by Geoffrey Churchman

In general our editorial group has the same skepticism about articles in any of Jacinda’s paid mainstream media propaganda as Jacindanistas probably take towards articles by non-paid media that are critical of her government, including us. (It’s conceivable they actually know that the Jacinda government is full of BS, but that’s unimportant to them: it’s the End-Game that matters.)

But when it comes to advocacy of ‘Jacinda’s Jabs’ by Stuff(ed) — which accepted a specific huge payment a few months ago to vigorously do that — things get really annoying.

The piece in question is headed:

Covid-19: The financial burden of supporting unvaccinated family members

This headline itself is neutral as there is a need to provide support for some of those who refuse to be injected with the unsafe, ineffective Pfizer substance and lose their jobs because of it; they also obviously need to find another job where they are not discriminated against.

But mixed in with the factual reporting there are the inevitable propaganda statements:

“She refuses to be vaccinated, in spite of the protection it provides herself, her whanau and her community against Covid-19, and the legal requirement – given her former role – to do so.”

The so-called ‘vaccine’ provides no protection against infection and transmission, there is overwhelming evidence now of that, and even official statements concede that. The “legal requirement” was an arbitrary government mandate for some occupations, and no longer applied once the interviewee’s relative left that role.

Although the unemployment rate is at near-record lows… Aroha believes there are many families silently facing the same dilemma as her.

The unemployment rate is significantly above the record lows, see this post from last month. Nevertheless, it is still relatively low compared with what it has been in the past.

Aroha says the stark difference in lifestyle between those leading anti-vaccine and anti-mandate protests is like night and day with their devout followers.

The direct implication is that all those organising the protests against the Jacinda government are rich, which is highly questionable. What about the devout followers of the Jacinda government like the reporter’s employer, Ms Boucher?

She is infuriated that these people could have so much influence over her sister, while she is left picking up the pieces they helped create.

What about the influence that Stuff/TV1/TV3/NZME etc, has had on those who seem to think that Jacinda’s Jabs are the secular equivalent of Holy Communion? It’s fairly clear that the interviewee has been so indoctrinated:

“If Covid spread across Northland, we would lose so many people. My sister won’t let her daughters get vaccinated either. So she is putting them at further risk as well.”

Good grief. A virus with a 99.7% survival rate would lose “so many people”? If her whanau members are obese or have serious existing conditions, it could be a little higher than that, but not by much as we’ve seen from analysis of the NZ statistics for Delta (see earlier).

There are more affluent pockets of the country where vaccination rates are lower, and these tend to correlate with known anti-vax enclaves. This includes parts of Nelson, the West Coast, and Raglan.

What exactly is an “anti-vax” enclave? Those areas where the take up of Jacinda’s Jabs is lower than the national average? Nelson is where lawyer Sue Grey is based, hence the likely reason for this reference. The West Coast [of the South Island] is more “affluent”? That may be news to those who live there.

But the hardcore Stuff/TV1/TV3 etc. political ideology comes at the end:

“My uncle says it’s hard watching our very own whānau be colonised by the Far Right with misinformation to risk their lives for nothing, and all we do is throw money at the victims.”

Yep, those terms say it all don’t they? An article sought out and composed by a deluded conspiracy theorist of the Far Left.