Lazy Bigotry Directed At The Unvaccinated
Prepare For Change
Derek Knauss
Public sanction has been given for open bigotry against a new underclass in the ‘tolerant’ and ‘progressive’ west
A study of 15,000 people from 21 countries published in Nature recently has shown – shock horror – that people who are vaccinated express more negative attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals than unvaccinated individuals direct towards the vaccinated.
“Negative attitudes” is a polite way of saying bigotry.
The study found that this bigotry tended to be higher than discriminatory attitudes directed towards other common targets of prejudice, such as immigrants or those who struggle with drug addiction.
Again no surprises there, right?
“On the whole, this prejudice tends to be one sided; only in the USA and Germany do the authors find that unvaccinated individuals feel some antipathy towards those who are vaccinated, although no statistical evidence of negative stereotyping or exclusionary attitudes towards these latter individuals was observed,” the study authors state.
So, unvaccinated people are not bigots. They ‘live and let live’. We didn’t need a study to tell us any of this, it should be self-evident to anyone who’s lived through the last few years.
Health freedom advocates including Dr Joseph Mercola, Sayer Ji and the American National Vaccine Information Centre have been warning about the growing intolerance towards those who don’t vaccinate for at least a decade – it has often come in the form of abuse directed at parents of unvaccinated kids. The bigotry then went on steroids in 2020 with the encouragement of all our public institutions – government, academia, media and even the so called ‘watch-dogs’. What has the Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, ever done to address this blatant discrimination? Zilch. His silence is an apology for it.
This all came to the surface again last month when the Baby W case captured worldwide media attention, and harsh criticism was leveled at the baby’s parents for daring to ask medical providers to provide “a higher level care” than was on offer, according to their lawyer, Sue Grey. It was spun as a case of parents being misled with ‘misinformation’ and ‘conspiracy theory’. The parents asked for their baby to be given blood from donors who had not taken the Covid-19 mRNA products because of the potential threat to his health, and because they had already found willing unvaccinated donors.
For this crime, the parents of Baby W were ruthlessly attacked, shamed and ridiculed. Yet, there was a precedent, which gave cause for concern – the case of a baby dying from blood clotting after receiving a transfusion of vaccinated blood against the parents’ wishes.
Casual bigotry in 21st Century ‘journalism’ and opinion commentary
Among the criticism was an op-ed titled Groan – let’s talk about these parents refusing their infant a medical procedure using vaccinated blood. Author Martyn Bradbury, long-time left-wing blogger, had these charming things to say about the parents and unvaccinated types in general:
“What the f**k are these crazy f*****g parents thinking?”
“Their argument that vaccinated blood is a risk to their sick baby who urgently needs an operation to survive is to medicine what flat earth belief is to Geology.”
“fruitcakes”
“lunatics”
“dangerous fringes”
“fringe feral right”
He speaks of an “antivaxx, Q-anon, Sovereign Sherif, white supremacy fraternity”, as if people who choose not to vaccinate for perfectly legitimate medical reasons, or perhaps simply a personal preference for natural medicine, gives him the right to ascribe these other views to them.
He calls one of the only people with a public profile brave enough to speak up for the parents of Baby W, Liz Gunn, a “grifter”.
These lazy insults that seek to minimise and dismiss legitimate arguments with appeals to authority and by making excuses for state force – even after three years of clear and ongoing overreach – are pathetic.
Bradbury doesn’t understand the arguments of those not taking the jab – he simply hasn’t looked to try. He is like the vaccinated people outlined in the Nature study, who “perceive the unvaccinated as being unintelligent and incompetent for believing false information regarding vaccinations”.
It’s frankly laughable to suggest that those who refused the jab were the least informed. The vaccinated majority certainly did not do more to scrutinise the science and safety underpinning the covid jabs (or any others). They did not interrogate the health authorities, read the studies, and come out certain the magic needle was safe and effective. They were swept up in the most successful propaganda drive in world history.
Former director general of health Ashley Bloomfield (who we’ve just learned is going to be knighted for his efforts), Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and legacy media spent more than a year propagandising, threatening and simultaneously gaslighting the public to achieve jab compliance.
By February 2022 Government had spent $98 million on Unite Against Covid-19 advertising and other propaganda. At the sleazier end of the campaign, people – and kids – were lured with things like free KFC, and sometimes outright bribes to take the jab. Amazingly, these ethically questionable tactics were not commented on critically by the press, but rather promoted.
Not a lot of deep thinking was asked of the public, it was more a question of blind faith. Many people tuned into Auckland University microbiologist Siouxie Wiles’ articles for their cues or to Professor Michael Baker’s commentary, both of which involved talking to fully grown adults as though they were five and advising them to do completely nonsensical and counterintuitive things such as inhibiting their ability to breath, avoiding their loved ones and to generally stop doing life.
As propaganda expert Mark Crispin Miller has said, the general formula for all covid communications was simple: “Just convince them they’re under attack, and that anyone who argues with that claim is putting them at risk.”
Those asking for a nuanced and wide-ranging debate about the science, dubious use of emergency laws, abandonment of medical ethics, limits on freedoms, canning of sound pandemic planning in favour of following China’s lockdown model – were/are considered nuts.
Here is an excellent thread reviewing some of the worst covid bigotry by Michael Senger.
Appeals to authority and the mindless state of public discourse
‘Trust the experts’ is the new jingo replacing robust public debate. There is no sense whatsoever in news reporting that experts can get things wrong, bury their heads in the sand when convenient, or be corrupted – at least when it comes to covid and sacred vaccines.
You can listen to RNZ journalist Corin Dann attempt to excoriate the lawyer, Sue Grey, who represented Baby W’s parents in the case here. When Grey tries to bring the evidence from the global published literature into the discussion, or expert opinion that deviates from the Government’s position he won’t allow it, repeatedly rebuffing her with statements like “we put our faith in medical professionals, and that is what we do,” and “I don’t want to have a discussion about the research because you and I are lay people. We trust the experts.”
Grey, despite her always calm and professional composure, her rationality and insistence on looking at the published science, her track record of standing by everyday people who have been victimised by the state – is consistently represented as crazy and dangerous in the media.
Despite the parents of Baby W being well informed, Grey told the World Council for Health in a recent interview that the chief cardiologist at Starship Children’s Hospital and the New Zealand Blood Service “labelled the parents as conspiracy theorists and then used that label as an excuse to not address the issues of concern that they’d raised … the hospital had no information and presumably relied on information from our Prime Minister that the vaccine was safe and effective and that was as far as they went into it. They just denied that there could be any possibility of any problem with the blood or any contamination with the blood from the vaccine.”
The uplift is a disturbing watch, as is Grey’s description in the aforementioned interview of the treatment endured by the family at the hands of the state and the hospital – before during and after the uplift – which was described as “traumatising” and “inhumane”.
In a similar vein to the Dann/Grey interview, an embarrassing chat on The Platform between Sean Plunket and American philanthropist Steve Kirsch, who has devoted the last few years to raising awareness about vaccine injury, was recorded last month. Kirsch wanted to discuss data and evidence (although he refused to debate the ‘no virus’ people, instead attacking them – so something of a hypocrite in my view) and Plunket insisted that this was irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was what the public health officials had to say – he considered this the “intelligent” approach. I have a better word – infantile.
Bradbury and company like to refer to the freedom fighters of this country as the “dumb lives matter crew”, or the “#freedumb” movement – they’re really clever and want you to know it. He has in fact been one of the main voices misrepresenting – really a wilful refusal to engage in good faith – the freedom movement as ‘far right’, when it has always clearly been a broad based social movement that spans a wide range of demographics and political camps.
These types despise people who don’t take vaccines, characterising them in pithy memes like this: “I have the freedumb to give you a disease!”.
But of course people have the right not to put something toxic and unsafe into their bodies. I suppose it’s appealing to be told you don’t have to take responsibility for your own health – far easier to believe in magic needles than live a healthy lifestyle.
It’s worth noting that both Bradbury and Plunket have recently done valuable work highlighting the dubious and dystopian group, The Disinformation Project. But when it comes to vaccines and vaccine injury, they have their heads buried deep, to the point of being belligerent and offensive.
As someone from an old-school liberal background, it’s been astonishing to watch how rapidly the liberals and progressives have come to embrace the new quasi-fascist, authoritarian world that covid was used as an excuse to usher in. As noted earlier, civil and human rights organisations, and public watchdogs have been utterly asleep at the wheel. Freedom is an old fashioned liberal value today.
In light of this change in society, it’s easier for Bradbury to sling shit because there is a huge audience of people who have been trained through at least a decade of pharmaceutical propaganda to hate those aware of the risks from vaccines. They even willingly adopted a cunning piece of public relations – the term ‘anti-vaxxer’, was designed and deployed to foster intolerance and disdain from the outset. Bradbury knows he can reliably get away with his slander because the general public support and regularly engage in hate speech directed at ‘anti-vaxxers’. It’s been completely normalised.
His media colleague Plunket is similarly free and easy with the “conspiracy theory” and “nutter” insults and plenty comfortable to dismiss vaccine injury and death as “taking one for the team”. Medical ethics are apparently anathema to this guy.
No-one should have to point out to Plunket that treating people as disposable is deeply unethical. In Nazi Germany this same attitude was held by the medical professionals. Health was about broader public good rather than individual care – leading to forced sterilisation and the euthanising of disabled people, including children and babies. I refer to this in a newly published piece that I wrote more than a year ago.
Taking one for the team, indeed. Drugs that kill people simply shouldn’t be on the market. End of story.
Dupes for a bigger agenda
It’s troubling enough that this level of complacency is exhibited by people who inform public discourse, apparent journalists, but it is because such attitudes have been made so acceptable in reporting and general conversation that the World Health Organisation feels emboldened to put out the most stunning piece of slander propaganda I’ve yet seen.
Watch one of the sleaziest people on the planet, Dr Peter Hotez, push a new PR line: anti-science aggression. He says the rise of the health freedom movement in the last few years has “become a killing force globally”. It’s quite an accusation – gobsmacking really, and yet … unsurprising. I’ve been warning for some time that intelligence and security agencies have begun an information war to label dissenting citizens as ‘domestic terrorists’, particularly the so-called ‘anti-vaxxers’. This must be seen in that context.
But as was revealed in the Nature study, those holding prejudicial and extreme views are not the ‘anti-vaxxers’, who are basically asking to be left alone. It’s the new normals – those who think it’s fine to publicly belittle people who wish to defend and maintain their intellectual, moral and bodily autonomy, all the way through to the bio-fascists, those who think unvaccinated people should be rounded up and forcibly injected ‘for the greater good’. History won’t smile kindly on them I suspect.