
© screenshots
Stanley Kramer film classic from 1961: "Judgement at Nuremberg"
I recently had the occasion to re-watch, after oh so many long decades, the Stanley Kramer classic from 1961,
Judgment at Nuremberg. And the viewing experience resonated into
an unavoidable series of comparisons with the current state of the world. Of course, there are so many people who, while during the era of the Trump presidency couldn't stop themselves endlessly condemning as fascists and Nazis, Trump, his supporters and indeed anyone who wasn't prepared to offer similar unqualified denunciations,
but today bristle at the alleged absurdity and unreasonableness of using those same historical precedents when reflecting upon the current COVID hysteria. And yet,
as the Kramer film illustrates, the comparisons are difficult to ignore.
The usual resort to invoking the Nuremberg trials among critics of the COVID regime is to
cite the legal precedents established that it was a violation of international law for the government to compel medical procedures upon its citizens. Indeed, Kramer's film explicitly
addressed the questions of forced sterilization. It even had the even-handedness to acknowledge that the
real-life Nazi's got their ideas of sterilization from practices in the so-called democracies, including the United States and Canada. Some see the vaccine passport programs now being introduced all over the world as violating that Nuremberg precedent.
Nay-sayers will dismiss this comparison in objecting that no one is being compelled or coerced into receiving the vaccine. Maybe no one is being held down and injected, but
when the alternative is official second-class citizenship - in which failure to comply prevents one from legally traveling, attending a wide range of public events and locations, including going to school, and for many entails being terminated from their employment (even in some cases where they have no social contact with others in performing their job) -
this "lack of coercion" objection rings hollow.
Comment: As was stated, Youngkin actually did win the election, which makes all the above points even more pertinent. It's rather unlikely, however, that entrenched liberal powers will take this as 'a message to the White House' in any way shape or form.