They really, really, want us to get vaccinated.
Whom do I mean when I use the word “they”? Well, for starters, there’s the government. All Western governments, in fact, even that of Hungary. “They” also includes the major media, Big Tech, the MSM, the universities and secondary schools, and all major philanthropic organizations. All of them are pushing relentlessly for all citizens to submit to the injection of an experimental medical treatment that uses messenger RNA, and whose long-term side effects are completely unknown.
For as far back as I can remember, I have never experienced such a relentless full-court press by all social and political institutions in pursuit of a single goal. Perhaps the war effort from 1939-1945 was like this, but I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t know.
Before I started researching the propaganda push behind the vax, I had never heard of the term “social marketing”. It is an important concept in this dystopian age, so we would all be well-advised to learn more about it. The California STD/HIV Prevention Training Center — which is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is a joint project of the California Department of Health Services, Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Branch, the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, and the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine — gives the following definitionof social marketing:
Social marketing is the use of commercial marketing principles and techniques to improve the welfare of people and the physical, social and economic environment in which they live. It is a carefully planned, long-term approach to changing human behavior.
So one group of people — presumably quite small — uses subtle manipulative techniques developed by behavioral psychologists to change the behavior of another group of people — presumably much larger — and make them conform to a standard of behavior which the first group has devised and considers optimal.
My instinctive reaction to such a practice is: What arrogance! What hubris!
We ordinary plebs think we know what’s good for us, but they know better. And they see nothing wrong with conning us into thinking the way they want us to think.
I bring all this up because of a paper that was published by The National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is part of the National Library of Medicine, which is a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH, as you may recall, is where Dr. Anthony Fauci rules over a little fiefdom known as NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The paper is entitled “Key Guidelines in Developing a Pre-Emptive COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Promotion Strategy” [pdf]. It was published in August of last year, but I didn’t find it until a few weeks ago.
It is beyond my level of analytical competence to peel back all the layers of manipulative strategy found in this paper, so I’ll just highlight a few significant points. I recommend reading the whole thing carefully, if you have the time and the stomach to work your way through all the sociological jargon.
First, a word on some of the terminology used. A person who receives an injection with the experimental mRNA treatment is said to engage in “vaccine uptake”. Those who decline to take the vaccine are said to experience “vaccine hesitancy”.
In the epistemological framework of the paper there is no acceptable rationale for not being “vaccinated”. Those who have not been vaxed are either vaccine hesitant — in which case they will eventually do their duty and get the jab — or they are malicious actors who have been convinced by evil anti-vax propaganda to resist the injection, and thereby put themselves and their loved ones at risk of contracting a dangerous and potentially lethal disease.
In the mindset of the authors of this paper — and all the official pro-vax propaganda — it is not conceivable that one could investigate the available facts, think carefully, and make a reasoned decision not to get the jab.
Citizens are expected to give their informed consent to the procedure, yet it is impossible to give informed consent. The long-term side effects of the mRNA treatment are unknown, and will remain unknown for at least five more years. Therefore no one can be fully informed about the treatment. Giving informed consent is simply not possible.
But none of that matters to those who are pushing the jab. My reasoning is considered fallacious and maliciously motivated, and my arguments would be removed from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other Big Tech platforms if I were to make them there.
There is only one possible outcome from the point of view of the vax pushers. You may be “hesitant”, but you cannot make a decision not to get the jab, and they will prod you and punish you until you do.
The first thing to notice about the NIH paper is that it’s not primarily an American document, despite its being published by an agency of the United States government. The spelling of certain words — for example, “sceptics” — serves as a clue. And it makes complete sense when you see the names and credentials of the four authors:
- Jeff French of Strategic Social Marketing Ltd and the University of Brighton
- Sameer Deshpande of Social Marketing @ Griffith, Griffith University in Australia
- William Evans of George Washington University
- Rafael Obregon of UNICEF in Paraguay
Mr. French is the lead author, so one may presume that it was his spell-checker that approved the spellings that no native American speaker would use.
Two of the authors list social marketing in their credentials, so we may deduce that the NIH has subcontracted with expert social marketers to produce strategies and guidelines to induce vaccine hesitant Americans to get the needle into their arm as quickly as possible.
The abstract outlines the techniques that will be recommended (emphasis added):
This paper makes the case for immediate planning for a COVID-19 vaccination uptake strategy in advance of vaccine availability for two reasons: first, the need to build a consensus about the order in which groups of the population will get access to the vaccine; second, to reduce any fear and concerns that exist in relation to vaccination and to create demand for vaccines. A key part of this strategy is to counter the anti-vaccination movement that is already promoting hesitancy and resistance. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a tsunami of misinformation and conspiracy theories that have the potential to reduce vaccine uptake. To make matters worse, sections of populations in many countries display low trust in governments and official information about the pandemic and how the officials are tackling it. This paper aims to set out in short form critical guidelines that governments and regional bodies should take to enhance the impact of a COVID-19 vaccination strategy. We base our recommendations on a review of existing best practice guidance. This paper aims to assist those responsible for promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake to digest the mass of guidance that exists and formulate an effective locally relevant strategy. A summary of key guidelines is presented based on best practice guidance.
The paper’s introduction defines vaccine hesitancy:
…vaccine hesitancy (i.e., ‘the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccination services’)
In other words, it is not considered possible to refuse the vaccine based on the use of deductive reasoning.
In the rationale for the paper (Section 1.1) they tell us (emphasis added):
It is imperative that planning for a COVID-19 vaccination uptake strategy begins in advance of vaccine availability for two reasons. First, countries will need to determine population sub-groups and build a consensus about the order in which these will get access to the vaccine. Second, we should reduce fear and concern and create demand for vaccines. A key part of this strategy is to counter the anti-vaccination movement that is already promoting hesitancy and resistance.
In other words, this is not about providing the best and most complete information for the public and distributing it as widely as possible. The purpose is to act against all who would oppose their agenda.
In Section 1.2 (emphasis added):
The WHO advocates a pre-emptive pro-vaccination strategy that psychologically inoculates the population and maximizes uptake of vaccines as they become available. This paper sets out the core elements of such a strategy.
This is blatant, publicly acknowledged brainwashing. The United Nations, via WHO, says that people’s brains need to be washed, and the authors are telling us, via NIH, exactly how the washing should be done.
Section 2 (“Behavior Change Planning”) is too dense to analyze succinctly. I recommend reading the whole thing.
Section 3 (“Audience Targeting and Segmentation Strategy”) divides the population into four categories based on their attitudes towards “vaccination”:
- ‘The hesitant’—Those who have concerns about perceived safety issues and are unsure about needs, procedures and timings for immunizing.
- ‘The unconcerned’—Those who consider immunization a low priority and see no real perceived risk of vaccine-preventable diseases.
- ‘The poorly reached’—Those who have limited or difficult access to services, related to social exclusion, poverty and, in the case of more integrated and affluent populations, factors related to convenience.
- ‘The active resisters’—Those for whom personal, cultural, or religious beliefs discourage them from vaccinating.
Once again, in the epistemology of vaccine social marketing, there is no possibility that “active resisters” might include those who consider all the evidence and make a rational decision not to get the jab. Under this schema it is impossible for anyone to make a reasoned decision against the vax.
In discussing the anti-vaccination movement, Section 4.1 gives us some clues about the sticks that may be used when carrots fail (emphasis added):
A more effective approach is a combination of positive messaging that emphasizes the protective (individual, family, and community) benefits of the vaccine and the loss associated with not being vaccinated (death, poor health, loss of freedom and social solidarity, inability to travel, etc.).
Ominously, Section 4.2 tells us:
Anti-vaccination advocates should not be left free to spread misinformation. Public health authorities and their coalition partners, including both the traditional and digital media sectors, should proactively work together to reduce and remove at speed false content and misleading information. Traditional media providers should be supported and briefed so that they are aware of anti-vaccination propaganda identified by public health authorities and do not repeat it.
Traditional media and social media sectors should also provide authorities with the information they have detected that anti-vaccination advocates are propagating so that information can be rebutted. Public health agencies should seek protocols with media providers about the issue of how journalistic balance will be addressed. Agreements should be put in place about how the media will identify and flag false and misleading anti-vaccination information and advocates. In this regard authorities and media channel providers should be alert to ‘Astroturfing’ (anti-vaccination advocates disguising their views as coming from grass roots movements) and act swiftly to expose such tactics. Finally, agreements should be developed about how and when misleading information and advocates of such information should be removed and flagged as being problematic on social media.
A year later the Biden administration is following this exact playbook, and Big Tech companies are playing their prescribed role.
Section 4.3 deals with anti-vaxers, and suggests useful strategies for countering their malevolent influence:
Distrust in elites and experts and political populism can also fuel antivaccination sentiment. Social norms and cultural influences can have a significant effect on people’s willingness at the population level to take up vaccine programs. As an initial step, authorities need to understand what informs social norms and beliefs. Persuasive efforts should appeal to the values and beliefs that people already hold, such as a desire to protect family members, rather than a focus on factual or probabilistic messaging.
And a negative attitude towards Big Pharma is not supported. From Section 5:
The NGO and private sectors can play a pivotal role in promoting the uptake of vaccines. Partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry to develop, manufacture, promote, and distribute vaccines are underway across the world. Many other for-profit organizations can also be harnessed to provide logistical and promotional support. The NGO sector is also well placed in terms of its reach, high level of understanding about local communities, and high levels of trust to act as a critical advocate and network for vaccine uptake.
In Section 6 (“Vaccine Demand Strategy” they tell us (emphasis added):
The key to promoting demand is a deep understanding of what will enable and encourage uptake. Campaign managers should conduct formative research including secondary research based on published literature and case studies and primary research with interviews and surveys in each population to gain audience-specific insights. Governments will need to deliver and communicate what mix of incentives and penalty interventions will be used to promote demand.
So both carrots and sticks will be employed. Obviously the authors would prefer that the carrots alone — free ice cream, cash payouts, access to Bruce Springsteen concerts, etc. — would be enough to do the job. But they will punish us if required; it simply remains to be seen how draconian those punishments will be. We’ve already had some hints about them.
Section 7 has more on anti-vaxers:
Anti-vaccination attitudes do not always relate to factors like level of education. Instead, they are often related to anger and suspicion towards elites and experts and increasing support for anti-establishment political concerns. Governments should listen actively and build dialogue, encouraging continuous feedback from citizens, key commentators, and influencers. Regular proactive public media and influencer briefings should also form a central plank of trust-building strategy. The application of citizen-focused and human-centered design principles can also enhance program development and implementation.
So the government is advised to encourage citizens to give feedback, yet what happens when that feedback is negative? By now most citizens are well aware of what fate may befall people who say negative things about “vaccination” — it may cost them their employment. Only the mildest milquetoast negative questions are considered acceptable — “How long can I expect to feel poorly after I get the jab?”, “Will I need to get multiple boosters?”, etc. Those are OK.
But try asking this question and see what happens: “What are the long-term health effects of mRNA treatments after five years or more?” Anyone who asks that question is a “conspiracy theorist”.
Under Section 8 (“Vaccine Access Strategy”) we have:
Governments and public health authorities can enhance the effectiveness of their efforts by combining multiple strategies. For example, they could integrate financial and non-financial incentives, call and reminder interventions, along with penalties for non-compliance by imposing restrictions on travel, education, or employment.
More carrots and sticks there. What financial incentives? Will I get a discount at Food Lion if I get the vax? Will my bank account be locked if I don’t?
And it sounds like the government will be spamming me by phone to remind me to get the jab.
Section 9 (“Marketing Promotions Strategy”) provides some insights in how to manipulate people successfully through a narrowly-tailored marketing approach:
A coordinated national approach to communication will be successful among many groups, but not all. Success depends on the nature and degree of immunization hesitancy and the degree of segmentation. Tailored messages focusing on known motivators for specific groups are more likely to produce a desired behavioral response than a ‘one size fits all’ approach. To produce tailored messages, we recommend quantitative and qualitative formative research and ascertaining the efficacy of strategies with pre-test research before launch.
Section 10 (“News Media Relations and Outreach”) describes techniques that the MSM have already put into practice (emphasis added):
The news and general media can contribute significantly to address fears and risk perceptions, which can hurt vaccine uptake. It is, therefore, necessary to develop a proactive strategy for working with traditional media. Any media management and engagement strategy that is developed will need to include proactive, rolling media briefings, story generation, editorial feeds, facilitating access to medical and other clinical and public health experts, advisers, and data. The media management and engagement strategy will also need to include 24/7 media monitoring and rebuttal/correction systems.
Who will do the rebuttals and corrections? The government? Mark Zuckerberg? Jack Dorsey? A social marketing subcontractor, maybe?
Finally, Section 11 (“Digital Media”) describes the vax wars on social media that we’ve all been watching for the last few months, and speaks approvingly about the growing level of censorship:
Anti-vaccination advocates abound on Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and YouTube. Social media platforms are already buzzing with misinformation about COVID-19 vaccine safety, development, and planned rollout, months before vaccines are ready to be used at population level. It is encouraging to see such media platform owners starting to act against the anti-vaccination movement. For example, Instagram avoids health misinformation in its Explore page; YouTube has demonetized anti-vaccination videos and GoFundMe has recently taken down anti-vaccination fundraising appeals. Governments and their public health agencies need to develop a dialogue and joint strategy with social media platform providers to review and action against anti-vaccination misinformation and vaccine hesitancy promotion. Governments and regional bodies should convince or regulate platform providers to remove misinformation.
You can’t make the decision not to get the jab and expect to be allowed to talk about it in public. And you’d best pull the battery out of your phone, because Google, Microsoft, or Apple can listen in even when it’s turned off. They would consider it their duty to report your anti-vax sentiments to Uncle Sam, after which you can expect a phone call, or even a tap-tap-tap at your front door…
My main conclusion from reading all this is that the “vaccine hesitants” have already lost the propaganda war. It’s done. There’s nothing left but smoking craters and shattered trees. The war is over.
I am able to think for myself, to a certain extent, and I assume most of my readers are, too. But we are a small minority. The vast majority of the population has been conditioned to take in information from certain acceptable sources and to adopt attitudes and opinions based on what those sources tell them. All major outlets that purvey information — governments, NGOs, the MSM, social media — are already under the control of the pro-vaxers. Collectively they command massive resources, more than enough to hire as many credentialed social marketers as they like.
And those social marketing experts know how to manipulate the average citizen into thinking exactly what they want him to think.
There is nothing new about all this. In a strange novel called Smallcreep’s Day by Peter C. Brown (Victor Gollancz, 1965), the Salesman says: “People can, with a little prodding in the right places, be persuaded to buy anything, eat anything, join anything, believe anything, vote for anybody, or do anything you like to think of.”
’Twas ever thus.
Ours is a rearguard action. We can have no measurable effect on these larger schemes that aim to get everyone in the world “vaccinated”. All we can do is withhold our own consent, and encourage others by showing them they are not alone.
And, just for fun, we can endeavor to be the little dog that pulls back the curtain from in front of the seedy little man who pulls the levers.