-By Gary Krasner,
(Note: In an Associated Press article published on March 26 in The New York Times, it was reported that due to pressure from pro-vaccine activists famed actor Robert De Niro pulled a film from the Tribeca Film Festival that linked vaccines to autism. This is the story that Gary Krasner, the Director Coalition For Informed Choice, is reacting to below…)
The essence of this story is about defamation of Andrew Wakefield, and how personal defamation has replaced civil debate.
When one party wishes to dodge a debate on the merits of issues (Trump), he will defame his opponent (Cruz) with slanderous lies.
Seeing that progressive politics was a hard sell to the mainstream public, the infamous radical community organizer Saul Alinsky raised it to a high art.
In his “Rules For Radicals” (1971), Alinsky taught that defamation of character is an important tactic to use. Hillary Clinton was an early disciple of his work.
In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled “There Is Only the Fight . . . “: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model’.
20 yrs later, Obama taught the rules of this great tactician to Chicago activists when he worked for ACORN. Defamation of his opponents enabled him to win his first 2 local elections.
Today, Alinsky’s 13th rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”, is being used against parents who think vaccination is a contributing cause of ASD.
The targeting of Dr. Wakefield was intended from the very beginning to be used against such people, by defaming its most prominent proponent.
And Alinsky’s tactic has worked, because it has rendered debate on vaccines and autism illegitimate.
Understanding that will enable you to understand why Robert De Niro was ultimately forced to reverse his stand on the documentary, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe” (article below).
And it is not without irony, which our opponents seem to be blind to.
For example, from the story below, we see that “Mr. De Niro defended the film, saying that he and his wife, Grace Hightower, have a child with autism and that ‘we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined.'”
But then the next day, as the story reads:
In a statement, Robert De Niro, a founder of the festival, wrote: “My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family. But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.”
So De Niro initially saw as worthy of discussion, a film that alleges a causal link between vaccines and autism. Then 24 hours later, such a discussion is unworthy?! What happened in 24 hours? Was new scientific evidence presented to De Niro that made him think the debate is over?
No. Rather, these pro vaccinators warned him that his character and reputation, and that of his film festival, would be tarnished through association with Wakefield. In other words, forget the countervailing evidence—-that Wakefield was wrongly prosecuted, or even of the scientific evidence propounded. Just consider what we will do to your reputation if you go ahead with your silly idea that “it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined.”
Faced with the prospect of guilt by association, De Niro banned the film he previously thought had important value.
Another irony, comes from comments by pro vaccinator and documentarian Penny Lane (“Our Nixon”). She wrote,
Now that the film had been pulled from the lineup, Mr. Wakefield and supporters of his work can champion it as a documentary that has been “banned” by the powers that be, “and that will add to his conspiracy theory aura,” she said.
In other words, not only are they unsatisfied with merely censoring our views, they’re also dissatisfied that THEIR censorship will ennoble us!!!
The solution to the latter (i.e. by permitting discussion) will negate the effect of the former (to suppress discussion)!