The true purpose of the federal mandate to fire the unjabbed

This article is going to talk about some uncomfortable truths of human nature.  You and I are going to use those sordid truths to reason about a difficult, potentially even dangerous future.  I hope you can stomach what's coming, but I would understand and expect if you violently rejected what you are about to read.

If I'm wrong, all the better.  If I'm right, I hope for your sake that you paid attention.  You have been warned.

As you well know, there is a U.S. federal government mandate to fire everyone who is not "fully vaccinated against COVID" (according to an ever-morphing standard of "fully vaccinated") come November 22.

Set aside for a moment the sizable chaos the order will cause.  Think about this: what's the purpose behind it?

• Sensible people recognize it can't be for health reasons.  "Fully vaccinated" people can contract, transmit, and die of COVID, almost as much as people who refuse to take mRNA therapies.  The disease is known to kill less than 1% of the workforce at risk of being sacked.  It is eminently not reasonable to require vaccination to continue employed; no sensible person has, in the history of Mankind (before COVID) ever thought of requiring vaccination for regular adult employees of any government.
• The order cannot be explained as an attempt to increase the efficacy of the government; losing ten, twenty percent of the workforce is clearly much worse for the operation of the federal government than five percent of that workforce dying outright.
• By now, everyone who wanted to get jabbed already did.  The people currently unjabbed are refusing the jab, determined not to get it.  The government knows that very well.  With that, it's clear that "increasing vaccination rates" doesn't fit as a motive either.

It's an absurd order, no matter how you look at it.  So why is the order still standing?

When all other possibilities have been eliminated, what remains must be the truth.  What does this simple exercise leave us with?

It leaves us with the obvious — point deer, make horse.  You know the story.  I tell you something absurd (in fact, the more absurd, the more useful), and if you don't fall in line with my absurdity, I axe you.  The point of the absurdity is for me to see whether you comply with me, or you think.  If you think, you're not useful to me.

The mandate is a compliance test being administered to federal employees.  The point of the test is to force employees to choose, between loyalty to their principles as well as their perception of what's true, versus obedience against their conscience.  People with a conscience and critical thinking skills will quit or be fired; they will be "boiled off".  It is a purge of people more loyal to their values than to the regime.  It is the removal of a the minority most likely to say "no, this is too far" in the face of worsening tyranny.  And it leaves those removed in a precarious situation.

Ask yourself this: after this purge, who stays in the employ of the federal government?

Answer: the remaining workforce will be composed almost strictly of authoritarians devoid of critical thinking, who dutifully comply with orders, no matter how absurd or evil those orders may be.  Then, in the absence of colleagues with a conscience or critical thinking skills, those people can then be ordered to do whatever unspeakable evil they are told, with little to no impediment or resistance from anyone in the remaining workforce.  You might object, "but I'm sure some right-thinking people remain, who gave into the jab just to keep their jobs" — yet it is clear from their actions that they elected to obey orders over exercising their conscience.

Given this, you must ask yourself very carefully — what will they choose to do, next time they're given orders?  It's well-understood that, once you've given into a small thing against your conscience, it's much easier to get you to agree to a bigger thing the next time.  Not at all coincidentally, this is exactly how they're getting people to take the boosters — they gave into the first two, so why wouldn't they agree to a third, or a fourth?  People in this situation often tell themselves "the next time I'll say no", but make no mistake, however begrudgingly, they'll still say yes — they just haven't come to terms with that reality yet.

Consider the implications.  If the remaining workforce is given an escalating series of orders, culminating in them sending you to a concentration camp, why wouldn't they do it?  No judge, police officer, or prosecutor is going to intercede in your behalf — they're all jabbed and have conclusively proven their loyalty by sticking in the employ of the regime.  It's not like anyone can stop them — all of their colleagues who would have protested such an order are long gone or terrified into silence.  Do you think that crowd will harbor any empathy for you at all?  Even if they had empathy in the abstract, do you think they'll stick their neck out for you?   Protip: they didn't even stick their neck out for themselves.  And they're all working for an organization that, not that long ago, already encamped tens of thousands once.

Are they really going to escalate into historic levels of evil?  We don't know — it's anyone's guess.  What we do know, however, is that the effects of the mandate certainly facilitate that outcome.  If an order removes power from scrupulous and empathetic people, the order's purpose is to empower unscrupulous and callous ones.  The purpose of a thing is what it does.

Tie to this the painful fact that the unjabbed — along with the opponents of lockdowns and mandates — are being censored, fiercely dehumanized, routinely segregated, and falsely blamed for deaths of jabbed people.  Solve for X.

If you ever wondered why Lenin and Stalin indulged in purges, and you cannot help but notice parallels between those historical events and today's events, now you know first hand how those purges worked.  I hope you also have it clear what came after them.