Inductions Dangerous: Induce Rather than Compel Vaccine Compliancy
by David Solway (January 2022)
By drunk prophecies, libels, and dreams
A new tactic has emerged to convince those who refuse to abide by the vaccine mandates: gentle persuasion that acknowledges “hesitancy" and seeks to dispel it by virtue of empathetic reasoning and friendly authority. Like Shakespeare’s Richard III, the purveyors of this technique are capable, in the words of Waldo McNeir, of “dazzling histrionics,” or at any rate, of credible verisimilitude. They are animated, as silver-tongued Richard pretends to be, by “pure heart’s love,/Immaculate devotion, holy thoughts.” (Richard III, IV, vi.)
It’s rather interesting, too, that those who warn us about the inadvisability, ineffectiveness or malignity of the vaccines often begin by disclosing that they are fully vaccinated rather than regretting the fact. The great Robert Malone, for example, inventor of the mRNA vaccine, begins his brief by affirming his vaccinated status before issuing a terrifying warning. Similarly, former CEO Gwyn Morgan lucidly underscores the downsides of the vaccines and points out that vaccinated persons have become the new superspreaders: “Now it’s the unvaccinated who should be worried about catching the virus from the vaccinated,” he writes, yet shows no remorse and offers no apology for being himself one of these transmitters. To his credit, he does not, as many others do, extenuate the effects of the vaccines or, notwithstanding, advance their cause.
The template for the advisory strategy is psychiatrist Norman Doidge’s 25,000 word essay in Tablet Magazine, which my wife Janice Fiamengo has thoroughly dissected in PJ Media. Though duly vaxxed, Doidge vividly demonstrates that the vaccines can generate luridly harmful effects, and are the product of a vast network of corruption and collusion involving Pharma, government, academia and medical organizations. Nonetheless, Doidge recommends their continued use, even though the disparate evidence against the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines comes together and anneals like a Kintsugi artifact, not perfect, maybe, but intact. One is hard put not to suspect the onset of a condition of clinical schizophrenia on the part of this bestselling expert on brain chemistry.
Similarly, in an essay for the Canadian journal C2C, university professor William McNally, while revealing that he is doubly-vaxxed as proof of his good faith, eloquently protests the mandated violation of individual rights. In the course of the essay, he exposes the enormous and unprecedented harms and damage to society caused by the vaccine mandates, and bizarrely concludes: “Instead of mandating vaccines, we should make the case for them as clearly and honestly as we can.”
Apart from the fact that McNally, like Doidge, seems to have no knowledge of the findings of the World Health Organization, the Yale BJM Survey, a medRxiv preprint from Germany authored by 23 scientists, and many other studies to the effect that the overall COVID infection fatality rate is close to insignificant while vaccine-induced harms are, so to speak, “spiking,” the neural overload on display is quite stunning. To persuade people out of kindness and understanding to take an insufficiently tested and experimental therapeutic substance that may cause serious adverse effects is nothing short of unprofessional and disingenuous. The strange affinity between vaccines and variants seems increasingly to be an intimate one, and the amount of waffle we have received from the “official” experts should give us pause. One thinks of the famous aphorism of Voltaire’s: “Doctors administer drugs of which they know little into invalids of whom they know less for diseases of which they know nothing at all.”
Of course, most people remain unaware of the steep downside of mRNA vaccines. As PJ Media correspondent Stacey Lennox observes, several studies relating to their counter-productive nature “remain stuck in preprint…findings go unpublished, the questions will remain on the fringe of the internet labeled as ‘misinformation’ by the tech overlords,” and the corporate media will “ignor[e] the…incidence of severe illness and death.” This may now be changing. On November 19/2021, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet published an extraordinary letter showing that the vaccinated are at far greater risk of symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated and that the vaccines are dramatically ineffective. And as Reuters reports, most of the cases caused by the Omicron variant in the U.S. thus far occurred among the fully vaccinated, a third of them having received a booster dose.
In any event, although Doidge and McNally provide evidence for the untoward and frightening nature of the vaccines, they persist (unlike the more sober Morgan) in recommending them. As a result, some readers may come to the conclusion that the vaccines are not really so bad after all, since the reference to adverse effects seem more like the “consult your doctor” fine print on popular over-the-counter medications. After all, why else would the vaccines be promoted by concerned advocates who have only your welfare at heart? The appearance belies the design. The import is, everything considered: Go for it.
As I have argued before, coercion is readily discernible and vividly felt, and can be opposed via mass demonstrations. But it is not easy to discern the outlines of duress and compulsion when swaddled in the idiom of gentle persuasion and amiable rapport, that is, of induction. Induction is genial and devious, it softens resistance and bears results, and in consequence is perhaps ultimately more dangerous than legal punition and physical repression. One may resist force, but inductions are effective because they are surreptitious, with overtones of slick and urbane courtroom oration, and so require a degree of awareness and mental fortitude if they are to be turned aside.
“Of all tyrannies,” C.S. Lewis observed The Abolition of Man, “a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” They are like pixilated do-gooders who feed the crosswalk because it chirps.
Drunk prophecies, libels and dreams, even and perhaps especially under the aspect of good intentions, culminate in inductions dangerous. The career of Shakespeare’s Richard III, a master of cajolery and dissembling exhortation, is exemplary, a literary trope to keep in mind for its practical application. The difference between the crafty Richard and our glib vaccine advisors is that Richard was consistent in his nefarious plotting; our persuaders, on the other hand, are clearly in a state of cognitive dissonance, seemingly oblivious to their contradictory messaging. They actually believe, despite the extensive litany of harms and risks they are cataloguing, that they are acting in good faith. But the difference vanishes in the result, namely, a successful outcome in the art of dubious persuasion.
In the case of amateur vaccinologists, good intentions may be deceptive, no less than bad intentions. The end is often the same: achieving a prior purpose. The recipient may not know he has been manipulated. The levers of persuasion are smooth and noiseless. A degree of consummate alertness is necessary to resist the rhetoric and blandishments of our medical and scholarly Richard the Thirds.
Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast
Interesting. I remember listening to Dr. Malone on an early panel where he said that he had already suffered a Covid infection and had some lingering after-effects. I wonder if he got vaccinated before or after. Also, as many of the experts warning of the dangers of the vaccine are older and perhaps retired, they are in a demographic where vaccination would appear the least dangerous course whereas for others it might definately not.