In the strong chance you’re not keeping up to date with mad Leftists and their steady game of pin the tail on the oppressor, there’s a new kid on the chopping block.
As trendy as “right-wing extremism” or “white supremacism” was, threats to national security now include anyone who chooses to question, think through the science, practice informed consent, and make their own health decisions.
The vaccine hesitant are inching closer and closer to the cancel culture guillotine.
In an article just published by The Guardian, Clive Hamilton, an Australian professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University, appears to be saying that vaccine hesitant people are as evil as so-called “climate change deniers.”
Both groups, Hamilton explained, are “science deniers.”
Seemingly cheering on the deaths of COVID-19 victims who weren’t vaccinated, Hamilton pins his hopes on the vaccinated, politicising the suffering of others as examples that would force “COVID and Climate change science deniers to wake-up.”
Hamilton repeatedly labels the vaccine-hesitant as “anti-vaxxers”, writing: “Climate change deniers make comparable claims to ‘anti-vaxxers.’ Prone to ‘conspiracist ideation,’ many anti-vaccination activists appear to believe Covid-19 is a hoax.”
A bizarre claim considering that many of those who are vaccine-hesitant, are not traditional “anti-vaxxers.”
Many of them, much like myself and my family are all up to date with tried, tested, and common-sense vaccines. The vaccine-hesitant simply chooses to practice more discernment in their decision making.
They also see through government-sanctioned propaganda, and as such, are less likely to respond to any conditioned reflexes built into subsequent groupthink.
They see a growing chasm between fact and fiction, due in large part to the inconsistency, conflict, and censorship, all of which hinders an honest presentation, and reading of the scientific data.
Rather than winning out against the vaccine-hesitant, Hamilton reinforces reasons for being so.
For example, if his use of logical fallacies weren’t enough, falsely accusing “COVID and Climate deniers” of evasion tipped the bucket.
He argued that they resort to saying they’re only asking questions when they’re “cornered.”
The prized insight within Hamilton’s piece is found in what it reveals.
When we’re told to “shut up” and “follow the science,” what we’re really being told is, “fall in line with ideological propaganda, or else!”
Asking questions is a crucial part of applying the scientific method.
What Hamilton does is inadvertently admit there is no room for dissent.
He appears to be guilty of denying the science, while accusing others of doing the same.
For instance, on the basis of risk, he conflates women taking the “pill” with the COVID vaccines.
This is without concern for qualifying how the two are vastly different.
This is tantamount to saying that humans are related to Chimpanzees by a 98.6% correlation, without stating that the 1.4% differences in the hit into the double-digit millions.
Here are five observable reasons why Hamilton’s “pill”/COVID vax equivalence is misleading:
First, informed consent. No woman is forced to take the pill, on the threat of losing their job.
Second, the long-term data is in on the “pill.” Assessing long-term data on the global COVID ‘vaccine trial’ is still a work-in-progress.
Third, there are confirmed deaths, unconfirmed deaths, and a consistent pattern of health problems associated with the vaccines. Such as heart inflammation, Bell’s palsy, and blood clotting.
Fourth, if women were having the same reactions to the pill, as some people are experiencing with the vaccines, the pill would have been pulled from the market.
Fifth, the pill is specific, targeted, and measured out proportionally — a stark contrast to the ham-fisted, arrogant rush associated with the COVID vaccines.
Forcing a vaccine onto healthy people, many of whom have a 0.003% chance risk of dying from COVID-19 is non compos mentis.
Lastly, Astra Zeneca admits the potential for long-term negative health problems and has sort to indemnify their company against long term adverse effects.
In July, Reuters reported that “AstraZeneca had been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine” by countries AZ has signed distribution deals with.
Almirall board member, and Astra Zeneca EVP Ruud Dobber, was quoted as saying, “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects.”
Add onto this the Australian National Cabinet (as opposed to the suspended elected representative parliament) implementing a “no-fault indemnity scheme for GPs to administer AZ.
It doesn’t take a genius to quickly identify Hamilton’s bias and reveal the poor quality of Hamilton’s argument.
After taking shots at Tony Abbott and Craig Kelly, he then refers to freedom rally demonstrators as “far-right anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown” protesters; and caps this with a clear contempt for The Australian and ‘Murdoch Media.’
Hamilton’s hysterics taint his attempt to criticise vaccine hesitancy. What we’re left with is a rant, not a reasoned argument.
For all the vitriolic claims about “anti-vaxxer and climate change deniers” all being nut-cases and conspiracy theorists, Hamilton is guilty of his own tin-foil hat nonsense.
His theory – which isn’t backed by anything other than “it’s been widely documented” – claims that Republicans, and fossil fuel industries have been working together to undermine ‘climate science since the 1990s.’
Hamilton states, “operatives developed arguments and political strategies,” so as to “cast doubt on climate science.”
This, he asserted, created a culture of doubt, which has, “since 2010, taken root in right-wing political culture.”
Hamilton’s “hate speech” doesn’t serve science, it’s typical cancel culture, agitprop nonsense.
One would think that a Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University would carry himself, and his argument a whole lot better.
I suspect Hamilton would fully embrace both Joe Biden and Daniel Andrews’ “pandemic of the unvaccinated” propaganda, welcoming it as an excuse is to paint people as the virus.
Based on his reckless use of the word “denier,” that’s a fair assessment.
Hamilton demonises an entire group of people, in order to defend his belief in the COVID and Climate Catastrophising cultism.
The bitter irony of his callous Holocaust reference appears to go over his head.
Hamilton and others would do well to heed recent comments made by ‘Outsiders’ host Rowan Dean,
“Once the authorities have decreed that there are two classes of people in Australia, the good, and the bad; that one class is superior to another and gets special privileges while the other class is shunned, locked out, vilified and loses their employment you have, by definition created an inferior class.”
“For which the Germans,” Dean adds, “once coined as Untermensch (under/inferior person). If that word brings a chill of horror to your hearts, so it should!”
One of the great benefits of the internet age is that any halfwit with access to the internet, and reliable sources can see straight through the delusion tacked onto COVIDism.
I have to back-handily thank Clive Hamilton and the Guardian for doing a great job of reminding me, why I, and many others, will continue to resist the vitriolic COVID cultism of climate change catastrophisers.
It would seem that now New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian has stopped her COVID crisis press conferences, legacy media are back to their regular programming.
The political narrative appears to matter more to them than the science.
All vaccines should be chosen by individuals on merit, not the power of their apparent virtue, threats, or coercion.
Substance will always, ALWAYS trump appearances.
It’s not “anti-vaxx,” Clive. It’s common sense.
In case you missed it, “Anti-vaxxer” is the new “that’s racist.“
