(Stillness in the Storm Editor) The Deep State and the groups behind them are masters of manipulating human consciousness. They have created an extremely efficient system of divide and conquer. They use various means to pit brother against sister, mother against daughter, and friend against friend. The following article from The Conversation is an example of Deep State propaganda designed to train citizens so as to become promoters of big pharma and the eugenicists behind them. This tactic is nothing new, as most of their agenda is happily carried forward by hapless dupes and unwitting pawns, guided by their good intentions. In the following, I’ll break down the subtle programming in this article.
Let it be known that while I make light of these tactics and cite some people as pawns of the Deep State, I do not hate or rage against any one person in particular. In my analysis, I have studied a great deal to answer this question: “Why is the world the way it is?” I’ve come to the following conclusion that continues to ring true over time.
The world is the way it is because good people give life to bad ideas.
In this case, the evidence against vaccines is so overwhelming, the Deep State-run media is now telling people not to bother with facts. They’re telling people to make emotional appeals to non-vaxxers, and to avoid discussion with anti-vaxxers all together.
But the article isn’t targeting anti-vaxxers per se. It is targeting those who remain undecided, which according to the piece, is 43% of the population.
Let’s break down what the article said.
Tips for discussing vaccination
Many people struggle with how to discuss vaccination when confronted with a friend, relative or acquaintance who expresses hesitancy.
Simply providing lots of facts or dismissing their views is not effective.
Instead, these are some tips everyone can use when talking about vaccines, drawing from evidence-based communication techniques. Studies in the United States and Canada have trained healthcare providers to use techniques like these to increase uptake of adolescent HPV vaccination and infant vaccines, and more studies are currently underway.
Firstly, this a well-written piece.
It appeals to a person’s good intentions with respect to wanting to help others. At the beginning of the article, they activated the readers concern and sympathy by saying:
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has named vaccine hesitancy as one of their top 10 threats to global health for 2019.
Then they offer this line to secure in the mind of the reader that the cause of this concern are anti-vaxxers:
Last week, the wife of an NRL footballer made national headlines after posting on Instagram that the couple did not plan to vaccinate their children.
From here, the piece suggests that talking to anti-vaxxers isn’t a good idea. They don’t say why, but most who are well informed will know the reason. It’s because most anti-vaxxers—certainly not all—but most, are well educated about vaccine science, having substantive understanding as to why they are not good for your health. well-educateded person, who truly understands immune science (how immunity is truly imparted via the various organs of the body and why vaccines bypass this natural system), can easily debunk the claims of pro-vaxxers. This is because, from a philosophy of logic and epistemology perspective—there is no valid case to be made that vaccines are the best way to deal with infectious diseases.
I know that’s a contentious and ambitious statement to make.
I offer the following books to prove to you that, by all accounts, it seems to be the most accurate and truthful position to take on the vaccine issue.
Buy Book Vaccination Voodoo: What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines
Buy Book Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History by Dr. Suzanne Humphries
Buy Book Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC
Note: You might be thinking to yourself, “This guy is clearly biased against vaccines. Why should I listen to him?” Frankly, you shouldn’t. The data speaks for itself if your willing to review and understand it. This writing isn’t intended to prove to you that vaccines aren’t beneficial. This is intended to highlight the subtle psychological manipulation (propaganda) that occurs in media posts, so you can understand how your mind is being manipulated, and therefore, guard against it. I personally don’t think vaccines have any meaningful health benefits as compared to more effective methods of imparting immunity. I wouldn’t presume to expect you to accept my position. I want you to form your own position, specifically founded on the entirity of the bodies of evidence available.
Let’s continue.
The article below is for pro-vaxxers who want to win over non-vaxxrs. The piece suggests:
Communication about vaccines is unlikely to impact the behaviour of firm refusers …
“Firm refusers,” here, means anti-vaxxers. Why tell people not to talk to them?
Again, likely because there is no evidenced-based case to be made for vaccines. If there was, don’t you think the media would report on scientific study after study clearly proving vaccines are safe and the best way to guard against infectious diseases? Why would the vaccine industry create the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, ensuring the public don’t learn the truth about the untold harm befalling millions of people? While these are indirect datapoints of substantiation, they help point the inquisitive mind to direct evidence of vaccine failure.
Since many, not all, anti-vaxxers formed their position by looking at the evidence, the Deep State doesn’t want a pro-vaxxer that lacks an evidence-based understanding to talk to anti-vaxxers. If they did, those who aren’t blind to evidence would be forced to accept the anti-vaxx position—which by all accounts appears to be the most accurate stance.
From a philosophy and debate perspective, encouraging people to avoid arguments and ideas is a fallacy of logic. It reveals that the argument for something is untenable—it lacks a substantive basis in fact, and is, therefore, not sound. If your argument is unsound, you can’t win a debate fairly. Thus, you have resort to coercive means to win.
Thus, the suggestion from the article is to avoid the evidence discussion altogether.
We’ll now examine what the article suggests.
To be clear, the strategy they offer is not inherently unethical or wrong. It’s actually a good way to communicate ideas with people and establish rapport—eithical persuasion.
The place where the suggestions become unethical is in the fulcrum or lever action of the argument. That is, we can use the below method ethically by simply sharing the facts and letting people make their mind up free of intimidation. But that’s not what is suggested by the article.
One step, the one that makes things unethical, is the appeal to emotionality. The article suggests people intimidate the unconvinced, through appeals to authority (“the experts agree that …”) and the threat of loss of social standing and ostratization (“everyone else is vaccinating, do you want to be the one who doesn’t? or don’t you care about keeping your kids safe? What kind of a parent are you?”).
The article encourages people to do the following.
Ask about, and listen to, people’s concerns: not everyone is driven by the same issues or experiences. Find out what specifically is concerning the person. Is it safety? Effectiveness? Side effects?
This isn’t necessarily insidious. But it does create a very effective persuasion condition.
Buy Book Neuro-linguistic Programming For Dummies (For Dummies (Psychology & Self Help))
When you ask people to voice their concerns, they open up the part of their mind where the concern lies—which is the thing that is preventing someone from changing their mind. Sales people use this technique all the time. If you can get someone to put their concerns on the table, you can begin to address them so you can change their mind. Again, this isn’t unethical. It’s a valid method of engaging someone in social discourse. It’s what comes latter that is unethical, in my view—a technique for convincing someone to use vaccines based on emotional appeals and intimidation instead of logic and evidence-based reasoning.
Acknowledge their concerns: remember, everyone loves their children. No one is refusing to vaccinate because they want their child to get sick, or because they wilfully hope other children will get sick. Acknowledging that you see where someone is coming from can go a long way in establishing trust.
This is another valid communication strategy. Acknowledging a person’s concerns does as the statement says, it establishes trust. People’s personal views, once accepted, creates a link of rapport, fellowship, and comradery. It creates the impression of social acceptance, forming an ingroup association that triggers brain centers that release fellowship hormones, like oxytocin. This step is desigend to create an ingroup preference which will be leveraged later with threats of rejection from that ingroup.
People are biologically predisposed to maintain ingroup preferences. If you feel like you’re losing social standing, even with someone you don’t like or care about, your brain fires fight or flight responses that feel extremely jarring and emotionally negative. We are instinctually encouraged to avoid social ostratizaton at all costs. And for most people, they’ll agree with someone or something they truly agree with, to avoid becoming an outcast.
Provide information to respond to their concerns: share what you know, and try to provide reliable sources for your information. Be careful not to debunk myths too aggressively, as this can actually backfire.
Responding to concerns or answering questions is a great way to help educate someone. This isn’t unethical in and of itself. However, notice that they suggest avoiding debunking so-called myths. This does two things, it firstly contextualizes any anti-vaxx claim as a myth (this is directed at the reader). Secondly, it ensures that any information that would cause the reader to lose faith in vaccines is never explored. But more to the point, and thirdly, the “backfire” effect they mention is literally the rousing of a person’s suspicions when risk free claims are made. The article cites a study wherein it was determined that telling people something is risk free often raises more concerns. Isn’t that interesting given this is precisely what the media’s position is?
Share personal stories: emotive stories tend to have more impact than facts. This is one reason stories of rare vaccine adverse events can seem to carry more weight than overwhelming safety figures. Share your own stories of positive experiences with vaccines, or better yet, discuss your experience with the diseases they prevent.
This is where things start to get manipulative.
Notice that the theme throughout the list of suggestions was not evidence-based. It suggested you address concerns, but didn’t say how. Since most people aren’t experts, the only thing available to them is anecdotes (personal experiences) and emotional appeals generated therefrom. This is exactly what this line is suggesting by stating “emotive stories tend to have more impact than facts.” This line specifically states that stories personal accounts) are better at persuasion than facts.
It goes on to say that “Share your own stories of positive experiences with vaccines, or better yet, discuss your experience with the diseases they prevent.” This statement is designed to encourage pro-vaxxers to share their personal anecdotes as proof that vaccines are safe and effective. In doing so, you draw a social group line in the sand. If you don’t agree, then you’re part of the outgroup, an outcast. Thus, this line is designed to provoke a person’s fear of social ostracization, thereby compelling them, through fear, to accept the pro-vaxxer stance.
It gets worse.
Buy Book How Do We Know?: An Introduction to Epistemology
The idea that you can share your experience of avoiding disease by having been vaccinated is inherently fallacious for several reasons.
One, discussing “your experience with the diseases they prevent” isn’t valid—unless you were vaccinated against a pathogen, exposed to it, knew you were, and successfully fought it off due to the vaccine.
The problem is most people aren’t can’t look in their own bodies to see this internal biological process—if a vaccine did ward off sickness, you probably wouldn’t notice. However, because you do know you were vaccinated, you’ll assume, without actually knowing, that your good health is because of the vaccine. Do you see how the psychology of false efficacy works? You fallaciously attribute the correlation of having being vaccinated with your good health. This is logically wrong. In order to prove the vaccine kept you healthy, you’d have to know you were exposed to the pathogen it allegedly made you immune to, and you’d have to know it responded as designed to keep you healthy. This requires careful study and testing, not just a gut feeling. You have to measure, empirically, that you were exposed to the pathogen. Then you’d have to measure, empirically, that the vaccine’s effects helped you ward off the disease.
How many vaccinated people go through careful testing and examination to prove that their lack of disease was a direct, measurable, effect of the vaccine they were given?
This line is probably the most brilliant influencing tactic in the piece. It employs the fallacy of false effectiveness as a way to not only assure the reader they were indeed protected but to use that false impression as a tool to convince others of the same. Again, if you don’t accept this position, it immediately places you in an outgroup.
You might be thinking “But wait! I’ve been vaccinated and I haven’t contracted any of the diseases I was immunized against!” How do you know that the vaccine is what kept you healthy?
In many cases, and this is acknowledged in vaccine research, most pathogens aren’t prevalent enough to cause any widespread outbreak.
You could be vaccinated against polio, and never come down with the disease—not because of the vaccine but because you were never exposed to the pathogen. But for you, the person who bought the vaccine sales pitch, you’ll believe the vaccine kept you healthy. This misconception makes big pharma billions every year.
To underscore this fallacy even more, consider this.
What if you got car insurance and never got into a car accident? Would the car insurance be the thing that prevented you from getting into an accident? No, of course not. Your good driving, along with avoiding perilous situations, is the primary causal factor.
This point of false efficacy or effectiveness is one of the most glaring elephants in the living room when it comes to the vaccine debate.
The key take away from the above suggestion is this.
The persuasion technique has now diverged from ethical to unethical.
When you seek to convince someone of something, by avoiding the facts, and appealing to emotions, you’re using coercion.
Don’t pass judgment: people may discuss vaccination many times with many different people before they decide to vaccinate, especially if they are very hesitant. Your goal should be to establish yourself as a trusted, non-judgmental person with whom they can share their questions and concerns. Berating them won’t convince them to vaccinate, but it will convince them never to speak to you about vaccines again.
This is the last suggestion in the list.
Notice where it says “Your goal should be to establish yourself as a trusted, non-judgmental person with whom they can share their questions and concerns.” The world trusted should stand out to you.
When you trust someone, it means you’re likely to believe them on good faith. When you believe someone, their rational, thinking, and beliefs become yours. You should vet out their beliefs, what we call discernment in the truth-seeking community, or else you might imbibe false beliefs that cause problems in your life.
The article reveals it’s core agenda in the last line show above. They want the reader to become a “trusted” source for the concerned would-be vaxxer.
The reader is informed by who? The media who are themselves agents of big pharma.
In other words, if you follow the prescribed suggestions in this article, you’ll become an agent of the vaccine industry.
In effect, you become a sales person. You help them sell vaccines to more people. And for free! How nice of you.
In closing, I’ll share a bit of comedy.
I originally shared this article on social media with the following commentary. In life, laughter is an effective tool to help us cope with hard situations.
If the Deep State was more apparent with the purpose of this article, this might be what they would say to the reader:
Having trouble convincing your anti-vaxx friends and family to vaccinate? Do they keep countering your fake facts with real evidence? No problem! Just appeal to their emotions and make them feel fear that they’re bad parents.
It’s actually quite disturbing that this is precisely what this article is attempting to train people to do.
It’s even more disturbing that we’re currently living in a massive online digital book burning age where mega retailers like Amazon are openly censoring anti-vaxx information.
But in a way, this is actually great news.
Determining if something is true is a stringent and laborious process.
One clue to know if you’re on the right tract is to ask yourself how the Deep State feels about it.
If the powers that be are openly trying to prevent a body of information from seeing the light of day, it’s a pretty good indication there’s some truth to it. Of course, it should go without saying, more work is required insofar as completely a valid and effective discernment evaluation. That said, it’s quite the endorsement to know that the truth about vaccines is becoming so well known the Deep State now has to resort to open and prejudicial censorship to maintain their agenda.
Related 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools
In closing, learn as much as you can from this article.
It’s filled with persuasion techniques that you can use to spread the truth to your fellows. Of course, be sure to do so ethically.
Remember that respecting free will is paramount.
Our job, as truth revealers isn’t to make people believe what we do. It’s to honestly and tactfully share them the facts as we know it, and let them make up their own mind.
The world suffers, not from a lack of information, but from a lack of critical and effective thinking.
The solution is to improve the skills of truth-seeking, such as discernment, proper analysis, and research.
Philosophy is the process of exploring meanings. Thus, to truly conquer corruption in this world, we need to develop the philosophic potentials inherent within all people.
Marvel characters look amazing because they have superhuman strength, they can fly, or can shoot lasers from their eyes. But even in that world, the strongest powers are ones that every human already possesses the potential for.
A mind, properly trained, capable of critical thought, discernment, and active philosophy, is one of the most dangerous things on earth—especially to agents of deception and corruption.
Reclaim your super powers.
Become a master of your consciousness.
And join the ranks of heroes working tirelessly to make the world a better place.
– Justin
Read more articles by Justin Deschamps.
Like our work? Support this site with a contribution via Paypal, cryptocurrencies, or P
by Jessica Kaufman, March 3rd, 2019
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has named vaccine hesitancy as one of their top 10 threats to global health for 2019.
Last week, the wife of an NRL footballer made national headlines after posting on Instagram that the couple did not plan to vaccinate their children.
Indeed, there’s rarely a time vaccination isn’t a hot topic of public debate. What’s important to note is that anyone can use evidence-based communication techniques to be an advocate for vaccination – you don’t need to be an expert in the field.
Conversations between peers can be very influential, because our behaviours are shaped by social norms, or what other people in our network value and do.
Who do we need to talk to?
While the current measles outbreaks in the United States and Europe are concerning, much of the reporting has over-simplified the issue, with sensationalised headlines placing the blame almost solely on “anti-vax” parents.
In reality, the vast majority of people whose children are missing some or all doses of the recommended vaccines are not “anti-vaxxers”, and labelling them as such is unhelpful.
The ability to register for vaccination exemption based on conscientious objection was removed in 2016, but it was last recorded in December 2015 as affecting only 1.34 percent of eligible children.
Current childhood vaccination coverage in Australia is between 90.75-94.67 percent, depending on age.
This suggests that missed opportunities and access barriers, such as parents being unable to get to the GP or a council immunisation session, are much more substantial contributors to under-vaccination.
Communication about vaccines is unlikely to impact the behaviour of firm refusers and those facing access barriers. However, communication has enormous influence when it comes to the 43 percent of parents who have some questions or concerns about vaccines.
Aggressive or dismissive language can make people less likely to vaccinate, while open, respectful discussion with a trusted individual can encourage hesitant parents towards vaccination.
Buy Carbon 60 (c60) Super Antioxidant, Anti-Aging, Youth Restoring Supplements and Products
Tips for discussing vaccination
Many people struggle with how to discuss vaccination when confronted with a friend, relative or acquaintance who expresses hesitancy.
Simply providing lots of facts or dismissing their views is not effective.
Instead, these are some tips everyone can use when talking about vaccines, drawing from evidence-based communication techniques. Studies in the United States and Canada have trained healthcare providers to use techniques like these to increase uptake of adolescent HPV vaccination and infant vaccines, and more studies are currently underway.
Ask about, and listen to, people’s concerns: not everyone is driven by the same issues or experiences. Find out what specifically is concerning the person. Is it safety? Effectiveness? Side effects?
Acknowledge their concerns: remember, everyone loves their children. No one is refusing to vaccinate because they want their child to get sick, or because they wilfully hope other children will get sick. Acknowledging that you see where someone is coming from can go a long way in establishing trust.
Provide information to respond to their concerns: share what you know, and try to provide reliable sources for your information. Be careful not to debunk myths too aggressively, as this can actually backfire.
Share personal stories: emotive stories tend to have more impact than facts. This is one reason stories of rare vaccine adverse events can seem to carry more weight than overwhelming safety figures. Share your own stories of positive experiences with vaccines, or better yet, discuss your experience with the diseases they prevent.
Don’t pass judgment: people may discuss vaccination many times with many different people before they decide to vaccinate, especially if they are very hesitant. Your goal should be to establish yourself as a trusted, non-judgmental person with whom they can share their questions and concerns. Berating them won’t convince them to vaccinate, but it will convince them never to speak to you about vaccines again.
These communication tips can help support discussions about vaccines with someone who is hesitant, but open to discussing their position. If, however, you find yourself publicly debating a “vocal vaccine denier”, the WHO has developed a toolkit to help guide your responses.
In such a situation, your intended audience is not the vaccine denier themselves, but the public who may be watching or reading your debate.
The techniques used by a vaccine denier could include referring to conspiracies, fake experts, selective or misrepresented evidence, or impossible expectations (such as 100 percent safety). The WHO recommends you identify the techniques the denier uses and then correct their content.
If you’re a strong supporter of vaccination, you can become a powerful ally in the effort to sustain high coverage rates in your community. Listen and share your views respectfully, build and maintain open and trusting relationships, and yours may be the words that encourage another person to vaccinate. 
Buy Book Earthing: The Most Important Health Discovery Ever!
About The Author
Jessica Kaufman, Postdoctoral researcher in vaccine acceptance and communication, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Margie Danchin, Senior Research Fellow and General Paediatrician, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute.
Stillness in the Storm Editor: Why did we post this?
The Deep State agenda requires total control of your sense of reality, what I have termed reality management. This is founded on the psychological principle that the environment affects behavior more than direct force. If you want to control someone so perfectly that they don’t know it and actually do what you want thinking it was their own choice, you need to control what someone thinks. Propaganda is a tool for the mass manipulation of perception, values, and life choices. The aim of propaganda is to use subtle techniques to influence your sense of reality, and by extension, your life choices. Lawfully, when a person or people refuse to discuss ideas and work with others, subtle techniques can be used to manage their behavior. Benevolent use of propaganda works to raise the individual up so that they can engage in worldly affair management as a direct agent. Malevolent propaganda seeks to dumb down the individual so they lack the competence to participate. The Deep State uses propaganda in the latter fashion. Understanding that biggest danger to the powers that be is your own mind, your ability to think critically, investigate honestly, and bravely consider new ideas without prejudice, empowers you to be a warrior for truth and justice. Our world needs active thinkers. Learning about these truths can be difficult to accept, but once you let your resentment for the imperfection of this world die, you can embrace the adulthood desire to make things better through your influence. That is the work we are all here to do. With this knowledge in hand, specifically knowledge of how the Deep State use propaganda against the people, you can develop the self-mastery skills needed to not only transcend such efforts but use them to train your warrior spirit. And once trained, you can join the ranks of well informed and educated world healers working tirelessly to free humanity and make the world a better place.
– Justin
Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
Source:
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-how-you-can-be-an-effective-advocate-for-vaccination
GENOCIDE: Contaminated Milk Being Sold in Black Communities
https://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2014/06/genocide-contaminated-milk-being-sold.htm