PETTY AUTHORITARIANISM: THE HANDMAIDEN OF REPRESSION

 

Yes, I know, “Handmaiden” sounds sexist. However I know of no better or more poetic way of explaining myself and just for once hope you have enough respect for free speech to just bear with it....why am I wasting time making this point? Perhaps I’d better get on with it.

A few days ago my wife went out for a walk along a country lane and on returning told me how she had come across a lady walking a dog who made a big production out of standing to one side, as far into the bushes as possible and glowering at my better-half until she, smilingly, had gone on her way. This sort of thing doesn’t happen to us too often, thank goodness, but it does so occasionally and makes for a distressing or in the case of my wife’s walk, disappointing experience. Some time before that, we went into a cafe-bar in which my good lady was asked to wear a mask. “I’m exempt.” she cheerfully replied. At that point she was asked to produce a lanyard evidencing a disability. We both pointed out that this isn’t required in law and that refusal of service could constitute discrimination under the Equalities Act, electing, since we now felt uncomfortable, to leave the premises. We were both told quite aggressively to leave a pub after we declined the then voluntary “track and trace” system and once when returning from overseas, I self isolated for 14 days which at that time was not required at all, but this didn’t stop an ill- informed publican from asking whether I was supposed to be in quarantine and when I objected to being asked this pretty rude question, telling me to “F**k off out of my pub!”

There are of course, too many stories like this, of bus drivers throwing kids off the bus, shoppers glaring at people who are not wearing a mask, or shopkeepers demanding proof of facemask exemption. It goes further than this with internet trolls on all sorts of platforms, even those resisting this madness, using bullying tactics to shout down “anti-vaxxers” (What  the hell is an Anti-vaxxer and why is it spelt with two X’s?) and “conspiracy theorists.” Fortunately, the common decency of humanity generally prevails and these sorts of incidents are relatively uncommon, but for them to have happened to me and mine on the four occasions I’ve listed above is four times too many.

And this brings me to my point. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website offers this insight:

 

“Essential to the intimidating effects of the terror was the willingness of many German citizens (whether out of conviction, greed, envy, or vengeance) to denounce their fellow citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, to the police. The Gestapo could not have exercised such control over German society without the benefit of this steady stream of denunciations, many of which were entirely unfounded.”

 

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-terror-begins

 

The sad truth is, that, far from even believing they are doing any good, the sort of people who feel obliged to react in this way are quite simply, life-frustrated, insecure, insignificant, often unpleasant bullies lacking the courage to do anything about their own unhappy lives, filled with resentment toward others, who suddenly find themselves in a position to legitimately, as they see it, denounce their fellow citizens. Imagine the long-term unemployed man, desperate for a job, who applies to become a “Covid-Marshal.” I don’t know what the qualifications are for this but suppose that having two arms, two legs and a head and being able to breathe and walk pretty much does it. Utterly without a place in the world yesterday, today he is empowered to yell at some poor sap, probably suitably wimpy or pathetic-looking, “HOY! YOU! SOCIAL DISTANCING!” grinning inwardly as the target slinks meekly off, or to ask someone where they think they are going, revelling in the obvious intimidation he is causing. We are now surrounded by people who feel themselves entitled, whether at work or leisure, to treat other people with disrespect, suspicion, derision or outright hatred. Make no mistake, these sorts of people are, quite frankly, dangerous and despicable. They will take every opportunity to snitch on you, engineer a confrontation they think they can win, and the only way to take the wind out of their sails is to stand up to them. Explain, calmly and politely, that you do not have to provide evidence of  face-mask exemption, remember that Covid-Marshals are not police officers and do not have the power to detain you,  and above all that you are entitled to respect. People like this have no ability in normal life except to behave unpleasantly but in these circumstances, they actually have the ability to deny service to you, harass or intimidate you, ask impertinent questions of you or attempt to shower you with disapproval.  We all know people like this. The only difference is that the “pandemic” now legitimises their disgusting behaviour.

I would never try to encourage anyone to behave in an antisocial manner. But quite honestly, if you’re out walking and someone looks at you in a funny way, I wonder what would happen if you smiled at them and said, “Are you all right?”

IS IT TOO LATE FOR US TO WORK TOGETHER?

 

Brendan O’Neill, (TalkRadio,27^th October,) is right to say that we need an anti-lockdown movement. The trouble is, there is no clear vision for the form this is supposed to take, mainly because of differing views on the “coronaviruis crisis.”

First, we now have to accept that the time for effective mass protests that might have stopped this decent into endless lockdowns is past. There is no hope of a significant grassroots movement that will make any difference now, because the doctrine of “lockdownism” has become entrenched. Whatever opposition the “anti-lockdown movement” Brendan O’Neill rightly calls for is to present, it must be acknowledged that such opposition will need to be prepared for a long haul. The narrative of lockdown scepticism is still wrestling with providing evidence that we are sleepwalking into a global cataclysm of our own making, when for some time, the questions being asked long ago should have been, what are we going to do about it?

The answer unfortunately is not as simple as we would like it to be. There seem to be three main viewpoints on this whole crisis, which I contend is a crisis of government, not a health crisis. The first, for which I will use  “The New Normal,”  as a descriptor, overwhelmingly the consensus of government, mainstream media and the general public, is that we are faced with a lethal virus the like of which has never existed in biological, let alone human, history, which will kill everybody unless we stay locked away “until a vaccine becomes available,” (a way of saying eternally) after which there will be  “no return to normal.” The mantra of this belief system is “help stop the spread of coronavirus”, essentially a meaningless and impossible objective. Those still believing this at the current stage will probably do so for the rest of their lives. They will, even if this “threat” is seen to palpably disappear, go around wearing masks every time the seasonal flu comes around. They cannot be credibly expected to listen to anyone with an opposing viewpoint, even though they are visibly exhausted, frustrated and frightened.

The second, gaining ground, is the “sceptic” or  “focused protection” narrative centred around the Great Barrington Declaration which at least, takes the perceived threat seriously and offers a workable solution. This narrative is probably the most realistic option available but it needs political support, which at the moment is more or  less absent. It is also characterised by a perception that lockdowns, forced face-mask wearing, mass media censorship, and economic fallout resulting from the present policies are too great a price to pay to “protect” ourselves from a health threat which, its advocates point out, is based on questionable data, and for all practical intents and purposes, is disappearing. The same failed argument that brought us Lockdown No. 1, by the same people, has, astonishingly, been trotted out all over again and is believed by those sticking to “The New Normal”. The other characteristic of the “focused-protection” lobby is a doctrinaire vein of what I will term “anti-conspiracy-theorism”, a sustained campaign to delegitimise so called “conspiracy theorists.”

The third narrative is the view that the entire “coronavirus crisis” is a lie, or at least an excuse,  intended to create a “Great Reset” by forcibly imposing a “biosecurity state” and implementing never-ending dystopian technocratic control measures on humanity. Whatever one’s opinions of this narrative are, I suggest that it’s easier to denounce it as “conspiracy theory” than it is to look at and question the evidence it presents in support of its case. I don’t propose to go into that here, because it’s another argument, but this is in fact, the only faction that seems to be organising any kinds of demonstrations at all and has an undeniable presence. But even a casual look at articles written saying if nothing else, that the government may not be telling us the whole truth about this “crisis,” raises interesting questions. My purpose in mentioning these three viewpoints is to illustrate how divided opinion is and why it’s easier said than done to create a “pro-democracy” or a “pro-freedom” movement.

What do we need to do? I don’t have all the answers, but I do feel that Brendan O’Neill and others are beginning an imperative dialogue, which requires momentum.

The first thing we need to do is to agree on something. If we can’t, there will never be a cohesive pro-freedom movement. I think that there is one thing we should be able to agree on, except for  adherents to “The New Normal”, who, unfortunately, have to be dismissed as a lost cause. That is simply this. If we want our freedom back, we will have to fight for it.

The second thing we need is more investigative journalism. It is clear to me that something is wrong with the “New Normal” narrative, something which merits and deserves investigation. This is not being done by our mainstream media. I have read a number of investigative pieces on Spiked, Off-Guardian, lockdownseptics.org and Architects for Social Housing, also by Peter Hitchens  for the Daily Mail. Some of them are excellent, but there is just not enough of it. We need more.

The third thing we need is a political opposition, which is why I welcome Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party. Predictably derided by the mainstream media, at least it offers a political voice and the last time I looked at a poll conducted for the Telegraph, it stated that 81% of those polled would vote for it. We obviously cannot entrust this task to any of our existing major political parties, although we should be lobbying our MPs.

Fourth, there must be legal and judicial support. Only Lord Sumption, at the moment, appears to be providing any kind of legal argument for Mr. O’Neil’s proposed movement, apart from the judicial reviews sought by Simon Dolan and Piers Corbyn.

The fifth element, scientific support, already exists. It is important to signpost this.

Finally and perhaps with the most difficulty, we must ask ourselves to what extent we are prepared to personally comply with what will almost certainly be never-ending “restrictions” if they continue  unopposed. This has to be a personal decision for everyone, but is the only way in which a grass-roots, “people’s” movement, can work.

Most of these things exist in some form. They simply need to grow and cohere. I don’t have all the answers, there are other things such a movement needs, like money. I know there are crowd-funding pages in support of this, but with the current fear of people losing their incomes, it’s understandably a difficult proposition.

I don’t know if such a movement can work, because it may be too late. The “New Normal” is probably here to stay. The least we can do is to keep fighting. And we need to do it together.

NO CONSPIRACY THEORISTS HERE PLEASE:THE DANGEROUS RISE OF ANTI-CONSPIRACY THEORY

 

The spectre of anti-conspiracy theory haunts our free-speech platforms: for example Spiked, which contains a number of articles like The rise of “acceptable” Conspiracy Theories, QAnon, A threat to democracy and Rationality, Trump’s “fake” Covid Crisis, Another liberal Conspiracy Theory, etc. even on lockdownsceptics.org there is a polite injunction asking members to avoid “conspiracy theories,”  and obviously our mainstream media, which is not a free-speech platform.

To be fair, on a free-speech platform I can’t object to anyone debunking so-called “conspiracy theory.” But I’m not altogether convinced by this viewpoint. What is “conspiracy theory” anyway? A casual examination of this expression reveals it to be a derogative with its origins seemingly in the CIA following the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963, intended to delegitimise anyone who questions a mainstream narrative. My own view is that it is increasingly, a redundant expression. Let’s take an example or two. Suppose the term “conspiracy theory” to mean creating a theory then selecting, adjusting, or inventing data to fit the theory. If this is so, it renders “climate change” a de facto conspiracy theory. There is so much evidence of manipulation of data to support this narrative that I will not weary the reader with it here. Let’s call this out for what it is: dishonest or lazy journalism. Yet most of the world’s public are convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that “climate change” is a real existential threat.

It can be fun to engage with this sort of topic. I know from experience that if I ask someone “who killed JFK?” the answer I’m least likely to receive is “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Similarly, asking “How did Princess Diana die?” is unlikely to elicit the answer, “In a road accident,” and a discussion of Dr David Kelly and weapons of mass destruction will almost certainly include allegations of a cover-up. The odd thing is that most people originally seem to have believed that there were in fact, weapons of mass destruction and that Diana died in an accident. They’ve simply altered their beliefs as questions were asked later. It is the absence of evidence for or against something that can be just as compelling as its presence. When dealing with alternative explanations for world events, I personally can’t engage much with the idea, for example that the Moon landing was fabricated. I can’t find enough compelling evidence for it. Then again, I don’t want to believe that and sometimes our acceptance of  explanations of world events depend very much on our perceptions and our world-view.

There is only one solution to this: investigation. Looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads. Hanging on to the “conspiracy theory” label impedes real investigation and it’s time we got rid of it.

Which brings me to current events. Here we need to use first principles and look at what is actually happening, not what we think is happening, The only tangible outcomes of current events are that our freedoms, both political and existential, have been, almost overnight, cancelled. In the face of censorship, suspension of parliamentary democracy, forced face-mask wearing, endless lockdowns, the overhanging shadow of a military presence on British streets, are we really expected to believe all that nice Mr. Johnson wants to do is protect us all from that nasty virus? Questions need to be asked. Investigative journalism must ask those questions more and more. It’s easy, too easy, to use anti-conspiracy theory. Why are studies showing that face-masks don’t work being removed from the internet? Conspiracy theory. Klaus Schwab’s book , the Great Reset?  Conspiracy theory. Deborah Cohen’s report that the World Health Organisation altered its face-mask guidance in the face of political lobbying? Conspiracy theory. There is something wrong with the COVID-19 narrative, and we need to investigate it thoroughly. We can no longer pretend, after the predictability of forced face-masks, military involvement, second lockdowns which will almost certainly be extended into next year, that we can trust the state. Further predictions debunked as “conspiracy theory” include bio-immunity passports, forced vaccinations, and forced detention camps. Can we really afford to believe this isn’t going to happen unless we do something to stop it?

There is a problem with this because the alternative thinkers looking at this problem tend to offer solutions which are impracticable, ranging from alternative barter economies to outright revolution, which in Britain, is psychologically and culturally impossible. However,we may as well feel entitled to suggest that possibly, we are not being told the whole truth. The “figures” we are presented with in the mass media to justify the increasingly boundary-less government policies intended to “stop the spread of coronavirus” could have come from anywhere. It’s unclear how they are being generated. Every time I see or hear the acronym “SAGE” in the media I become more and more frightened of this increasingly sinister and Orwellian body. It seems to have no other purpose than recommending lockdowns.

I’m not sure that “conspiracy theory” exists at all. No-one says “I’m a conspiracy theorist.” But too many of us are saying “I’m not a conspiracy theorist but….” And  “I don’t advocate civil disobedience but….” then advocating civil disobedience. This is disingenuous and confusing.

Get rid of the “conspiracy theory” label. Investigate and expose. That’s what journalism is about.