Governments, their agencies and the mainstream media (MSM) appear to be engaged in a concerted propaganda campaign. The aim is to convince the public that elements within the anti-lockdown, pro-freedom movement are being radicalised towards violence. They suggest that these people suffer from a "lack of trust" in government and that it is this which singles them out as especially dangerous.
In particular, a narrative is being created to lay blame upon the so-called "anti-vaxxers". The evidence offered to substantiate this litany of allegations is weak to non-existent. The objective appears to be to raise the spectre of a terror threat that does not seem to be in evidence. This modus operandi looks similar to previous propaganda operations to create the public perception of a threat.
In the years preceding the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq, the British foreign intelligence agency MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service) was engaged in Operation Mass Appeal. The operational goal was to convince the public that they faced a threat from Saddam Hussein. Unconvincing intelligence reports were fed to the public by government propagandists posing as journalists.
Recently, the BBC reported a “story” about razor blades purportedly fixed to the back of anti-vaxxer posters—the allegation being that this was done to deliberately harm people who take them down. This tale made no sense.
The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) trade union had warned Transport for London (TfL) about this apparent danger. Despite these being “anti-mask” posters, a spokesman from the RMT said that “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” had resorted to this “disgusting practice”. Yet TfL stated that they had no knowledge of any such practices ever occurring. Referring to these alleged posters, a TfL spokesperson reportedly said:
None have been detected on our network and there have been very few instances of unauthorised adverts and materials relating to the pandemic.
There was no evidence to support the story. Even stranger, when the BBC first reported the mysterious non-event, their headline was London transport staff warned of anti-vaccination posters with razor blades—yet, four hours later, the headline had changed to “London transport staff warned of anti-mask posters with razor blades”.
Who knows why the BBC changed the title of their article? Whatever their reason, rather redolent of past blaming of Muslims for acts of alleged Islamist terrorism, the first headline enabled former UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock to tweet:
This is a new low even for anti-vaxxers. Anti-vax propaganda is bad enough. To put razor blades on anti-vax leaflets to harm people when removing them is horrific. I hope the police come down on these people with the full force of the law.
Hancock was seemingly creating a mythology. Suddenly, the posting of one poster—which didn’t even happen—had become the act of more than one person. Not only that, he blamed all people who question vaccine efficacy and safety for perpetrating this alleged horror.
The apparent source for this story was a 22-year-old poster artist and LGBTQ+ activist. She claimed she had sustained an injury and reported it to Cardiff police in July, more than two months before the BBC reran essentially the same story, this time set on the London transport network.
Some research by a diligent citizen quickly revealed that the Welshwoman’s story was highly dubious. Not only did she have a history of making extraordinary claims; there was no logical rationale to explain how she had sustained the alleged injury.
Further, the young woman had notable conflicts of both ideological and financial interests. Yet the BBC, with their multi-billion pound budget, couldn’t figure this out for themselves and were instead content to report apparent fake news—twice.
When we look at the steady drip-feed of such stories, introducing the novel concept of the anti-vaxxer terror threat or the violent anti-lockdown movement, we can see numerous parallels with other similar government propaganda operations in the past. Historically, these often presage terror campaigns or conflicts.
In this model, the public is invited to believe the allegations simply because they supposedly come from an “authoritative source”. These propaganda campaigns typically rely upon unverified claims by intelligence experts, unnamed witnesses or anonymous “official sources”.
In May 2019, the Guardian published the piece Anti-Vaxxers Are Taking Populism To a New Level. In it, the paper insinuated that aid workers in Pakistan had been attacked by “anti-vaxxers”. The article linked to a CNN story, Pakistan’s anti-vaccination movement leads to string of deadly attacks. These attacks were in reality perpetrated by the Pakistan Taliban.
The Pakistan Taliban (TTP) were not attacking foreign aid workers because they were concerned about the safety and efficacy of vaccines they were distributing. They attacked them because they claimed they were a front for western and Pakistani intelligence agencies and were effective government outposts in territory they claimed as theirs. The Guardian highlighted similar attacks carried out in Nigeria by Boko Haram, more or less for the same reasons.
Both the Pakistan Taliban and Boko Haram are proscribed terrorist organisations and Islamist extremist groups. There is no connection whatsoever between them and people who question vaccine safety and efficacy. So we must ask why the “journalists” at the Guardian and CNN were trying to forge this absurd association in their readers' imaginations.
Perhaps they are just appalling journalists who haven’t got a clue what they are talking about. Perhaps they just wrote whatever they were ordered to write—or perhaps they knew precisely what they were doing.
In July 2019, the Guardian followed up the anti-vaxxer terrorist stories with the headline Anti-extremism software to be used to tackle vaccine disinformation. The piece asserted that:
Technology used to counter violent messages online from Islamic State and the far right is being adapted to counter the spread of “anti-vax” conspiracy theories […]
Here we see the asserted statement, as if it were a fact, that questioning vaccine safety and efficacy is a “conspiracy theory”. In turn, this is presented as being indistinguishable from the activities of ISIS and neo-Nazis.
It is just assumed, throughout the article, that questioning vaccines is “extremism” of this ilk. People asking questions about science and medical necessity online are forming “destructive communities”.
There was no evidence offered in the piece to substantiate any of it: just a list of words, cobbled together to make an unhinged allegation seem plausible to the casual observer.
However, making up links between people labelled as anti-vaxxers and other people designated as “conspiracy theorists”, and then appending the label of 'Islamist' or 'far right terrorist' to it, had been a growing trend for some time. The article dovetailed neatly with the FBI bulletin Anti–Government, Identity Based, and Fringe Political Conspiracy Theories Very Likely Motivate Some Domestic Extremists To Commit Criminal, Sometimes Violent Activity.
In this document, the FBI claimed that it was “very likely” that questioning the government would lead to criminal and violent acts. Not trusting the government, or opposing their policies, was called “conspiracy theory” in the memo. This assessment was based upon the FBI’s assumption that some conspiracy theories tacitly support or legitimise violence, although they didn’t clarify the mechanism supposedly at work.
The FBI then listed the activities of a couple of failed bomb plotters, people who carried out or attempted mass shootings, and a few others who committed deranged or generally unpleasant acts which the FBI had identified as especially significant. In the face of 434 mass shootings in 2019 in the US, this specific, tiny handful of lunatics was considered more dangerous than all the other types of perpetrator, due to their putative lack of trust in the government.
By April 2020, the FBI was warning of the threat from anti-vaxxers. This time, they were working with the Kremlin, they claimed.
Up to this point, the “anti-vaxxers” had allegedly perpetrated Islamist terrorism, far-right terrorism, and were dangerous conspiracy theorists; and now they were colluding with the Russians to destroy Western democratic values. A truly amazing global movement. Not a scrap of evidence, or even rational argument, had been offered to substantiate any of these frankly wacky “conspiracy theories”.
The Russian collusion theory, again reported in the UK by the Guardian, came from the analytical minds of the FBI’s private intelligence network called InfraGard. The MSM were sufficiently convinced by InfraGard's report to run the story, claiming that the alleged anti-vaccine “movement” was a threat to US national security. They said this movement was connected to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), which was aligned with the Russian Government.
If such a thing as an "anti-vaxxer movement" even exists, then it is a movement without leaders. It has no stated ideology or political objective, and its alleged membership is the epitome of ethnic, religious, cultural, political and national diversity. It has no agreed or published mission statement, no philosophical or theological stance, and no policy agenda. It consists of people from every walk of life and every nation whose only unifying characteristic is that they each, to some degree, have safety and efficacy concerns about some vaccines.
The InfraGard paper comically presented the “evidence” to support its allegations by using pseudo-academic footnoting for what turned out to be—blog posts. For example, to evidence its claim that people who question vaccine efficacy and safety are aligned to the “far right”, it portentously referenced:
What is this tome of Weill's, and what is the author's university affiliation? It turns out to have been an article in the US news blog, the Daily Beast, penned by in-house blogger Kelly Weill.
Weill's blog post presented no evidence that people who question vaccine efficacy and safety were members of any “far-right” groups or even expressed “far right” views, nor did she define what these ostensible “far-right anti-vaxxer” views were. She said so-called anti-vaxxers “rub shoulders” with “far-right” and “white supremacist” or “populist” communities online.
Weill’s article is a word salad of innuendo, suggestions and assertions. There is no evidence in any of it for anything. Her piece ultimately contradicts itself entirely and states:
Most anti-vaxxers are not white supremacists, far from it. But the overlap can send some well-meaning parents down the rabbit hole.
In terms of verifiable evidence, this article is meaningless—and yet InfraGard cited this as US Government proof of an alleged anti-vaxxer threat. Consequently, their report, based almost entirely upon unsubstantiated opinion, is equally evidence-free.
The Guardian then reported InfraGard’s baseless allegations to the general public. They lent it an unwarranted air of authority by calling InfraGard “an FBI-connected non-profit research group”.
InfraGard’s research was undetectable. At one point, they declared that anti-vaxxers were aligned with the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA), who were “identified as responsible for interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election”. This was not true.
There was never any evidence that the IRA had influenced the 2016 US election. The whole Russiagate scandal was nothing more than a politically-motivated witch hunt.
Some real intelligence analysis and cursory research would have revealed this. The inclusion of this unfounded theory suggests that InfraGard is also a politically-motivated outfit and lacks objectivity.
People who are concerned about the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines come from all walks of life. As the Canadian National Post noted:
It’s hard to come up with a clear profile. It’s a fairly diverse group that crosses income and education lines.
This diverse group includes scientists whose whole careers have been in the vaccine industry. Reuters ran a piece on Pfizer's former allergy and respiratory research division vice-president, Dr. Mike Yeadon, in which they revealed how Reuters' own propaganda confined it to contradictory and asinine positions.
Reuters started its attack on Yeadon with a falsehood. Reuters claimed he and other leading scientists had submitted a vaccine withdrawal petition to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and that the petition was without evidence. The piece also asserted that the scientists in question had said that Covid vaccines could cause female infertility.
However, the petition said nothing of the sort. This undoubtedly explains why Reuters didn’t cite it in the article.
Specifically, in relation to fertility, the scientists demonstrated that the clinical trials were not assessing whether the S-protein (spike protein) induced and formed by the vaccines would stop the formation of placentas. This was a known scientific possibility, and they referenced the genetic research which raised it. They did not claim that the vaccines would cause infertility, but rather that it was a potential risk factor that needed to be ruled out before giving the vaccines to women.
In other words, the clinical trials were not designed to answer either this or many other crucial questions about safety and efficacy. Yeadon and his esteemed colleagues provided a wealth of peer-reviewed and emerging, published scientific evidence to substantiate their expressed reasons for concern. Even so, as they were themselves highly-qualified scientists and doctors, their opinions alone should have been sufficient to prompt Reuters to take a closer look at the trials.
Yet Reuters chose to deceive and mislead its global readership. The agency preferred to quote an anonymous British Government spokesman as saying that “These claims are false, dangerous and deeply irresponsible”—suggesting to Reuters readers that this was much closer to the truth than all the silly science and rational arguments presented by the scientists.
Ultimately, Reuters' obvious pro-vaccine propaganda led it into publishing abject nonsense. The piece continued:
Why Yeadon transformed from mainstream scientist to COVID-19 vaccine skeptic remains a mystery. Thousands of his tweets stretching back to the start of the pandemic document a dramatic shift in his views — early on, he supported a vaccine strategy. But they offer few clues to explain his radical turnabout.
One clue might be the petition he co-signed and sent to the EMA outlining his scientific concerns. Perhaps other clues could have been found in the numerous interviews he had given, or perhaps Reuters could have glanced at the work he undertook with Doctors for Covid Ethics. In this single statement, Reuters personified the nonsensical vilification of the people that it, and other MSM organisations, are seemingly compelled to label as anti-vaxxers.
Dr. Mike Yeadon is a scientist who believes in the scientific method. Therefore, his scientific opinion is dependent upon his understanding of the scientific evidence. It isn’t set in stone, for this reason.
He clearly changed his view as new evidence emerged. Obviously, as a career scientist working in the vaccine industry, he is not opposed to vaccines in principle; but the evidence for the Covid-19 vaccines has convinced him to dispute their safety and efficacy.
The propagandists can never admit that this evidence exists. They must deny it. They cannot question the Covid-19 vaccines because these are central to global government policy.
Reuters' role is to promote that policy and to attack anyone who could possibly undermine it; especially if they are highly-qualified, eminent scientists.
Yeadon’s reasoning remained “a mystery” to Reuters because Reuters had to exclude any reference to the scientific evidence from its report. This necessarily reduced the full extent of its investigation to trawling through his Twitter feed. Consequently, anyone who does highlight the scientific, medical or statistical evidence which casts doubt upon the Covid vaccines is, according to the propagandists and governments, an anti-vaxxer extremist.
In September 2020, Tony Blair’s Institute for Global Change (IGC) ordered or paid the MSM to publish an incredible propaganda piece. Without bothering to provide any evidence, presumably because they didn’t have any, the article hammered home the idea of the anti-vaxxer extremist.
According to the Blair IGC tirade, people who advocate scientific rigour were being led into a world of “xenophobia, racism, antisemitism and hate”. The IGC lobbed in the Pakistan Taliban story, as a proven example of anti-vaxxer terror, before asserting—without evidence, of course—that anti-vaxx extremism, based upon “suspicion and fear of governments”, was a sentiment that could be “weaponised”.
However, we might question whether it is not, in fact, the governments and the globalist think tanks who are fearful of the people. The same issue of the lack or loss of trust in government is a recurring theme in this propaganda. As, indeed, is the flat out denial of evidence.
The IGC, having just bemoaned that the anti-vaxxers had “long campaigned” against vaccines, concluded by contradicting themselves:
As anti-vaxx sentiment emerges from the fringes and enters the mainstream, coming out from the dark corners of the internet and on to our streets, the extremists who weaponise it create a clear threat to trust. Governments and the wider public should not dismiss the potential for extremists to put the lives and livelihoods of billions around the world at risk by spreading baseless conspiratorial angst at a time of global crisis.
It is evident that globalist think tanks, global health authorities and governments were by this time becoming increasingly concerned about people questioning their policies. This appears to indicate that they either have no comprehension of what democracy is or no intention of maintaining it.
Many people were not convinced by the MSM campaigns to promote governments' “build back better” reset agenda. Their “lack of trust” in their governments was not a sign that democracy was failing; it was a sign that it was working. Or at least it would have been, if people then had a realistic chance of removing the policymakers they didn’t trust from power.
As huge pro-freedom demonstrations started taking place across the world, with millions of protesters rejecting the proposed vaccine passports and questioning the Covid vaccines, the spectre of the anti-vaxxer terrorist suddenly became an alleged physical reality. The timing could not have been worse for the protesters—or more convenient for governments.
The terrorist campaign started in January 2021 with a suspect package supposedly sent to an AstraZeneca plant in Wrexham. No-one knew much about the incident, other than the fact that bomb disposal experts were called as a precaution. Yet the Times ran with Anti-vaxxers suspected of sending hoax bomb to Covid vaccine bottling plant. The paper quoted an unnamed source who reportedly said:
Unfortunately there are anti-vaxxers out there, which is why security is being taken so seriously at this plant.
There was no basis for this statement. There was no known threat from anti-vaxxers, but this anonymous quotation was slipped into the Times article to give the impression that there was.
Eventually, Anthony Collins was charged with sending the fake bomb. He was remanded in custody and later pleaded not guilty. There is no current record of a verdict. To this day, this man remains innocent until proven guilty. We don’t even know whether he did it, let alone what his motivations were. Yet the MSM made the claim regardless.
Shortly after this incident, reports came out of the Netherlands of a vaccine centre being burned down by rioting youths. They were apparently enraged by a curfew that was imposed even as claimed Dutch Covid cases were declining. Clashes occurred across the Netherlands as police sought to enforce the curfew. Three teenagers were arrested in connection to the arson attack in Urk.
In February 2021, the Washington Post published an opinion piece titled Anti-vaccine extremism is akin to domestic terrorism. It was written by California State Senator Dr. Richard Pan.
Dr. Pan referred to anyone questioning the Covid-19 vaccines, and especially those protesting against the associated policies, as anti-vaxxer extremists. Taking his cue from the invitational Capitol Hill riots of 6 January ("1/6"), Dr Pan said anti-vaccine extremists had “stormed” a vaccine centre.
He said the extremists had been attempting to deny life-saving vaccines to those who wanted them. He spoke of their poisonous efforts, warning of potential violence if they were confronted, and spoke about how the “mob” had shut down the vaccine centre and were threatening people.
However, it seems the protesters didn’t shut down the vaccine centre. Nor was doing so their intention. When interviewed, one of the protesters, Jason Lefkowitz, spoke of his surprise when the entrance was blocked by the authorities and they locked the gates.
Nor were the protesters seeking to deny anyone access to vaccines. They were protesting against business closures and the loss of civil liberties.
These were peaceful protesters who hadn’t harmed or threatened anyone. For this heinous crime, Senator Pan likened them to terrorists.
Once again, the Guardian reported this incident, unquestioningly parroting Pan’s error-strewn accusations and highlighting the assault he had suffered at the hands of a so-called anti-vaxxer extremist. This assault, which occurred months earlier, was filmed by the assailant and then posted liberally online, and consisted of a shove in the back, as seen in the video.
There is no excuse for this behaviour—but neither is there any reason to extrapolate from it, as Pan repeatedly does, that the broader swathe of people who question vaccine safety have any tendency towards violence or condone it. There is no justification for this allegation, yet the Guardian offered no qualification as they quoted Pan:
This is part of an escalation of violence that we’re seeing in the anti-vaccine movement […] as they have continued to become more and more violent, they have suffered few consequences, and without consequences they will continue to increase their extremism and their violence.
In March 2021, the British MSM reported a “huge blast” at a Covid test centre in Bovenkarspel, North Holland. Fortunately, no one was injured and only a few windows were broken in the massive pipe bomb explosion.
Later, a man was arrested for plotting bomb attacks. His motive for allegedly targeting vaccine facilities was, according to Dutch prosecutors, to disrupt “economic and social structures”.
It is not clear whether this man had any link to the pipe bomb explosion at the Bovenkarspel test site. However, the home-made firework bomb at Bovenkarspel was placed in the run-up to the Dutch elections, so a political motive can’t be ruled out for that attack. The accused man also claimed he was the target of a professional, intelligence-led entrapment operation.
The defendant said that the planned bombings were a “joke that got out of hand”. Other than the conspicuous location, there was no evidence to suggest that the Bovenkarspel bomb was part of any anti-vaxxer terror plot, nor that the arrested man was involved. As yet, no-one has been arrested in direct connection to the Bovenkarspel incident.
In May 2021, ABC News in Australia ran with AMA warns of anti-vaxxer ‘extremism’ upsurge as MP’s office vandalised amid coronavirus. An Australian Medical Association (AMA) spokesman said he was concerned about an up-swell in Covid conspiracy theories. Reports of “clashes with police” following demonstrations in Melbourne were used to bolster the central point of the article:
It’s very sad that individuals have to use aggressive or illegal means to make a point and impose their views in these sorts of situations […] there has been somewhat of an upsurge in paranoid and sort of unhinged behaviours.
Dr. Moy of the AMA said:
To damage an office to make a point is the sort of behaviour that is there from people who essentially are extremists.
The aggressive and illegal means which evidenced the paranoid, unhinged behaviour of these anti-vaxxer extremists, culminating in the act of wanton vandalism, turned out to be fly-posting a couple of A4 posters on the outside of a Member of Parliament's office windows. The posters read:
I nearly died after my last vaccines. But I still can’t get a medical exemption.
Sadly, it is a fact that the Covid-19 vaccines can kill. It is also a fact that the only previous vaccine adverse reaction that is allowed to exempt an Australian from subsequent mandatory Covid vaccination is diagnosed anaphylaxis (itchy rash, throat or tongue swelling, shortness of breath, vomiting, lightheadedness, low blood pressure). People who have previously suffered vaccine adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as seizures or other neurological reactions, heart inflammation, nerve damage or sight loss (all indicated as adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines), are not exempt under Australian legislation.
It is obvious to anyone who reads the article that the headline is not supported by the content, other than the AMA's and MP’s ludicrous allegations. Not only was the commentary on the poster accurate; no vandalism occurred. There was certainly extremism evidenced in the article—but it emanated from the political and medical establishment and from the MSM, not the unknown “anti-vaxxer”.
The purpose of this type of propaganda is not to report reality or the news but rather to foster the subconscious awareness of a myth which can then seep into the fabric of society to become an accepted “fact”. Again, we must ask why the MSM and establishment figures were so eager to peddle this fantasy.
The BBC reported that its journalists had received death threats from anti-vaxxers. The BBC’s razor blade item is just one of literally thousands of fake news stories spewed out by the BBC over the years. Curiously enough, these have consistently supported the policies of the government of the day.
It is not unreasonable to say that, as a news organisation, the BBC is wholly untrustworthy and, as a state broadcaster, acts as an organisation of government propagandists. In short, there is little reason to believe the BBC.
It is illegal in nearly every country (not to mention unlawful) to make threats to kill. In the UK, whether made in person or online, death threats are illegal under numerous Acts of Parliament and in case-law. Making a threat to kill, where the targeted person has reason to believe the menace is real, is a crime.
It is also a simple task, well within the capability of most law enforcement agencies, to track down the IP address of anyone who makes such a threat via the Internet, even if the culprit uses a proxy. Pretty much anyone, save for the most technologically gifted, who makes a threat to kill online can be arrested, tried and sentenced if found guilty.
If there was any substance to the BBC claims that alleged anti-vaxxers had made online threats to kill their journalists, we could expect some arrests, or a police investigation at the very least. However, as reported by other MSM sources, nothing was apparently reported to the police and there was no investigation.
Wishing someone dead, on the other hand, or expressing the sentiment that they should be lynched, or calling someone a traitor or a liar, or even expressing an opinion that someone should be tracked down, does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute a threat to kill. Being in the same room, or chat room, as an extremist does not make you an extremist.
Yet this was the “evidence” which the BBC reportedly provided to substantiate their allegation that “anti-vaxxers” had made these threats. The BBC offered nothing to back up their insinuation that people who question the safety and efficacy of vaccines posed a threat. But this was reported, as if fact, by MSM propagandists from both the left and the right of the supposed political divide.
Evidently, the BBC’s claims weren’t true. This explains why there was no apparent police investigation nor any arrests. Instead, the BBC played the victim of a non-existent crime and said it had been forced to offer its staff training on how to react to what it called “in-person attacks” (an illiterate or else deliberate misuse of the phrase 'in person', which of course invariably means 'physically present').
The BBC appears to have confused criticism with assault. They are not the same thing. Perhaps BBC staff need some training to understand the difference.
To add some meat to the BBC’s fake claims, the MSM reported the opinions of Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. He ignored the fact that there was no substance to the BBC’s story and instead opined that anti-vaxxers had moved beyond disinformation to intimidation.
Imran Ahmed is an anti-rationalist extremist who believes that people who question vaccine safety and efficacy should be incarcerated under anti-terror legislation. Promoting one of his organisation's propaganda pamphlets, in 2020, Ahmed said:
I would go beyond calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists to say they are an extremist group that pose a national security risk.
Following up on their make-believe, the BBC’s specialist disinformation reporter, Marianna Spring presented Where Is the Anti-Lockdown Movement Heading?. The BBC and Spring concluded that it was being radicalised and there were signs that it would turn to violence.
Her BBC Newsnight segment on this theme included edited clips from two interviews with anti-lockdown protesters. Neither of them made any threats or advocated any violence or lawlessness.
Spring pointed out that neither of the protesters she interviewed condoned the “aggression shown to the BBC”. This aggression was evidenced in the segment by a clip of a man sarcastically waving bye-bye to the unwelcome BBC film crew.
The interviewed protesters spoke about their lack of trust in government and stated their belief that elected politicians were puppets of what they called global élites. The BBC, through their disinformation expert Spring, stated that there was no evidence to corroborate any of the protesters' opinions.
Having failed to provide any kind of logical argument, or evidence, to refute anything the protesters said, the BBC simply asserted that their accusations were false, before turning to an expert called Chloe Colliver from the Institute of Strategic Dialogue (ISD). The ISD’s published purpose reads:
We have innovated and scaled sector-leading policy and operational programmes — on- and offline […] ISD partners with governments, cities, businesses and communities, working to deliver solutions at all levels of society […] ISD is uniquely able to turn research and analysis into evidence-based policy and action […] and inform the training and policy advisory work we provide to central and local governments, civil society, front line practitioners and international organisations.
The ISD is funded by, among others, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Omidyar Group and the British Council. It is a privately-funded policy think tank. ISD policies are then fed to all levels of government and enacted by elected politicians on behalf of the multi-billionaire “philanthropists” who finance the ISD.
No-one elects the ISD, nor is there any democratic process to remove it from power. While we continue to imagine that elected politicians make policy, its influence is permanent. It is one among numerous such institutions which have effectively usurped democracy.
This is precisely the problem the protesters were trying to highlight. The ISD represents the interests of the people who fund it. Otherwise, they wouldn’t bother. These are the “global élites” the interviewees referred to.
Yet, according to the BBC’s specialist investigative reporter, Marianna Spring, there is no evidence that the ISD exists. This rather raises the question of how she managed to include the opinions of one of the ISD’s trained “experts” in her “news” segment.
Chloe Colliver works for the ISD and advocates the policies that organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation want to see enacted. She said that the people who know what the ISD is and who understand its political function were trapped in communities built upon “disinformation”.
Colliver concluded that those who opposed the ISD’s control of government policy were vulnerable to being radicalised towards violence. Her expressed "expert opinion" effectively encouraged the public to marginalise anyone who questions vaccines or lockdown policies as radicals and extremists. This was certainly in the interests of the ISD and, consequently, in the interests of Chloe Colliver.
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin in which they stated:
Law enforcement have expressed concerns that the broader sharing of false narratives and conspiracy theories will gain traction in mainstream environments, resulting in individuals or small groups embracing violent tactics to achieve their desired objectives […] Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked media outlets have repeatedly amplified conspiracy theories concerning the origins of COVID-19 and effectiveness of vaccines […] DHS will continue to identify and evaluate calls for violence, including online activity associated with the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false narratives […] DHS is also advancing authoritative sources of information to debunk and, when possible, preempt false narratives and intentional disinformation […] to promote resilience to the risks associated with interacting with and spreading disinformation, conspiracy theories and false narratives.
It is clear from this bulletin that the DHS has become an arbiter of truth in the US. It knows all and can judge what constitutes disinformation and false narratives. These will be defined as being anything which is not from authoritative sources.
The DHS definition of violence includes the spreading of whatever it itself deems to be disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false narratives. Any questioning of the effectiveness of vaccines constitutes a violent act, as far as the DHS are concerned. The DHS weren’t alone in their assessment.
In Switzerland, the Federal Intelligence Service (FIS) warned of imminent attacks on vaccine sites. They even predicted the scale of these likely attacks and the media response:
Attacks on such targets would both hit large crowds and generate intensive media coverage.
How could the FIS predict these attacks in such detail, or at all? They added that there were no tangible indications of planned attacks. Presumably, the evidence informing their prediction was intangible.
At the start of August, the Polish authorities said that a fire at a mobile vaccination centre in the town of Zamość was an act of anti-vaxxer terror. Health Minister Adam Niedzielski said:
It was an act of terror, directed not only against employees of the vaccination centre and people who get vaccinated, but also against the state.
How could Niedzielski know this? The police didn’t know who started the fire and, unusually for terrorists trying to make a specific political point, no group or individual had made any announcement about why they did it.
In the UK, the Sheffield Star claimed, in an anonymous article, that an anonymous reporter had infiltrated the “secret” Telegram channel of the group FreeNation Sheffield. The unknown, undercover reporter then said that the group disseminated anti-Semitic, racist and Nazi material among its members and that this went unchallenged. The paper then revealed that these apparent fascists went as far as organising Sunday walks as an act of non-compliance.
The unnamed investigative journalist relayed a conversation that he or she had had with an unnamed source who had discovered the group were furtively meeting in “abandoned steel mills” or behind closed curtains in people’s front rooms. Quite why the group would go to all the trouble of meeting in “off-grid”, clandestine locations and then follow that up with a gathering at someone’s house wasn’t explained.
However, this group, who must collectively be insane, apparently believe that terrorist attacks are staged by paedophile cannibals. If so, basic fieldcraft probably isn’t their strong point.
The evidence offered to back up this absurd tripe was a screenshot of a picnic invitation where the group intended to discuss reaching out to the local community to raise awareness of vaccine harm. To add impact, another picture, which was pixelled out because it was just too offensive to show, was also included.
From this, we can deduce that, on the spectrum between BBQ invites and rabid fascist sloganeering, there was nothing which better evidenced any of the claims made by the anonymous journalist and their anonymous source in the anonymous article.
More to the point, there was nothing at all in this claim-jumble to explain why people who question vaccine safety and efficacy would have anything to do with any of it. Yet the article was titled “Inside the Sheffield anti-vaxxer group where anti-semitic, racist and nazi propaganda goes unchallenged”.
Later in August, the Mail on Sunday ran a very similar story. This time, the anti-vaxxers terrorists were all battle-hardened, gun-obsessed veterans. Apparently, they were planning a series of “devastating anti-vaccine offensives”. This offensive was reportedly due to start with a peaceful protest march. Rather like in the Sheffield article, here again there are lots of alleged quotes from alleged members but no evidence of anything in particular.
It now seems we will never know what this army intended. No sooner had they appeared in the public’s imagination than they disappeared again. It seems this committed network of “cells” disbanded after the shock of being “exposed” by the Mail on Sunday.
Again, the evidence to support any of these allegations consisted of some reported social media messages, photographs of people sitting in a pub garden, and a collection of air rifles. All of this was in the public domain, so if they were planning a campaign of “devastating anti-vaccine offensives”, announcing it on social media probably wasn’t a very smart idea.
You would think ex-servicemen and women would know better. In fact, it is almost impossible to believe that they don’t.
Only three weeks into September 2021, it already seemed the threat of anti-vaxxer terrorism had become a global phenomenon. Despite there being no evidence that it exists, it is everywhere.
This was underlined in New Zealand by University of Waikato Professor of Law Alexander Gillespie, who said:
Although anti-vaccination terrorism is not a historical trend, there is the potential for this to grow. This will be especially so once some of the difficult decisions that have started to occur overseas, start to happen here.
Prominent anti-vaxxer social media star Karen Brewer was chastised for saying that the “penalty for treason is death”. Brewer was wrong about that, as the New Zealand death penalty for treason was rescinded in 1989.
The MSM again insisted that this raised the spectre of anti-vaxxer terrorism. Yet when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that the Christchurch gunman should be hanged, the New Zealand MSM did not predict war with Turkey.
Police in Italy raided a student house after a group calling themselves The Warriors allegedly advocated violence at planned protest marches. As of the time of writing, none has been arrested or charged with any offences. All we have to go on are claims.
On 18 September, a 20-year-old man, working in a petrol station, was murdered by a gunshot wound to the head fired by a 49-year-old man. The shooting occurred in the German city of Idar-Oberstein. There are a number of very strange aspects to this murder.
The gunman appears first to have entered the store to buy beer at 19:45. Video footage shows he had a mask in the back pocket of his jeans—suggesting that he was not fiercely committed to not wearing one. The cashier asked the man to put his mask on. There was a brief, apparently heated, verbal exchange before the man stormed out of the shop without the beer.
The man returned at around 21:25, wearing a mask, according to police reports. He then approached the counter, pulled down his mask and, when prompted to refit it by the 20-year-old cashier, shot him in the head with a pistol. It isn't clear why this man, reported as an anti-masker, was (a) in possession of a Covid mask and then (b) wore it in the store before he apparently committed the murder.
The 49-year-old software developer, named by the Rhineland authorities as Mario N., handed himself to police the morning after the murder, and initial police statements said he had told them he had killed the cashier "out of anger". Police apparently found a number of other weapons at his home address and stated he had obtained these illegally. Possibly, he obtained them from his father, who committed suicide in March 2020 after trying to murder his wife.
Mario N. had been the subject of monitoring undertaken by the CeMAS (Center für Monitoring, Analyse und Strategie) and the German MSM magazine Der Spiegel in 2019. CeMAS is an "open source", multidisciplinary social media monitoring organisation that concerns itself with a claimed rise in disinformation. It primarily focuses upon the alleged increase in "right-wing" extremism and is funded almost entirely by the Alfred Landecker Foundation (ALF).
They were unaware that they used to be Nazis until they commissioned academics to look into their family history. The Reimanns are staunch supporters of the European project and, following the shock of discovering that their own family were formerly card-carrying National Socialists, have dedicated themselves, and ALF, to combating antisemitism and the far right.
As part of this effort, Der Spiegel and CeMAS (ALF) were monitoring Mario N.'s communications in 2019. He had expressed violent ideation and seemingly wrote:
I'm looking forward to the next war. Yes, that may sound destructive now, but we just can't get out of this spiral.
It isn't really clear what Der Spiegel and CeMAS were gathering this information for. They supposedly didn't pass anything on to the authorities. In regard to Mario N., Chief Public Prosecutor Kai Fuhrmann said he was completely unknown to the police. He wasn't known to have even attended any pro-freedom (anti-lockdown) rallies, nor had he had any involvement with any protest "movements".
Criminal psychologist Rudolf Egg stated that Mario N.'s apparent murderous behaviour could not be explained by a seemingly innocuous row over face masks:
Nobody who is even halfway sensible will shoot a young man who is completely unknown to him simply because he says: 'You have to put on a mask now!' That is nonsense to a criminal psychologist.
Egg added that commentators needed to be "very, very careful" about assuming what his motives or state of mind were when he seemingly carried out this lone-wolf act.
He had been under surveillance by privately-funded intelligence agencies and the MSM for years, but they supposedly hadn't shared any of this "intelligence" with the authorities.
It seems he had recently suffered a family trauma, which suggests possible psychological disturbance, and that he had been vocal on social media, with some pretty far-out ideas. However, he wasn't known to be involved with any groups or protest movements. The killing seems to have been an act of lunacy by one individual.
The BBC led with "German cashier shooting linked to Covid-19 conspiracies". The BBC told the British public:
Researchers believe the suspect, named only as Mario N, was a far-right supporter and Covid-denier.
These "researchers" were Der Spiegel and CeMAS. The BBC also reported the comments of Stephan Kramer, a German intelligence official, who said "the escalation of right-wing conspiracy fantasies among aggressive and violence-prone citizens has been obvious for months".
The BBC deduced from this that the shooting was linked to conspiracy theorists, and made more unsubstantiated allegations about threats to journalists and doctors. Tying the whole thing up in a big conspiratorial bow, they reported government appeals to protesters not to escalate the violence—although just what the protesters were supposed to be able to do about an apparent act of insanity wasn't specified.
At no point did the BBC bother reporting that the police and criminal psychologists didn't know why Mario N. had seemingly embarked upon his disturbed course. Once again, we see the MSM's determination to forge associations that are not at all evident.
On 19 September, the British Government announced its plan to fortify flour destined for UK bakeries with folic acid. There was little, if any, reaction to this announcement. A cursory glance at social media revealed very little debate on the subject. There was no great reaction from so-called "anti-vaxxers".
Yet, within a couple of days, this supposed reaction, which didn't happen, formed a central theme in an article published by the Daily Mirror entitled "Anti-vaxxers want to kill your babies, stage a coup and cause another lockdown". In 2019 the same Mirror journalist wrote an article calling for the imprisonment of people who question vaccines. She said they were "baby killers".
The cover image for that article was of a baby cradled in a medic's arms. Someone had Photoshopped the image to add the appearance of measles on the baby's skin. Whether that was the Mirror's editorial team or not is unknown. Regardless, it was very easy to spot the fake image the Mirror had used to mislead the public.
In her more recent attack on people who question the efficacy and safety of vaccines, the journalist alleged they were trying to attack democracy, were "thick knuckledraggers", had a Messiah complex and mental health problems. She said they had caused the NHS to collapse, were behind the Capitol Hill débâcle, and were "nutters". Rounding off her opening invective, she wrote:
No-one stops to think about how the Taliban, the IRA, Al Qaeda, neo-Nazis and ISIS were all just nutters, once, and mostly still are. Perhaps the difference is intent. The world's terrorist organisations aim to create terror, whereas the anti-thinking brigade do it by accident.
Alleging, without reason, that the targets of her ire had overreacted to the folic acid announcement, she then spoke about the science behind folic acid supplements. It seems clear that the article was written in anticipation of a reaction that never surfaced.
Other than the journalist's vitriol, there was no substance to the piece. Just as we have seen with every "story" selling the myth of the anti-vaxxer terrorist, the journalist had nothing but vacuous allegations and smears to hang her words on. There was nothing she could point towards that evidenced anything she wrote.
However, that wasn't the point of the opinion piece. The objective was to stir up anger, resentment and hate. It was to blame the Other, to marginalise and persecute. It was typical fascist fare and it soon took a depressingly familiar turn:
If you talk about staging a coup, encourage birth defects, or lie about a lifesaving vaccine, you're committing something terrifyingly close to murder, insurrection, and child abuse […] Spreading lies that damage the NHS, downgrade democracy, or cause child deformities is a crime against all […] Updating our laws to make the spreading of harmful conspiracy theories an act of treason, though, would mean that not only could the ringleaders be shut down, they also could be deradicalised, medicated and educated. They are terrorists, and should be treated as such.
Conclusion: Is An Anti-Lockdown Movement False Flag Imminent?
The dearth of evidence supporting the MSM stories and intelligence reports alleging the rise of anti-vaxxer terrorism is all the more odd when set against the sheer number of them. Somewhere within this extensive catalogue of accusations, there ought to be some firm, verifiable evidence of people who question vaccine safety and efficacy, or those who oppose Covid-19 policy responses, actually planning or committing terrorist acts. Yet there is not.
Therefore, should a high-profile attack occur, to be blamed upon these groups, it should be acknowledged by everyone that, prior to MSM reports of the attack, there was no evidence of the existence of any such groups. Currently, we have nothing which substantiates this purported threat.
Any future reports claiming that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been warning of the "growing threat" will only be true to the extent that government agencies and the MSM have made these allegations. These allegations are without merit, and their warnings are hollow.
If such an attack reportedly happens, it will have come out of nowhere. This is the context within which any such "news" reports should be viewed.
We should also be aware of the many examples of governments' use of false-flag terrorism. It is a technique consistently perpetrated to advance government agendas. We also know that governments have infiltrated and often led protest movements to further their own objectives.
In the UK, the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act is now in force. Government operatives have been given carte blanche to commit any crime deemed necessary for "national security". No crimes are ruled out in the Act.
Governments the world over have been eager to shut down what they call the "infodemic". This neologism represents nothing more than people sharing information which challenges the policy response to the claimed Covid-19 pandemic. An attack blamed upon anti-vaxxers or anti-lockdown protesters would benefit state interests more than it benefited any other party.
There is no doubt that a large minority of people are very angry about government policy responses to Covid-19. Recent violent clashes in Australia evidence the volatility of the situation. But the use of weaponry, armoured vehicles and extreme violence in Australia, just as we have also seen in France and elsewhere, was instigated by the state authorities.
It is also true that people who question the Covid-19 policy response are vilified and attacked by the MSM and the politicians. They have been lambasted with derogatory labels persistently applied to them, such as “refusenik” (an obscene misapplication of a Soviet term that actually means 'a Jew who has been refused [by the government] permission to leave the country'), “anti-vaxxer,” “conspiracy theorist,” “Covid deniers” and “extremist”.
The social media companies are working with government ministries and legislatures to censor any and all criticisms that sceptics make. Their opinions are being marginalised in what is clearly a coordinated effort to drive their views out of the mainstream discourse. They rarely, if ever, see their concerns fairly represented in the MSM. Perhaps most infuriatingly, the scientific, medical and statistical evidence they cite is scarcely acknowledged, let alone reasonably debated, in the public square.
This suppression of free speech and freedom of expression in our so-called Western democracies inevitably fuels anger and resentment. In such a febrile environment, it is possible that a tiny minority will react aggressively, even violently.
All that matters is the evidence. The opinions expressed by the MSM, and equally those of the so-called alternative media, are irrelevant. Only the evidence can lead us towards the facts—and only the facts can reveal the truth. Before we believe what we are told, it is incumbent upon each of us to examine the evidence ourselves and not to leap to conclusions based upon stories.
We should carefully consider who benefits (cui bono) from any claimed anti-vaxxer or anti-lockdown terrorist attack. Any such attack will certainly be seized upon by governments to finally outlaw any questioning of vaccines or their policies. That is something they have consistently been working towards for decades.
Most crucially, if an anti-vaxxer or anti-lockdown terrorist attack occurs, whether the evidence indicates that it is a false flag or not, we must resist and refute any suggestion by anyone that the people who question vaccine safety and efficacy or question government policies are in any way responsible. The world’s Muslim population is not responsible for Islamist terrorism, and the Catholic population is not culpable for Irish nationalist terrorism.
The section of society that questions the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines, or those who oppose government policies to limit our freedoms, will not be complicit in any claimed anti-vaxxer terrorism or other criminal acts—regardless of what the politicians and the MSM want you to believe.