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.