These propagandists need shooting...

0Shares
0
Written by: Miri
July 17, 2022
 | 3 Comments

...with the "booster" they're so fanatically trying to force on everyone else.

With the news confirmed on Friday that the latest "booster" (the 4th, 5th, or even 6th injection for some) will be foisted on - I mean 'offered to' - ALL over-50s, as well as all "vulnerable" under-50s (that includes pregnant women), the propagandist presstitutes of the mainstream media have wasted no time in beginning their aggressive campaign of manipulative lies to get this toxic cocktail into the nation's veins.

Documented paedophile enablers, the BBC, are putting together a mockumentary (it certainly does not qualify for any other description) called 'Unvaccinated', whereby an "expert" will attempt to corral seven alleged "anti-vaxxers" into taking the jab, using a combination of cherry-picked data, emotional manipulation, and sneery condescension.

First of all, I'd like to point out the obvious fact that as this mockumentary is on television - and made by such premium propagandists as the BBC - we have to consider the very distinct possibility that these alleged "anti-vaxxers" are actually actors. I am personally connected to thousands of vaccine sceptics, and, without exception, they all despise the BBC, most don't pay the licence fee, and none would ever agree to appear on a BBC production of this nature, knowing full well it will be scrupulously sculpted and heavily edited to present them in the worst light possible - whilst enriching the coffers of the already bloated-with-wealth BBC. So, do forgive me if I'm the slightest bit suspicious about the authenticity of these performers.

Whenever anybody is on television for any reason, one must always consider the very real possibility that they are some sort of theatrical professional (this certainly applies to politicians and media talking heads, most of whom have acting credentials in their CV and many have been professionally trained). The BBC is heavily invested in presenting "anti-vaxxers" in a certain way, and the most reliable way of ensuring they are presented that way, is to hire actors and give them scripts.

This likelihood is further underlined by the excerpts from the show I have read about, and how all seven of these "anti-vaxxers" conveniently confirm all the worst, laziest stereotypes about vaccine sceptics: namely, that they are thick, poorly educated, and completely impervious to reason - characteristics which do not remotely reflect in any of the hundreds of vaccine sceptics I know personally, nor are they reflected by the official data on "anti-vaxxers" - on the contrary. Evidence has repeatedly shown that the more highly educated someone is (especially in the hard sciences and statistical methodology), the more likely they are to be vaccine sceptic. Someone educated to PhD level is the least likely to vaccinate their children, whilst those most likely to complete the vaccination schedule on time and in full are high-school dropouts.

But instead of reflecting the reality that vaccine sceptics are often highly-educated and affluent, this propagandist piece has selected such people as "Naomi, 21, waitress" and others with names like "Chanelle", a name that has negative class and educational connotations - it's the kind of name snobbish liberal elites pick if they're trying to lampoon and mock the working classes ("well, all the top scientists agree that vaccines are safe, but Chanelle from Essex who runs a hair salon thinks they're a plot by Bill Gates to depopulate the world" - haha, stupid old Chanelle, eh?).

The BBC programme also features "Luca, 31", who developed his views, so says the production, "due to reading conspiracy theories on Facebook".

This is such devious and manipulative language, because it completely abdicates the reader from considering Luca's views as having any validity - without the need to actually know what they are. The suggestion that, if something is published on social media, it instantly becomes invalid, is completely bizarre (the UK Government has a Facebook page, so do most universities and newspapers - is all the content posted there therefore null and void?), but it works - because it's sneery, elitist condescension, meant to imply, "these people are so thick, they believe every stupid thing they read on social media. They actually think that badly written and misspelt Facebook post from their mate Dave is the same as a peer-reviewed study!"

In fact, Facebook is just a platform, and that something is published there (or on any other social media platform) has no bearing on whether or not it's credible. For instance, I posted a link to the UK Government's website on Facebook last week, that warned of post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis.

Is this a "baseless conspiracy theory" simply because I posted it on Facebook?

Well, according to Facebook it is, because they pulled the post and slapped me with a 30-day ban for posting "misinformation that causes physical harm".

The BBC programme attempts to insinuate that individual credibility is lessened if an individual has been banned from social media (as "Luca" has been, repeatedly, we are told - if he's real, he sounds like a stand-up guy) - yet, as we see from my latest banning, social media has accused the UK Government itself of being a conspiracy theorist promoting misinformation - whilst Facebook has also admitted in court that its fact-checkers don't actually share facts, but "protected opinions".

Despite this reality, the dominant social narrative is deviously constructed in such a way as to suggest Facebook and other social media platforms are blemishless purveyors of objective fact; noble seekers of truth who seek to protect their users "from physical harm" promoted by crazy whackos with sinister agendas. Therefore, if you are banned from social media, you are obviously a dangerous lunatic spreading "baseless conspiracy theories".

That particular term is very often employed when the mainstream press discusses vaccines, another example of their very clever and manipulative use of language, because the reader simply accepts it as true - an authority has declared certain "theories" about vaccination (like the notion they affect fertility) as "baseless" and so it must be true. Therefore, the consumers of mainstream media simply repeat this. When a vaccine sceptic friend tells them of vaccine dangers, they glaze over and repeat the robotic incantation, "that's a baseless conspiracy theory".

Which, of course, it isn't - there is mountains of evidence, including multiple studies and testimonies from top experts that the vaccines harm fertility and cause all sorts of other damage - but if mainstream and social media refuse to give this evidence a platform - instead, ruthlessly suppressing, smearing, and 'disappearing' it - then the vast majority of people don't see it, and so take the media at its word that vaccine safety concerns are "baseless conspiracy theories" (tackling this kind of ultra-devious propaganda and rebalancing the debate was the inspiration behind my new resource, 'Informed Consent Matters').

It's worth reading the whole piece on the 'Unvaccinated' programming (as we know, it's called 'programming' for a reason), and applying the same critical eye to the avalanche of further jab propaganda we can expect over the next six weeks (the booster campaign is due to commence September 1st), because it reveals with rather breathtaking clarity just how deceptive and malevolent our opponents are - just what depths they will stoop to, and just how much they will lie, dupe, omit, and deceive to manipulate people into vaccine compliance.

This is the complete antithesis of what ethical medicine (what ethical anything) is supposed to be about, and shows what we are up against in trying to sway the "reachable middle" onto our side. The evidence shows that while around 20% of the population are "extreme" in their views on both sides (e.g., 20% are resolute in their vaccine scepticism and will never get jabbed; 20% are extreme in their devotion to the establishment and will gleefully line up for arm-fulls of needles), about 60% aren't sure. They may have had one or two jabs, but perhaps reluctantly or with some scepticism, and are certainly having significant misgivings about lining up for even more injections. Consequently, the mainstream are going to bombard this 60% over the next six weeks, using every dastardly trick in the book, to manipulate their compliance. The propaganda is going to be overwhelming, which is why we must counter this with a similarly robust and effective campaign of our own.

This latest booster has been ominously described by Moderna as "five times more effective" (at what?), and a whistleblower has already echoed my thoughts on the matter - that this is it: the kill shot. While the previous vaccines have been bad, it does appear many (especially for the first dose) got the placebo, whilst some batches seem dramatically less bad than others (maybe no worse than the 'flu shot - which, by the way, they plan to give in the Autumn *at the same time* as the Covid booster - oh yes, with aaaaall that safety data (e.g., none whatsoever) showing how safe that is).

However, this new booster (and it is a new concoction, which Moderna cheerfully admit to having knocked up in about five minutes) is going to do colossal damage to far many more than have been harmed so far, so we must do everything we can to raise awareness - not just to protect those who might take it, but to protect ourselves: if this jab is given to the millions being targeted, it will result in a huge upsurge in serious illness and death, which could well be used as an excuse for more restrictions, and even another lockdown. So this must be challenged and obstructed at all costs.

Taking into consideration exactly what tactics the mainstream uses - the kind of language and presentation they employ to gain trust - Mark and I have developed this leaflet, designed and written to look as if it comes from "official" sources, and avoiding use of any trigger "conspiracy" language that could cause a reader to shut down and dismiss it. So please do consider ordering some and distributing in your local area. We'll also be developing stickers and other awareness-raising materials, and doing as much as we can over the next six weeks (before the booster programme commences on September 1st) to get the truth out.

That "they" are doing quite so much to try and propagandise the public into receiving yet another jab is in many ways quite encouraging - it shows they haven't won yet (you don't remain in combat if the war is over) and that there is still everything to play for. So, I know it's been a long, hard two years, and "fighting fatigue" is starting to set in for many, but please don't give up. Remember, if our efforts weren't working, they wouldn't do so much to suppress them. Our numbers are growing daily and many significant victories have already been won (such as the NHS backing down on mandatory jabs). So, take a breath, regroup - and let's keep fighting.

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider supporting the site via donation:

3 comments on “These propagandists need shooting...”

  1. I'd put money on a "Live-on-TV" EPIPHANY for the so-called anti-vaxxers, magically "coming round to see sense" convinced by the "expert" of their "errors of judgement".

    OR…

    Stooges do a fake conversion to the ClotShot Religion.

  2. One either sees through the lies or they dont.Anyone who buys into establishment bullshit will always be deluded.I think your doing great work Miri and i will support you when i can.
    Myles Nyahbinghi

  3. "Documented paedophile enablers, the BBC, are putting together a mockumentary" great line Miri.. I'd like to add to that "BBC a terrorist organisation"

    Yes great article will share, and will get some leaflets..

Leave a Reply

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

Search

Archives

Categories

.
©2022 Miri A Finch. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram