“Anti-Vaxxer”: What’s in a Word?
by John Massaro
THIS IS A SERIOUS discussion, but no one is ever going to take the imp out of me, so I’ll begin it with an off-color but relevant story.
Many years ago my ex-wife and I were traveling around France in a rental car, and as has always been my custom when I’m behind the wheel, I combine places of interest with places famous for nothing, just driving with no pre-planned route, taking things as they come and making spontaneous decisions. In France, as in all developed countries, there’s always a small sign showing the name of a village, town or city as you enter it. The map I had was not very detailed, and did not show small villages. So it was that we unexpectedly came to a village with a quaint name. The name of this village was “Pussy.” We both chuckled, and me being me, I got out of the car and took a picture of the sign. According to Wikipedia, Pussy only has 332 inhabitants, and being rather isolated, my guess is that few if any of them speak English, and anyone who does probably doesn’t know that “pussy” is a vulgar term for a lady’s private parts, a word that no respectful man would ever say in mixed company. It’s also a child’s word for cat – at least it used to be when I was little, though it may have gone out of use. Interestingly, the French equivalent of “pussy,” as a dirty word for vagina, is chatte, which is also their word for a female cat.
Here’s another linguistic fun fact. The word for the number eight in Burmese is “shit.” This means that if you’re in a market in Burma (now called Myanmar), and you want to buy some bananas, for example, and you point to them and say “shit” to the merchant, you won’t get a dirty look, or a “What’s that supposed to mean?”, you’ll just get eight bananas. Give it a try the next time you’re in Rangoon. And by the way, if you only want one banana, you say “tit.” The whole world can use some comic relief these days. Let’s all learn Burmese!
Language is a fascinating subject. Communicating through speech is one thing that differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. But words can also be used destructively, to deceive, confuse and weaken us. They can be used to provoke a reflex, to condition us beyond the natural conditioning that occurs when learning a language wires our brains so that we understand thousands of words, while those of an unfamiliar language mean nothing. Words can also mutate over time. For example, when I was young, and sexuality was nowhere near as twisted as it is today, “gay” simply meant “merry”; the word had no homosexual connotation. That changed around 1967. And barbarisms like “transgender,” “homophobe,” and so many others, didn’t exist; they were invented much later.
Other nebulous, politically loaded words have been around for a long time, but have been trotted out much more frequently in recent times. There are more than a hundred of them, so I’ll mention just a few. Take “extremism.” What is an extremist? No one ever defines it, it’s just something bad, that’s all. It seems to me that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were extremists, at least from the British perspective in the late eighteenth century, but no history book calls them that. It also seems to me that dropping two atomic bombs on Japan was extremely extreme, though I’ve never heard of anyone involved in that deed, nor in any other bombing of civilians in the past eighty years, referred to as an extremist. To listen to television, only White American males who loathe the US government and like to talk about it should be regarded as extremists.
Fascism is my personal favorite. Not only has this “spit word” been repeated ad nauseum by those on the political left for as long as I can remember, but it has been frequently and foolishly used these past two years by those who consider themselves patriotic conservatives, to describe the Covid tyranny that descended on America and the rest of the world. (Nothing “extreme” about all those lockdowns, of course.) Unlike extremism, however, fascism has a more concrete meaning. A thorough description would take too much space, so I’ll stick to the essentials. Fascism means authoritarian, aristocratic rule – rule by intelligent and principled men, for the most part – in the best interests of a nation’s productive and law-abiding citizens, both white collar and blue collar. It’s despised only by defective and resentful human beings. Fascism safeguards a nation’s cultural and racial identity. It comes down hard on degeneracy and corruption. It supports free enterprise and all creative freedom, but does not allow exploitation. Fascism works; it’s in harmony with the natural order. Although there are variations of governmental rule connected with the supreme leader’s personality, fascist leaders are always popular with the majority of citizens. The most prominent examples of fascism [in this broad sense] in Europe in the twentieth century were Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, and Franco’s Spain. Any normal person would prefer to live in those countries as they were under fascist rule, rather than in the multicultural, crime-ridden cesspools they are today, especially in the big cities. That’s “democracy” for you, just like we have in American cities. So soothing, that word democracy, which in reality is a hopelessly dysfunctional system, and which gave us two years of Covid tyranny, which never would’ve happened under Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco. But democracy is a nice word and fascism is a bad word.
Then there’s anecdotal evidence versus empirical evidence. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines anecdotal as “based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers,” while the definition of empirical is “originating in or based on observation or experience.” But then what is meant by “unscientific observers?” Are not the observations of an honest person who never went to college more reliable, more “scientific,” than some widely published “scientist” who’s an habitual liar, as so many of them are? Nevertheless, due to media conditioning, the word “anecdotal” always has a negative spin, meaning at best, unreliable. Empirical evidence sounds much nicer, more scientific. But then why are the observations of, say, a hundred parents who saw their children regress into autism shortly after being vaccinated never called empirical evidence, but called anecdotal when they’re called anything at all? And there’s another word for you: science. After two years, I’m sick and tired of hearing people who think vaccination is a good thing declare that they’re “pro-science.” Hey, you know what? I’m pro-science too – pro-honest science. Science is knowledge gained by observation and experiment, which means if you’re pro-honest science you have to be anti-vaccine, because for more than 200 years observation and experiment has clearly shown that vaccination is useless or harmful. But so much of what’s called science today is in fact mumbo-jumbo drenched in fraud and greed. So knock it off with this “I’m pro-science” baloney.
Let’s move on. The last thing that most people want to be accused of is “anti-Semitism.” Few words carry such a stigma, and any public figure who’s charged with this offense, usually for saying something critical about Israel, or rude about Jews, or simply stating an obvious fact like Jews control the media, will beg for forgiveness, insisting he’s not an anti-Semite. But what does it mean? Whatever you want it to mean. I think of it as a defense mechanism against the predatory nature and general unpleasantness of many Jews. The term was coined in 1860 by an Austrian Jew named Moritz Steinschneider, and it got off to a fuzzy start, as there was no general consensus over whether it meant hostility to Jews, or to all the peoples of the Middle East (the largest group of which was and is the Arabs), or whether it was more a linguistic than a racial term, or whatever. Since Arabs are the largest Semitic group, and since of all people Jews despise Arabs the most, that means Jews are the biggest anti-Semites of all! But of course the Jewish higher-ups have appropriated the term to use it against Gentiles who get out of line. I can’t think of another word, slippery as it is, that has been so successfully used as a psychological battering ram, to make people tremble with fear the moment they’re accused of it.
So now we finally arrive at that slanderous word “anti-vaxxer.” The smashing success of “anti-Semite” probably convinced the emotional engineers that there’s something hypnotic about the prefix “anti.” This word has only been employed for about twenty years, I believe. I don’t remember hearing it before that. And it intimidates the hell out of people. It’s so predictable: they criticize some aspect of vaccines, they come out against vaccine mandates, they even point to their own vaccine injury or someone else’s, yet hasten to add, “I’m not an anti-vaxxer.” Or in the case of Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who last year made a little noise about not blindly following the jabbed crowd, “I’m not an anti-vax flat-earther.” Well, it was nice that Rodgers spoke out against NFL arm-twisting, but it seems to me he’s short one testicle, though one up on the many sports commentators who blasted him.
I don’t know how many times I’ve written in my book and elsewhere on this site about mass media mind control techniques, but I’ll say it again: the reason anti-vaxxer is such a bad word is because people have been conditioned to react to it unfavorably. When most people hear it or see it in print they have been conditioned to think “weirdo, moron, primitive mind that rejects great scientific discoveries.” Actually, they don’t think at all: They just reflexively react in the socially approved way, in accordance with what William Pierce called “the lemming factor.” The media masters understand perfectly well how it all works.
It’s time for all critical thinkers who have examined the history of vaccination, and like me have concluded that it’s all failure and fraud, to throw this label back in the faces of the accusers, to stand up and say, “Of course I’m an anti-vaxxer! One hundred per cent. Who in his right mind wouldn’t be?” And confront the shifty halfway artists like Robert Malone, Robert Kennedy, Peter McCullough, and many others by demanding that they explain how any vaccine has benefited humanity.
* * *
Source: End the Shots