5 Filters

Miri: These propagandists need shooting

Excellent piece here from Miri who I only heard of about an hour ago:

These propagandists need shooting…

Written by: Miri

July 17, 2022

…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.

3 Likes

Good article Rich

The mockumentary link takes you to this picture of Prof. Fry, which I did wonder about.

I’m sure she’s charming, but does it seem the picture goes out of the way to emphasize that she ain’t no waitress - is this aimed at the viewers?

The BBC is careful not to use the word ‘anti-vaxxer’ in the blurb.
The Heil does its bit in that regard:

A BBC team spent a week trying to convince seven anti-vaxxers to get the Covid jab - amid their claims ‘it contains deadly microchips’ and is a ‘plot to depopulate the Earth’: So did ANY of them change their mind?

With a captioned picture
image

Fry is captioned saying “They had challenging views - I had to bite my cheek”

But some of the captions did not reveal anti-vax views.

Incidentally the Heil’s claim of fewer than 500 complications is a lie. There were 500 (498) spontaneous abortions alone.

(Maybe a Heil insider looked up the flu jab in error, a mistake anyone can make eh @RhisiartGwilym? :laughing: )

But the Heil article does reveal the Beeb weren’t as successful as they hoped in changing these ingorant anti-vaxxers’ minds. That’s not exactly strange, as they approached the attempted ‘conversion’ from a psychological point of view.
All that money spent on academia pychologising away people’s suspicions of one of the worst products in history gone to waste. Maybe it is the product…?
In fact, do we know Professor Fry’s views now? :wink:

1 Like

Hannah Fry’s book Hello World is in my to-read antechamber. She’s a standard overconfident academic grifter from what I can tell ie utterly closed minded and go-with-the-herd, a mumsy role model for the indoctrinee undergraduates.

The photo with the speech bubbles is interesting for the range of tropes it depicts. Were there no antivaxxers whose stance was a simple “Not gonna”? Also the age range: are the 20-40 year olds being targeted for any particular reason or was the show simply following the standard “one of them, one of them, and a dusky maiden” Diversity schtick?

Miriam Finch is pretty good although a bit cavalier sometimes, we’re Facebook friends you know :rofl:

3 Likes

“She’s a standard overconfident academic grifter from what I can tell ie utterly closed minded and go-with-the-herd, a mumsy role model for the indoctrinee undergraduates.”
:smiley:
What happened to training them to think for themselves (rhetorical - I know what happened).

Complaints about the programme are brimming over behind the scenes.

(But not from the Guardian, who were only infuriated at Hannah Fry’s patience.
Unvaccinated review – the most infuriating TV show of the year so far | Television | The Guardian)

It was too patronizing for the Telegraph:

Statistical guru Prof Norman Fenton revealed that
“BBC’s ‘independent vaccine expert’ just happens to be in charge of Pfizer’s Vaccine Centre” Link: https://www.normanfenton.com/post/bbc-s-independent-vaccine-expert-just-happens-to-be-in-charge-of-pfizer-s-vaccine-centre

Amongst other conflicts of interest, Fenton points out that the other expert, Asma Khalil, is listed as PI (principal investigator?) of the Pfizer Covid Vaccination in Pregnancy Trial - a review which Fenton says is “actually a meta-analysis of what appears to be cherry-picked studies (many of which have obvious biases and flaws)”.

As the Mail told us:

"As for concerns about how exactly the jab works, the group travelled to meet Professor Adam Finn, a paediatrician from the University of Bristol who has been instrumental in Covid vaccine research.

But I don’t think the group were told they were travelling to meet a Pfizer rep. Though I expect they had found that out for themselves.

Having seen the edited programme 3 days before screening, participant Nazarin Veronica is fuming at the misrepresentation.
Irked at the jelly bean stunt, she is motivated to spill the rest of the beans apparently.

When I first saw that photo in the DM a few days ago I clocked “Vicky, 43” as being the actress Emma Fryer who was in the film Kill List which is a sort of UK version of Eyes Wide Shut.

At 01.19 in the vid trailer for Kill List below Emma Fryer is visible for about 1 second and also looks very much like “Vicky, 43”

3 Likes

You do, lol.

A big thing in academia these days is research impact. While this can mean lots of citations of your articles in serious journals, it can also mean appearing on the telly, lots of Twitter followers, publishing popular science books with covers that make them look like chick-lit, and getting your photo taken A Lot so that the Web and Comms guys (in fact mostly young females from Nice homes) can smother the online prospectus with stardust.

At Kent this year’s darling isn’t even an academic but is all over the web pages like a rash: ticks so many boxes. I have no idea who she is but she can offer not just race and gender trump cards but a victim history to go with them.

Oh well spotted.

Kill List is a great film apart from the sound design, the dialogue is inaudible for vast stretches of it. Let’s avoid spoilers and say that it goes in some very unexpected directions. The brief glimpse in the trailer looks like it’s from the ritual scenes towards the end of the film.

Ta for the photos Ev and I see what you mean about the house. I thought Fry’s choice of clothes was strange - a denim jacket with fly agaric mushrooms. A load of us got stoned on those once back in the day when we’d run out of acid. Any idea what the white flowers on the jacket are?

“Luca 31” with his depopulation view will appear completely barking to the punters. I imagine the BBC asked the extras agency to supply someone resembling a nutcase?

I’m quite suspicious of the whole event.

2 Likes

Yes, I’m fairly sure that glimpse of her was from the ritual scenes. She was mainly at the dinner party at the beginning of the film IIRC and it was her that scratched the pentagram(?) on the back of the mirror when she went to the bathroom.

I have a pair of high quality earphones that I use for films with bad sound.

Okay so I’ve been digging a bit, starting at the threadsirish SubStack. Apparently Emma or maybe it is Vicky is an ardent TikTokker and is connected to this enterprise

https://cbd-angel.co.uk

and she is fighting back against BBC distortion. Which actually makes me wonder if there’s a double/treble bluff going on, because “cannabis oil lady rants about BBC” is really going to win hearts and minds in Country Club country.

It seems that GB News will be interviewing contestants/participants.

BTW I think the white flower on Hannah’s denim jacket might be camomile

More stuff on “unvaccinated” - a three parter from Iain Davis :

part 3 not published yet.

I don’t always agree with ID but he does some excellent research.

cheers

2 Likes

Yes. He could do with a stricter editor to bring down the word counts though, as he can belabour the point at times. I’m not sure every single shred of evidence needs to be put out at once: leave some stuff in reserve for when the Flak Chuckers rebut you. At the very least they then need to rebut you a second or third time. Sound bloke though.

1 Like