen McArdle Reply

    I’ve seen objections to anyone making this historical comparison, on the basis that Jewish people had no choice about their Jewishness, whereas those currently given the categorisation of ‘Unvaccinated’ can choose to be ‘Vaccinated’. So, can we infer from this that had there been a choice about categorisation, back in the day, it would have been ok?

    The Nazis did not limit their classification identification system to yellow stars. They created an entire rainbow of ‘otherness’.

    There is no scientific justification for segregation of people by vaccination status. Multiple independent observers have demonstrated now that once infected there is at least NO DIFFERENCE in infectivity between vaccinated and unvaccinated. One interesting recent pre-print suggests that vaccinated asymptomatic infected patients may even be slightly more infectious than unvaccinated asymptomatic patients (Ct values <25 were detected in 7 of 24 unvaccinated (29%; CI: 13-51%) and 9 of 11 fully vaccinated asymptomatic individuals (82%; CI: 48-97%), and 158 of 232 unvaccinated (68%, CI: 62-74%) and 156 of 225 fully vaccinated (69%; CI: 63-75%) symptomatic individuals).

    Moreover, the Zoe App suggests that the top 5 symptoms for 'breakthrough' infection in the vaccinated, now includes 'sneezing', which is not a top 5 symptom in unvaccinated infections. How better to spread infection than a high velocity sneeze? Most people now know that vaccinated people both acquire and transmit infection.

    On a local level we see 53% of infections since June 2021 in those >25y are double vaccinated and 21% are single vaccinated. Official sources (amplified by the media) usually quote stats for peak Vaccine Efficacy (against infection, symptoms, hospitalisation and death), though by 20+ weeks, VE can be as low as 30% against acquiring infection, a fall from a peak of 60-85%. Israel knows this, hence the boosters, and boosters of boosters, and promise of boosters of boosters of boosters, regardless of past infection status.

    For those who call all this absurd hyperbole, I would warn that we are already much further along than most people in the UK realise. Australia, Canada, Italy, France, Lithuania etc have rapidly turned the heat up in recent months. In what appears to be a global movement, those categorised as Unvaccinated are now denied the liberty to work. Tens of thousands of people with infection-acquired immunity are no longer able to work. Yet highly socially connected vaccinated people with waning immunity or poor immunity due to poor general health are deemed intrinsically safe. What is frightening is that all attempts to appeal these decisions through the courts appear to be unsuccessful.

    In comparison, coloured wristbands for Freshers seems like such a minor thing.. but what better way to shape the future and normalise discrimination & deprivation of liberty, than to indoctrinate the young. Then leave peer-pressure and conformity to do its thing.

    Edited 14:10 2 Oct 21 by Dr No to tidy up some WordPress comment mangling…

  5. steve Reply

    The narrative of double vaccinated + boosters for those deemed worthy is all that matters.

    The policy to double vaccinate will drive all other considerations.

    The numbers will be proven to support the policy, the science will be proven to support the policy, the critical judgement will be proven to support the policy.

    Nothing else matters, and nothing must stop the policy. Censorship and destruction of any who dare challenge the narrative will be total.

    There will be no alternative thinking, no matter how plausible.

    Your YouTube channel will be shut down, your Twitter account closed.

    All mainstream news will support the double vaccinate policy.

    We the government know what’s best for you!

  6. dr-no Reply

    Helen – thank you for your observations. Dr No decided not to include the vaccination is not really very effective anyway arguments in the original post, on his one post, one topic principle, but they are a welcome contribution here.

    As it happens, Dr No did get reprimanded on twitter this morning, for comparing vaccination with the Holocaust, despite the fact that Dr No was at pains to point out (middle of para 2) that he did not equate vaccination status badges with the Final Solution (Holocaust). What he is comparing is the early steps (classifications, badges) on a road that can lead to a Nazi hell, so that he can then make what is the central point of this post, repeated no less than three times, that we shouldn’t be indulging in pious rhetoric about preventing future atrocities, we should instead be preserving and protecting essential freedoms now, so we never get to the future atrocities.

    The Jewish people had no choice about their Jewishness argument also came up. This argument is true, but is it relevant? Perhaps what matters is the state deciding on an arbitrary and discriminating classification system, and then applying it ruthlessly. A further problem is that the choice of whether or not to be vaccinated is hardly a simple matter like deciding what coloured socks to wear today. The Jews certainly had no choice about their ancestry, but can we really say it is a simple choice to get vaccinated when the ‘choice’ is in fact for some a matter of extreme coercion, backed up by threats of social exclusion, deprivation of livelihood, and all the other noxious apparatus of the vaccinate Vaccinate VACCINATE empire?

    Dr No nearly added this image to a tweet, but avoided doing so, because he did not want to pour petrol on twitter flames. The trouble with twitter is that tweets are really only long enough to contain the petrol, and adding any form of context is effectively impossible, unless an extended twitter thread is used, which always strikes Dr No as being an unfortunate cross between megaphone diplomacy and telegraphic brevity.

    It is worth noting that stage 3 also includes deprivation of livelihood, and there are parallels between now, and 1930s Germany, where Jewish doctors were systematically excluded from the medical profession. True, a healthcare worker today can ‘choose’ to get vaccinated, and keep their livelihood, but, as pointed out above, if it is coercion masquerading as choice, then it really isn’t choice at all.

  7. Annie Davenport Turner Reply

    Thank you for this excellent blog, Dr No; we need to face this head on now if we have a chance of making a difference to not only ourselves, but most especially to the lives of our young people.

    I’m afraid we’re now well into the second half of the monstrous Schwab’s ‘Covid 19: The Great Reset’ book (available as a PDF download; no need to give him or Amazon any more money with his print-to-order book), published, it might be good to know, in June 2020, which is mighty quick to write, edit, and type-set any truly brand new book about the ‘window of opportunity gained through Covid’, nest pas? And if we’re halfway through The 10 Stages of Genocide, then we’re also halfway through Gates’ depopulation dream. And even though the graphs already suggest a highly possible correlation to that shocking desire being well under way, I’m no longer even thinking about graphs, jabs, ‘cases’, or tests, but of how to build a life, a community, a parallel way of living to the horrific one coming our way, because (a) it’s needed, and (b), if, by any miracle, this whole thing does come tumbling down around their, and thus our, ears, we need new things in place in order to carry on, and places and ways to welcome people to when they realise what’s been going on.

    In the meantime, only one word sits on my lips, ready if needs be: No.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *