A viewer asks: “Creator, the government in my country (Norway) is planning to introduce a vaccine passport, although there might be a violation of human rights, segregating people in this way. What outcome is the most likely, at this point, in my country, and throughout the world? Is it likely the society will be divided into two groups—the group of vaccinated with unlimited rights to travel and partake in all activities and the group of unvaccinated who will face limitations?”

We do not like to make pronouncements about future events because this has unexpected consequences in creating an expectation, and in many cases a kind of fait accompli as those who hear such a pronouncement assume it is inevitable and will acquiesce and by default contribute to the worst possible outcome they are fearing will happen, when in fact it is not certain. There is nothing about the future that is certain. It is all in flux and all potentially subject to change with a shift in sufficient intention from human consciousness. There is certainly a widespread support and an embrace of the idea of mandatory vaccination among government officials around the world. They are simply exercising their power in a way bringing maximum efficiency from their perspective, which is to apply a public health measure they believe in to the greatest possible extent, even if human rights get stepped on, the greater good seems to justify the means of attaining it. That is always a slippery slope and may well not be supported in many nations, given enough free thinkers and enough laws that might be a barrier to establishing such draconian measures, so time will tell to what extent people are spared from this heavy-handed totalitarian approach or forced to accept it if they want to have any personal power and freedom of movement that require compliance. We side with those who view mandatory vaccination as a violation of basic human rights and liberty. It should be a personal decision what people do to their own bodies with respect to personal health, even though one can make an argument that an unvaccinated person is, in effect, a potential risk to others because they are theoretically more likely to be a vector for the spread of an infectious disease ostensibly preventable through the vaccination under discussion. But liberty is liberty and, in an absolute sense, there is no obligation to put oneself at risk to benefit another. We would say that all lives are sacred, and that one is not superior to another in value or merit, in an absolute sense, considering that all are divinely created and have immortal souls, and that whatever state of being and lifestyle they exhibit in a current incarnation is a quite temporary state of affairs and only minimally representing the potential of that soul, making it impossible to judge people on their merit when only surface characteristics are on display. That being so, there is no fair way to sift and sort who is deserving of liberty and who might be less deserving. It is in these kinds of judgments that the state is ill-equipped to render an opinion, let alone have the absolute power and authority to rule over others and force them to do things against their own interests.