Tactics of the Propagandists: Part 5

In Part 5

Appeal to Virtues

“You’re killing people!”

Humor

Local Outbreaks Are Caused By A Single Individual

Deaths are deaths. Age is irrelevant.

Zero COVID

Lockdowns Will Be Short and Serve a Specific Purpose

Intimidation and Discipline of Physicians

Only Loonies Would Question the Safety of COVID Vaccines

“You’re killing people!”

Our political leaders and news sources have always said that coronavirus is so deadly and so contagious, that to be near another person is to endanger people’s lives. “You’re killing my mother,” as New York’s Governor Cuomo put it. You may, after all, transmit SARS-CoV-2 without even knowing that you are infected and cause a chain of infections that eventually kills someone. 

This is one of the cruelest of all the propaganda tactics. Burdening people with the constant fear that they are killing people just by leaving home is an egregious act of sadism. Of course, once governments decided that masks are necessary, they started telling us that we’re killing people by not wearing masks. In early 2021, the media and government are now saying that we are killing people if we are not wearing three or four masks at the same time. 

This devious method of persuasion targets people who are comfortable with the personal risks of coronavirus involved in social interaction. Everyone, however, is uncomfortable with risking the lives of others. SARS-CoV-2 is not a deadly virus. The few people that die with it are almost always dying of old age. There is therefore no reason to feel like you are risking the lives of others by not masking or distancing. But by using the ultimate guilt-trip, the sadistic enforcers of the lockdown cult are able to make us exponentially overestimate the severity of SARS-CoV-2 while dodging any discussion about death rates. The ‘You’re killing people’ ploy is true propaganda — many of us know that it is a trick but nevertheless succumb to it and stay home because we cannot control our feelings of guilt! Propagandists: 1. Us: 0.

Humor is an effective method of persuasion. Stating an opinion while being funny bypasses logical analysis of the opinion in the minds of the receivers. As they laugh at the witty comments, their minds neglect to critically evaluate the subjective views, resulting in a passive acceptance of them. Left-wing media has many comedic news programs that present leftist political and social views in a humorous manner. Many of the viewers of these programs use them as their primary source of news. While these shows provide comedic entertainment (much needed in these depressing times), they also spread political perspectives in such a way as to avoid fair scrutiny. 

Humor is also an effective tool to discredit one’s enemies. By humorously ridiculing people, propagandists make their enemies look like fools with little to no logical explanation by the propagandist and little to no rational analysis of the message by the recipients. Media propagandists have used humor to spread misinformation about lockdowns and defame politicians who have resisted the lockdown cult. 

How we feel about the messenger is also affected by her use of humor. Humor makes us feel good and we can’t help but like people who make us feel good. The more we like someone, the more we trust her and passively accept her convictions. Furthermore, funny people are just plain innocent. Who is suspicious of someone who is consistently funny? Aren’t bad guys in movies always serious in temperament? Pretty much. Being funny and being bad or ill-intentioned just don’t seem to go together, so funny people are naturally regarded as trustworthy.

Hearing others laugh is a powerful form of social proof. Our minds neglect to analyze whether people agree with the humorous remarks, or even if the people we hear laughing have questioned if the remarks are accurate. Our subconscious simply tells us, “People are laughing at this comment, so they must agree with it.” Most comedic news shows are taped in front of an audience, so we can hear others laughing. Many of the perpetrators of this tactic of the lockdown scam are hosts of the left-wing political comedy television programs. If you watch these programs, keep your mind alert to the evidence and rationale they offer for their opinions. If there is no solid argument offered for the comedian’s opinion (there rarely is), you should reject it.

A most heart-piercing and sadistic propaganda tactic. Experts and journalists of the lockdown cult love to scare the wits out of people by proclaiming that one person can infect many. Often, politicians will claim that the more cruel restrictions they are imposed are because one person infected hundreds of others. No wonder anxiety is at record highs. It is an enormous burden to place upon someone that by not very strictly avoiding others, they could be the one to personally infect hundreds of others and be the cause of another lockdown.

There are many problems with the claim that one person is the cause of a lockdown for infecting many others. To begin with, no human being is responsible for someone getting COVID-19. COVID-19 is an illness caused by a virus — the virus is responsible for people getting sick, not human beings. If a person is responsible for COVID-19, it would only be the person who becomes infected, for not doing enough to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as supplementing vitamin D and strengthening his microbiome by being in nature. 

The fact that the contract tracing police sometimes can trace back multiple infections to an individual doesn’t make that person responsible for infecting them in any way. The COVID test produces mostly false positives, making the entire contract tracing system fraudulent. Regarding the people who genuinely had caught a SARS-CoV-2 infection, many of them would have caught the virus from someone else anyhow. It is impossible to say that they would never have caught the virus if they were not exposed to it when they were. 

Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 infections are not necessarily bad. About half of infected people have no symptoms. Lockdown conspirators will not lift restrictions (at least) until herd immunity is reached, so the faster we get to herd immunity, the sooner their atrocities will end. Infections are essential to reaching herd immunity because not everyone is willing and able to get vaccinated, and vaccinations are not fully effective in creating immunity as are infections. Vaccination also has other disadvantages such as short-term protection and side-effects, and unknown long-term effects on health.

Almost all deaths from COVID are among seniors with an average age of 80. It is quite rare for someone under 60 in good health to die from COVID-19. In many countries, the average age is in the mid-80s — higher than life expectancy. The tragedy of death and how age factors into death’s undesirability is subjective. Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes the ideal circumstances of death.

Many lockdown propagandists claim that death is equally bad at any age. ‘It doesn’t matter if a COVID death takes only a few months off of someone’s life,’ these pundits declare, ‘Death is equally tragic regardless of the circumstances.’ This claim is, in fact, not subjective. It is objectively false.

To illustrate why, let’s look at the situation in Canada — most fatal cases of COVID-19 have occurred among nursing home residents with 84 being the average age of a COVID death. The median duration between moving into a nursing home and dying in Canada (or America) is 5 months. Most people don’t even live in nursing homes for half a year before they die. Moreover, nursing home residents almost always have terrible health and poor quality of life with no chance of either improving. Not all nursing home residents who have died from COVID had just moved in. I don’t have stats of average time lived in the nursing home before a COVID death, but it may well be a few months, thus shortening life by a matter of weeks — and most likely, a miserable few weeks at that.

COVID-19 usually takes the lives of people with pre-existing medical conditions and of advanced age. That COVID fatalities are even a negative development of society is up for debate. Many people do not want to live into their 80s. A survey in Japan found that the majority of respondents in their 20s wanted to die before age 80, for instance. Health and quality of life decline sharply past age 75. Not everyone wants to be demented, lonely, and ill.

To compare the death of a 90-year-old who died a few months early due to COVID to the death of a 40-year-old who died from, say, an overdose, is nonsense. In the latter case, decades of quality years of life were lost; in the former, months of intense suffering were spared. No one thinks that all deaths are equally bad. Lockdown apologists have simply made it socially unacceptable to say as much with their “all deaths are equally bad” virtue signalling.

Most governments have pursued an inappropriate, and ultimately unworkable, response to the SARS-CoV-2 occurrence. Everyone wishes we can get rid of this virus once and for all, but eradicating such a virus through suppression (ie. social distancing) is not possible. The only way that could work is if a small, isolated territory closed its borders before the first COVID case and remained closed forever with perfect enforcement — no one gets in, including residents returning from abroad. Short of that, a suppression-based strategy, at best, can slow contagion (although research shows even that doesn’t usually happen). 

The only workable solution to COVID-19 is for everyone to interact with one another normally. In a few months, after roughly a third of people have been infected, the phenomenon of herd immunity will keep infections at a low rate permanently. Look at the countries and states in which everyone is living normally in early 2021: they have no more COVID than states on strict lockdown and many have decreasing rates from nearing herd immunity. 

Contract tracing, a common part of a suppression strategy, is pointless. No amount of social distancing and home isolation will stop coronavirus contagion. No matter what, more people will keep getting infected until herd immunity occurs. In 2021, there is no SARS-CoV-2 pandemic or outbreak — it is endemic like influenza or the common cold. “Zero COVID,” the premise that with enough social isolation, SARS-CoV-2 will become extinct, is impossible to achieve. There is no such thing as a true lockdown, anyhow, because many industries, such as transportation, retail, agriculture, and utilities, have to continue for people’s survival. 

Vaccines will certainly not enable the eradication of COVID-19. They are only 90% effective at preventing a clinical infection and there is a debate over whether or not there is transmission from vaccinated asymptomatic persons. Not everyone wants to get vaccinated, or is a good candidate for vaccination. In Canada and Britain, surveys have shown only about half of people intend on getting the COVID vaccine. Neither vaccination nor social distancing can prevent coronavirus contagion and eradicate SARS-CoV-2, although the army of COVID propagandists will tell you otherwise. The scientists in the ZeroCovid parade know that their goal is impossible. They have clearly been bribed to promote this unscientific narrative.

In early 2020, when lockdowns started being implemented around the world, the lack of opposition to them in the general public was somewhat understandable. At the time, most people thought that the fatality rate was high. They also trusted their politicians when they told them that the lockdown would only last for three weeks, after which, there would be few restrictions. 

An important part of behavior change is incrementality. People are not amenable to making a big change at once, either in behavior or in beliefs. Lockdown propagandists eased us into “the new normal” by first claiming that there will be a single short lockdown. They knew people would have revolted if their plans for long-term domination were apparent from the outset.

In a few countries, the lockdown did last only a few weeks and life more or less resumed normally afterwards. Even in those few weeks, however, enormous and lasting damage was done to society — jobs were lost, companies went out of business, mental health was damaged, and personal, commercial, and public finance was ruined. In most of the world, social distancing became permanent, often taking the form of repeated stay-at-home orders. 

The damage done by COVID restrictions is dependent on their duration. A brief lockdown followed by a resumption of normal life would not have been as damaging as the neverending nightmare of enforced isolation that transpired. 

Early in the pandemic, governments claimed that lockdowns were for a specific purpose and restrictions would end once that purpose was satisfied. For example, many politicians said the lockdown was solely meant to prevent hospitals from being overburdened with COVID patients. It became apparent after a few weeks that hospitals were not going to fill up with COVID patients, but the restrictions remained. 

Another reason offered for lockdowns was to buy government some time to come up with a more sustainable plan. It turned out that lockdowns were the ‘sustainable’ plan. Some propagandists even claimed that lockdowns were necessary to prevent the economy from collapsing due to a huge death toll and a large portion of people being home sick with COVID. Nowhere in the world did an economic collapse occur from COVID; it only occurred from social distancing.

By 2021, propagandists have abandoned the claim that lockdowns will be short. Fewer and fewer of them now claim that they are for a specific purpose such as preventing healthcare system distress. Now that most people have accepted their politicians as religious masters, people no longer require any reason for restrictions other than they are their master’s will.

There has been an aggressive effort to prevent doctors from raising their voices about the health consequences of social distancing. Many licensing bodies of physicians have contacted their members warning them not to speak publicly against the pro-lockdown narrative. In Alberta, Canada, for instance, the physician’s licensing college emailed all of the province’s doctors warning them not to discuss the health consequences of pandemic restrictions, not even to their own “neighbour.” Such moves to silence the medical community were unheard of in pre-lockdown Canada. 

For the disobedient physicians who ignore the intimidation tactics of their professional bodies, there is often punishment afoot. In Canada, for instance, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons has been putting under investigation any member who publicly criticizes the pandemic restrictions. A Canadian doctor told Lockdown Resistance that physicians in Canada are too afraid of losing their medical license (and thus, their career in medicine) to criticize pandemic restrictions. Ontario’s licensing body has explicitly told all of the provinces doctors that they are not allowed to say a word against the restrictions and those that do will face discipline (ie. loss of medical license).

Many doctors have had their employment terminated for questioning lockdowns or blowing the whistle of the misconduct in hospitals that has been engineered by the government. Other healthcare workers have also lost their jobs from not going along with the lockdown fraud. In London, Ontario, Canada, for instance, an ICU nurse was fired for protesting against the lockdown. Her employer stated that the nurse was “fired with cause” for opposing government policy — another unprecedented development in Canada. It is certainly not legal to fire people for their political views! Many healthcare workers of all types are strongly opposed to pandemic restrictions, but the intimidation, shaming, and career termination keeps them silent.

Dr. Patrick Phillips has been punished by the Ontario physician’s college for not complying with The Terror. He is actually banned from prescribing life-saving ivermectin or treating any COVID patients! In Canada, it is illegal to treat COVID because the government wants all COVID patients to die.

Vaccination is a wonderful invention of the modern world. The CDC has estimated that 23 million lives have been saved due to vaccination. Many times more people than that have been spared acute illness due to vaccination. They are also cheap and major side effects are not common. Recognizing the huge positive impact that vaccination has had on society, only a stupid/crazy/uneducated person could be skeptical of COVID vaccines, propagandists tell us. 

Look into this issue, however briefly, and you will see that skepticism over SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is warranted for two reasons. Firstly, there have been vaccine megablunders in the past. For instance, in 1955, 40,000 children contracted polio after injection from a tainted polio vaccine. 

In 1976, President Gerald Ford tried to vaccinate the entire United States following a national outbreak of a new strain of H1N1. After 45 million jabs were given, the vaccination program was cancelled — it turned out the strain had never made it out of the army base in New Jersey where it was discovered. In 2017, a dengue vaccination program in the Philippines was cancelled once it was discovered that the vaccine actually increased the risk for a severe dengue infection in children without a prior infection. Over 700,000 children had received the new dengue vaccine in the Philippines by the time that was realized.

From these examples, it is clear that vaccines have the potential to hurt people. Closely scrutinizing the safety measures of a new vaccine developed in record time and being raced into the arms of billions of people is therefore hardly conspicuous. 

There is another reason why it is unjust to dismiss and defame anyone expressing concern about COVID vaccines. All of the vaccines developed for SARS-CoV-2 are mRNA or DNA vaccines. Research to develop these types of vaccines has been ongoing for over 30 years. Until now, none were ever approved, in part due to their poor performance in safety trials.

The usual process to ensure the safety of vaccines takes at least five years so that the long-term effects can be determined before the vaccine hits the market. COVID-19 vaccines have only had brief human trials. As Bill Gates has recently stated, the long-term health effects of COVID vaccines won’t be known until many years in the future after “hundreds of millions” of people have received that vaccine. mRNA vaccines are *radically* different from all existing vaccines. It is not valid to make assumptions of mRNA vaccines based on the history of traditional vaccines. 

It is more than a little suspicious that anyone who broaches the issue of safety for a radically experimental vaccine that has never passed a standard safety trial in 30 years is childishly ridiculed. A striking feature of lockdown propagandists is how bad they are at their job. They don’t even try to hide the fact that they are enforcing some sort of scam. How objectionable is it to discuss a medical procedure that can kill you or request that your right to informed consent be respected? In a leaked video from Australia, you can see the editor of a news agency telling his reporters to unconditionally make anyone criticizing vaccines out to look like a lunatic. Real journalists critically examine evidence and try to find the truth. Propagandists don’t report the truth, they push false narratives as you can see from the video.

It makes no sense that people bringing up obvious safety concerns should be banned from social media, publicly ridiculed, and their concerns be ignored. Unsurprisingly, the same characters that promote lockdowns also villainize everyone with any reservation about COVID vaccines. That these individuals are being paid to promote some agenda conflicting with the public interest is an inescapable conclusion.