They call this something that it isn’t!
The weaponization of the word and language moved on. Calling this as they aren’t isn’t a standard play in the book, but the manipulators precisely do that.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender
We can tell you numerous examples of this.
Fact-checkers don’t do their job; they try to mold a narrative and stifle dissent or opposing views.
Federal Reserve isn’t federal and isn’t a reserve.
ANTIFA is an anti-fascist. Who wouldn’t be anti-fascist? The problem is that ANTIFA engages in actual fascist behaviors.
BLM means that black lives really matter. Those who say otherwise are racist. The problem with the organization is that it doesn’t exist to help these people at all. Its roots and practices are founded on the tenants of Marxism.
They want to manipulate the people. They do these things in reverse as well. Also, they call people racist, sexist, misogynistic, conspiracy theorists, etc., but in reality, they aren’t.
However, they recently switched up the definition of the vaccine to promote the vaccines among the people.
The world population has accepted that the shots are good for fighting diseases, but it isn’t the same with the coronavirus vaccines. Because they saw many people reject the vaccine, they changed the definition and now use it for something that isn’t a vaccine.
This is a transcript:
“Another definition worth checking is vaccine. Next slide, please. I am one of the academics that argues that these mRNA products, which everybody calls vaccines, are qualitatively different than standard vaccines. And so, I found it fascinating to learn that Merriam Webster changed its definition of vaccine early this year. mRNA products did not meet the definition of vaccine that has been in place for 15 years at Merriam Webster. But the definition was expanded such that mRNA products are now vaccines. I highlight this to ask a question, how would you feel about mandating COVID vaccines if we didn’t call them vaccines? What if these injections were called drugs instead? So here’s the scenario, we have this drug, and we have evidence that it doesn’t prevent infection, nor does it stop viral transmission. But the drug is understood to reduce your risk of becoming very sick and dying of COVID. Would you take a dose of this drug every six months or so for possibly the rest of your life? If that’s what it took for the drug to stay effective? Would you not just take this drug yourself? But support regulations mandating that everybody else around you take this drug? Or would you say, Hold on a sec? Maybe you’d say that if that’s all the drug does, why not use a normal medicine instead? The kind we take when we’re sick and want to get better? And why would you mandate it? The point is, just because we call it a vaccine doesn’t mean we should assume these new products are just like all other childhood vaccines which get mandated. Each product is a different product. And if people are okay with mandating something simply because it’s a vaccine and we mandate other vaccines. So why shouldn’t we mandate this? I think it’s time to inject some critical thinking into that conversation. And that is what I hope we’re doing today. Thank you.” – Dr. Peter Doshi