London Newspaper Column: “Anti-vaxxers want to kill your babies…These people are terrorists who’d happily kill us….”
Hal Turner Radio Show
The London “Mirror” newspaper features an Op-Ed column today which, in sum and in substance, says anyone who is Anti-mRNA-Vax is a “Terrorist” spreading harmful Conspiracy Theories which, should be an act of Treason, and such people should be rounded up “deprogrammed. . . deradicalized, medicated, and educated.”
“Fleet Street Fox” Susie Boniface
The opinion piece, by a writer using the pseudonym “Fleet Street Fox” leads off with this whacko headline:
Wow! No incitement to violence with THAT headline, is there? She isn’t inciting ignorant, frightened, vax-zombies to go after people, is she?
Let’s begin by unmasking “Fleet Street Fox.” The pseudonym belongs to a woman named Susie Boniface, pictured above.
In her Opinion piece she writes of those opposing the new, demonstrably dangerous mRNA vaccines that:
“It’s what you’d expect from the Taliban, isn’t it? And it is reasonable to say promoting those ideas, forcing them on others, or joining such a group of fatally-thick knuckledraggers is so likely to kill people that it should be a crime.”
The piece then goes on to compare those opposed to the deadly mRNA gene therapy, masquerading as a “vaccine,” by comparing them to Nazis and laments we’re “nutters” when it says: “
If these people were wearing swastikas and throwing Nazi salutes, the head of MI5 would be giving interviews about how the biggest threat to British lives was baby-killing fascists.
Instead, well, it’s just nutters innit. And 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.
Yet she’s just getting started! The opinion piece then goes ahead an describes those of us who have done our own research and based our decision on facts as “anti-thinking” but deadly as terrorists, when it says:
“Perhaps the difference is intent. The world’s terrorist organisations aim to create terror, whereas the anti-thinking brigade do it by accident.
But the damage they do is far greater. The Lockerbie bomb killed 270, while 7/7 claimed 50 lives. Telling lies about jabs could kill thousands among the unvaccinated, and thousands more as a side-effect of lockdown.”
Then we get to the real meat of it when the piece relates:
But in the same way as terror networks have been born, a movement is growing that greets every good new thing as an evil that must be shunned. A vaccine, a vitamin, or your right to vote for who’s in the town hall, is all at risk if the whackos find a way to break into the mainstream.
It goes on to warn:
“When they find a calm, reasonable-sounding, public relations dream to provide the relatable face for their lunacy – and they will, if not stopped – vaccines become less effective, vitamins less popular, and voting less likely.
If Britain goes back into lockdown this winter, our government and our conspiracy theorists will be equally responsible for it, and for the deaths of a winter wave.”
Trying to equate opposition to the new, dangerous mRNA vaccines as almost state-sponsored aggression and terrorism, the piece illogically laments:
We place sanctions on North Korea, and freeze the assets of Vladimir Putin and his cronies. We send drones to take out troublemakers in Syria and send special forces in to the Iraqi badlands. But with homegrown idiots who are far more deadly to our health, we guarantee them freedom of speech, let them gather outside Parliament, and allow them to proselytise in plain sight.
See, to the writer of this piece, us speaking OUR views is somehow worthy of a drone strike or attack by military Special Forces!
Finally, the writer goes on to suggest a course of action:
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.
Take out the co-ordinators, and their converts could be deprogrammed.
Hal Turner Editorial Opinion
For what it’s worth, the facts prove that people who take the so-called “vaccine” can still catch COVID-19. When that takes place, the health authorities refer to it as a “breakthrough infection.” Tens-of-thousands of such breakthrough infections are already well documented, including at least 8700 back in July, here in New York alone (NBC News Story). As of October 11, those 8700, have now mushroomed to well over 300,000 breakthrough infections here in New York!
So it seems to me the so-called “vaccine” does NOT protect anyone from catching COVID-19.
Worse, according to a study, when the “vaccinated” actually catch COVID-19, they carry 251 times the viral load compared to unvaccinated, but suffer NO SYMPTOMS; which makes the vaccinated . . . SUPER-SPREADERS! That study can be read HERE
So not only can the vaccinated catch COVID, they can spread it to others too!
Well, if the vaccinated can catch and spread the very disease they are allegedly protected from, what good is the vaccine?????
Which brings us to a truly inconvenient fact: More people have died (in the US) from these mRNA experimental … ‘therapy’ … Shots/Jabs/Vaxxes than from all of the previous vaccines of the past 100 years, COMBINED.
Now, for Susie Boniface at the London Mirror newspaper, these irrefutable facts are somehow “conspiracy theories” worthy of being criminally charged with Treason, rounded-up, deprogrammed, de-radicalized, medicated and educated.
It never seems to occur to Susie Boniface that it is she and those who think like her, who are the demonstrably uneducated.
It seems to me they just keep throwing out fiction hoping someone will fall for the traps and believe it all.
For the record, it’s not “anti-vaxxer” it’s “organic pro choice” — you know that OTHER issue the “left” relentlessly takes the same stance on… thus proving how insane they all really have become. Apparently, for left-wing nuts, “pro-choice” only applies to . . . actually killing babies through Abortion.
Someone needs to ask Susie Boniface:
Why do the “protected”,
need to be “protected”,
from the “unprotected”,
by forcing the “unprotected”,
to use the “protection”,
that DID NOT “protect”,
the “protected”,
in the first place?
It’s a simple question!