Extorting ‘Vaccination’
Why Did the Public Need to be Threatened to Take the “Vaccine”?
In retrospect, it is obvious (as it was to many at the time) that a primary objective of the “Covid-19” military operation was to inject as many people as possible with unlicensed, experimental substances lacking in long-term safety data, whose precise contents and purpose remain a mystery (Hughes, 2022; Hughes, 2024, pp. 246-248, 335-352; Nixon, 2025).
This chapter aims to document the many techniques that were used to maximise the public uptake of the “vaccine.” As a reminder, I put “vaccine” in inverted commas, because it does not meet the traditional definition of a vaccine and because the pseudopandemic was a military operation rather than a genuine public health crisis (Hughes, 2024, pp. 221-226, 236-241).
This first part considers various means of extortion that were deployed to bully the public into taking the shots – threats, essentially, that failure to get “vaccinated” would have consequences, both for the individual and for society at large. It concludes with some reflections on the legitimacy, or otherwise, of such treatment of the public in an ostensible democracy.
“Vaccination” and the Return to Normality
The CIA’s KUBARK Manual, which codifies the findings of ten years of research into interrogation (torture) techniques, states “It is not enough that a resistant source should be placed under the tension of fear; he must also discern an acceptable escape route” (CIA, 1963, p. 91).
This principle applies to the “Covid-19 vaccination” agenda. The public was placed in a condition of fear through propaganda about a deadly virus, “locked down” (a prison term), and forced to endure a deeply unpleasant “new normal” (Hughes, 2024, Chaps. 2 & 4). A clear way out of that uncomfortable situation was offered: take the “vaccine.”
From the beginning of the “Covid-19” crisis, the “vaccine” was promoted as the path back to normality, with Bill Gates setting the tone. On April 5, 2020, Gates claimed that “things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world” (“Bill Gates on his 2015 ‘Virus’ Warning,” 2020). Four days later he claimed, “But you don’t have a choice, people act like you have a choice […] Normalcy only returns when we have largely vaccinated the entire global population” (“Transcript: Bill Gates speaks to the FT about the Global Fight against Coronavirus,” 2020). On April 30, 2020, he wrote, “Realistically, if we’re going to return to normal, we need to develop a safe, effective vaccine” (Gates, 2020).
Other influential voices amplified Gates’ “normalcy” rhetoric. Zeke Emanuel, who five months later would be named on President Biden’s “Covid-19” Advisory Board, claimed on April 7, 2020, “We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications” (“Dr. Zeke Emanuel On The Return To ‘Normal,’” 2020). World Economic Forum director Klaus Schwab wrote in June 2020 that “a full return to ‘normal’ cannot be envisaged before a vaccine is available” (Schwab & Malleret 2020, p. 38). Sir John Bell (Oxford University), whose undisclosed financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry created conflicts of interest in his role on the UK Government’s Vaccine Taskforce (Thacker, 2021), suggested in November 2020 that the “vaccine” could allow life to return to normal by the spring of 2021 (cited in Gallagher, 2020).
“Vaccination” as the Path to Freedom
According to the UK Prime Minister’s Office (2022), “the government and its advisors were clear from the start that vaccines were our way out of this pandemic.” Indeed, the image of the vaccine as the route out of “lockdown” and back to freedom was propagated from the beginning of the rollout.
On December 2, 2020, the day the Pfizer-BioNTech “vaccine” was granted emergency authorization by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam told a Downing Street press conference that in order to “get back to a much more normal world […] you have to take the vaccine when it is offered to you. Low uptake will almost certainly make restrictions last longer”; the Independent’s headline for this was “Get a vaccine if you want your freedoms back” (Merrick, 2020).
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in the foreword to a report published by his Institute for Global Change on January 21, 2021, discussed “the path back to normality” and issued an ultimatum: “mass lockdown or mass vaccination […] The faster we vaccinate, the sooner we end lockdown and prevent further mutations” (Mulheirn, 2021).
On February 22, 2021, Boris Johnson set out his roadmap “cautiously but irreversibly toward reclaiming our freedoms,” as though the government had any legitimate right to lay claim to them in the first place. Lifting all restrictions no sooner than June 21, 2021, would, he claimed, be subject to four conditions: the success of the “vaccine” rollout, evidence of “vaccine” efficacy, pressure on the NHS, and the emergence of new variants of the virus (cited in Woodcock, 2021).
Health Secretary Matt Hancock (2021) tweeted on February 28, 2021: “The vaccine is our route out. When you get the call, get the jab!”
The rhetoric of reclaiming freedoms continued into the summer of 2021. For instance, on June 22, 2021, Hancock claimed “We’re working on plans to allow the vaccine to bring back some of the freedoms that have had to be restricted to keep people safe […] that’s the whole point of the vaccination programme” (cited in Gutteridge, 2021).
Four days later, NHS England chief executive Sir Simon Stephens claimed that “With every jab [we] give, we are one step closer to our summer freedoms” (“Covid-19: ‘Grab a jab’ for all over-18s opens in England,” 2021).
The same rhetoric continued into the autumn. In October 2021, the new Health Secretary, Sajid Javid, urged the public to take “booster shots […] not just to save lives, but to keep your freedoms too” (cited in Penna & Riley-Smith, 2021).
In November 2021, Boris Johnson claimed “If we want to avoid new restrictions on our daily lives, we must all get vaccinated as soon as we are eligible” (Prime Minister’s Office, 2021).
The problem with all these claims is that it was not freedom in the first place if it was something to be granted.
“Vaccination” to Reopen the Economy
Another form of extortion was to paint economic recovery (from the shock of the “lockdowns”) as contingent upon the population getting “vaccinated.”
Schwab and Malleret (2020, p. 41), for example, threatened that “a sustainable economic recovery […] won’t happen before a vaccine or a treatment is found.”
Boris Johnson claimed “It’s the protection of vaccines that will ultimately allow us to reclaim our lives and get the economy moving again” (cited in Roberts, 2020).
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (2021) proposed that “vaccine passports” would facilitate a sustainable reopening of the economy.
Melinda Gates warned that “economically we’re not going to have a swift recovery in the United States or in Europe if we don’t make sure that everybody gets vaccinated” (“Melinda Gates on Pandemic’s Impact on Women,” 2021).
Given the damage to many people’s livelihoods through enforced business closures, furlough, disruption to supply chains, etc., this kind of rhetoric was calculated to leverage financial stress to increase uptake of the “vaccine.”
“Vaccination” to Enjoy Popular Pursuits
In the section on Incentives in my chapter on Applied Behavioural Psychology, I describe various ways in which the public was incentivised to get the jab. These included not only cheap forms of bribery (junk food, lottery tickets, etc.) but also negative forms of incentivisation.
In the absence of “vaccination,” people were told that they would be unable to go on foreign holidays, engage in international travel, attend major sporting and live music events, go to nightclubs, etc. There might even be a “knock at the door” from public health officials.
These threats to deprive people of things (typically sources of pleasure) and to “pay them a visit” if they did not get “vaccinated” again amount to a form of extortion.
Discriminating Against “the Unvaccinated”
On March 3, 2021, the Daily Mail raised hopes that “lockdown” restrictions in England could ease faster than expected because “Covid deaths” were falling faster than SPI-B forecasts “thanks to vaccine success” (Blanchard, 2021), and not because the forecasts were artificially inflated in the first place (Spectator, n.d.). The logic here is that the more people get “vaccinated,” the less rationale there is for restrictions.
So, for example, when MPs voted on renewing the UK Coronavirus Act in March 2021, Esther McVey MP argued that doing so would “demonstrate a lack of confidence and belief in the Covid vaccines” (McVey, 2021).
With the threat of ongoing “lockdowns” ever less justifiable as more and more people took the shots, new measures were introduced to put pressure on those unwilling to take the “vaccine.”
For example, blunt “lockdowns” affecting all of society gradually gave way to targeted discrimination against “the unvaccinated.” Blair, for instance, claimed on June 6, 2021, that the time had come “to distinguish for the purposes of freedom from restriction between the vaccinated and unvaccinated” (cited in Helm, 2021). Those able to prove their “vaccination” status securely would see certain restrictions removed, according to proposals by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (2021).
Blair’s proposals were premised on the pseudoscientific claim that “the fully vaccinated are much less likely to infect others […], less likely to die, be hospitalised or develop Covid-19 symptoms compared to pre-vaccine” (Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, 2021). In reality, the “vaccines,” by their proponents’ own eventual admission, prevented neither transmission nor infection (Loffredo, 2021), and the “vaccinated” were more likely to be hospitalised and to die than the “unvaccinated” (Hughes, 2024, pp. 306-307).
Threatening “the Unvaccinated”
As “vaccine”-free individuals came to find themselves discriminated against through various forms of “vaccine” apartheid (Hughes, 2024, pp. 209-306), the tone of the messaging became increasingly threatening. Blair, for instance, told the Andrew Marr Show on June 6, 2021, that it was unacceptable to turn down the “vaccine” without a good medical reason (Goodwin, 2021).
Nine days later, the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges told Talk Radio that the “carrot” approach towards BAME people and “vaccine” sceptics had failed, therefore “the tone now has to change. We’ve had enough of this now, we’ve been through enough of this. The vaccine is our way out […] I am sorry, there are no excuses now, you have to get the vaccine” (cited in Allen, 2021a).
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned: “if anyone who doesn’t have a legitimate medical reason for not getting fully vaccinated chooses to not get vaccinated, there will be consequences” (cited in Gray, 2021).
US President Joe Biden told the unjabbed “our patience is wearing thin” (“Biden’s Message to the Unvaccinated,” 2021). It was never made clear what exactly the “consequences” would be for exercising one’s lawful right to refuse a violation of one’s bodily integrity.
As late as January 14, 2022, UK Health Secretary Sajid Javid claimed that those who had chosen not to take the shot should “understand the consequences of their decision for the rest of society” (Wareham, 2022). The following month, the war in Ukraine displaced Covid from the top of the news agenda; there were no “consequences for the rest of society.”
Threats of Fines
A transnationally coordinated propaganda campaign in December 2021 saw threats of fines being used to coerce injection.
In Greece, for example, it was reported that “Covid-19 vaccination” would be made obligatory for those aged 60 or above, and that those who failed to book a first shot by January 16, 2022, would face monthly fines of €100 (Kitsantonis, 2021).
In the UK, LBC’s Nick Ferrari proposed a series of escalating fines for those aged 40 and above who refused to take the “vaccine,” starting at £100 (see Allen, 2021b).
Austria threatened to fine those who had not taken a “Covid-19 vaccine” up to €3,600 a quarter (“Austria plans to fine vaccine holdouts up to 3,600 euros a quarter,” 2021).
New York City mayor Bill de Blasio threatened to fine businesses $1,000 and rising if they did not comply with a “vaccination” mandate for private sector workers: proof of one dose would be required by December 27, followed by a second dose within 45 days, i.e. by February 10, 2022 (Chen & Nahmias, 2021).
Conclusion
Numerous methods were deployed to extort “vaccination,” including the promise of a return to normalcy, imposing conditions for the return of “freedoms,” making economic recovery contingent upon “vaccination,” depriving people of popular pursuits unless they got jabbed, discriminating against the “vaccine”-free, threatening them with “consequences,” and threatening to fine them.
It all has the feel of a mafia protection racket about it: agree to let us “protect” you (in this case, by getting jabbed rather than paying money), or else we will continue to make trouble for you.
In a democratic society, there is a fundamental lack of legitimacy about such behaviour. Governments and their partners are supposed to work for the people; they are not supposed to bully and extort the citizenry. Such methods are reflective of the Omniwar being waged against populations worldwide.
According to a classical political science definition,
We speak of authority, therefore, if the willing unconditional compliance of a group of people rests upon their shared beliefs that it is legitimate for the superior (person or impersonal agency) to impose his will upon them and that it is illegitimate for them to refuse obedience. (Blau, 1963, p. 307)
In the case of governments pushing “Covid-19 vaccines” upon their citizens, the only possible legitimacy would have arisen from persuasive scientific evidence that near-universal “vaccination” was necessary to combat a deadly pandemic. No such case can be made, however, and instead governments relied on a pseudoscientific propaganda construct called The Science™.
A significant feature of the “Covid-19 vaccine” protection racket was the level of bluff that was involved. Extortion involves threats, but it does not necessarily require a willingness or ability to execute those threats in the event of non-compliance.
For example, “lockdowns” could not have been maintained indefinitely had the majority of people refused to take a shot, nor could the disruption to the global economy have been prolonged without catastrophic consequences. In 2022, just a year after the rollout began in earnest, “vaccination” was no longer required for most foreign travel, attending sports events, going to nightclubs, etc. Greek plans to fine “unvaccinated” people aged over 60 were abandoned in March 2022 (Chrepa, 2022).
Thus, the entire project to inject as many people as possible rested on mind games. It was yet another psychological operation carried out against the people in the opening campaign of the war for technocracy.