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.

THE ENDGAME LOOMS AND WE STILL DON’T GET IT (9th September 2020)

 

It is all too evident that a second UK national lockdown, which commentators too numerous to mention have said that we cannot survive economically or psychologically, is imminent. The mass media has been busy hyping up the “second wave” now for weeks, and friends and family of mine are now all telling each other the same thing. It is worth mentioning that the UK death toll from “Covid-19” recorded on September 8^th is 30, that for Sweden, wait for it, zero. As we know, Sweden has stopped well short of the measures taken in the UK. Lockdown doesn’t work! I say this as if I actually believe in “Covid-19” as an existential threat, which I don’t, but even if I did, I would still be sure that lockdown doesn’t work.

 

At what point does one become suspicious and begin to question an established official narrative? Now I always have and always do, I’m wired that way: I don’t run with the pack. But I don’t do so blindly and I suspect that this is true of most of us. In this case I believed there was every reason to assume a genuine threat at the beginning of the “pandemic,” expecting it to last a few months. I first became suspicious when statements appeared in the mainstream media to the effect that “life cannot go back to normal until there is a vaccine.” There were further pretentions that it would take eighteen months to develop one. Stop and think about this for a moment. “Until there is a vaccine,” presupposes that one exists or is possible. This statement actually goes much further than that in that it postulates a vaccine as a certainty. How can anyone be that sure? This has never been suggested to the best of my knowledge in the past about any disease. I remember the emergence of AIDS in the 1980’s and can recall no such postulation made at that time. Not only that, but we are actually given a timeline for this vaccine to appear. And what is more it seems we have now managed to develop one in six months which to me is  the medical equivalent of developing an atomic bomb a month after reading Einstein’s general theory of relativity. I won’t go on into the worries this raises about testing and commercial availability, but the deeply suspicious nature of the entire “vaccine” narrative must by now be obvious.

 

My suspicions were finally confirmed and any faith I might have had in the official narrative destroyed by the next stage, forced face-mask wearing, of which more shortly. One of the most obvious signs  of a lie is one that anyone who has seen a courtroom drama or read a detective story will know: the story keeps changing, and there can be little doubt that the UK Government’s narrative about Covid-19 has altered almost daily. I’m sure most of us can remember it: “Herd Immunity” soon gave way to “containment.” “Flatten the Curve”, now it has demonstrably been achieved has become “Get ready for the second wave.” “Don’t wear face masks” became “Wear a face mask or else.” I have actually heard reports of people being advised to wear face masks while making love. Another way of spotting lies is when things are hidden from us, as has been the case with some methodological reports demonstrating that face masks don’t work.

 

Again from experience I have come to know that wearing a face mask erodes your sense of self and your identity. Gradually, it gives rise to a sense of belonging to some sort of Borg-like collective awareness, an almost insectile mass compliance which is the overarching characteristic of totalitarian states. The emerging “new normal” is almost entirely dependent on this mass compliance, and face-mask wearing is the most significant pillar of this, but it is built on sand. In other words, if you’re wearing a face-mask your humanity is being taken from you. Face-mask wearers, I contend,  are actually rendering themselves subhuman, and surrendering to mass compliance.

 

Yet another characteristic of a fake narrative is its predictability. It was not hard to predict the forcing of facemasks on us. Nor was it hard to predict the miracle emergence of a “vaccine”.

As many have now noted, the parallels in what we are now witnessing with Nazi Germany and the mechanics of the Holocaust are all too evident. We  have had an Enabling Act (the Coronavirus Act 2020)  a visible stigma that in Germany was a yellow star, (face masks) censorship (fact checkers, stigmatisation of dissent) mass events ( the now-defunct Clap for Carers) and most frightening of all, presently in New Zealand, forced detention centres ( the camps) No-one seems to know how long people are being detained in these places, or what is being done to them. We do not really know how figures for “Covid-19” deaths are being produced, and for all we know they could be plucked out of thin air. But this constant flux of figures is being used to justify “emergency measures” which, it is increasingly obvious, will in all probability, never be lifted unless they are replaced with some sort of total surveillance mechanism from which there is absolutely no refuge. I was anxious about the “virus” when this all started, but that’s nothing to the terror I feel of what is to come in the name of this “pandemic,” and the emergence of the new totalitarianism. In recent conversations I’ve begun to use the word “endgame” to describe what is happening. For as I write, in face of a catastrophic  collapse of Western economies, the “climate emergency” lobby is trying to ramp up its alarmist message to ensure that we never return to pre-pandemic levels of prosperity and freedom, demanding that all vehicles run by large companies are electric and punitive taxes on flying. We can no longer have any faith in government and we are deep in this “endgame,” the cessation of all normal human activity.

 

Fundamental questions need to be asked as media narratives continue to clash with the evidence of everyday experience, chief among these is this: Do you personally know anyone who has had Covid-19 and been on a respirator? I have asked this question many times and have never received a “yes” answer.

 

Governments only have as much power as we are willing to give to them. There is very little time, if any,  left for us to realise the feebleness  of the (increasingly led by  the odious Nicola Sturgeon) UK Goverrment’s case . The weakness as I’ve said, of face-masks as a control mechanism is that it relies on mass compliance. The other mechanisms, contact tracing, social distancing, also rely on mass compliance but are less easily demolished than mask-wearing. Many of us may remember the slogan of anti-war demonstrators: “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?”

THE DYSTOPIAN STATE IS HERE: AND IT’S OUR FAULT

 

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”- George Santayana.

 

Climate change wasn’t working fast enough. We weren’t shutting down civilisation quickly enough, there were too many sceptics questioning the official narrative, even the “And a child shall lead them” gag led to questions. Something more effective had to be found.

 

Coronavirus. This word, practically unknown outside medical circles until January this year, now strikes terror into the heart of every citizen. Anything is justified in the face of this unprecedented cataclysm which has almost overnight, rendered the entire  planet inimical to human life. The war against coronavirus is now a war against humanity, its chief carrier. It is a plague in comparison with which all past plagues pale into insignificance, the Black Death was no more than a common cold, the 1918 flu pandemic was a dry run. You couldn’t make it up.

Six months into this “emergency”, only the wilfully blind can fail to have become even mildly suspicious about what is becoming all too evident: that lockdowns may  never end, or will be re-packaged and reinvented to keep the masses from waking up and demanding their fundamental rights and freedoms. That air travel and freedom of movement will soon be a thing of the past, that work, money and livelihood are to be sacrificed on a scale never before seen,  that the public will accept any measure, however life-limiting and absurd, in the name of protecting each other from this “deadly” contagion that has poisoned the very air we breathe and exposure to which is 100 percent lethal. The state is taking over.

 

The psychology behind the UK Government’s and the mass media response to this is obvious. The totalitarian states of the early 20^th Century learned  that by frightening the public with an external threat, they could make them compliant. Stalin and Hitler both made use of this technique, by using, not altogether inaccurately in fairness, the threat of invasion. This is significant because the threat does not have to be false for the way in which it is used to be dishonest and manipulative. The “Big Lie,” an untruth so enormous that everyone would believe it, is another twentieth century phenomenon that we have seen work successfully over and over again. There are so many holes in the anthopogenic  global warming narrative that it beggars belief anyone still takes it seriously, yet there it is circulating in our minds, schools and media as unquestionable fact. After all, why would anyone make it up? As evidence piles up that Covid-19 is not in fact, an incurable plague that is going to kill us all, perhaps 95% of the general public seem to believe that leaving their houses or having their faces exposed is an act not only of potential suicide, but murder. All of this without a shred of empiric evidence.  The “bread and circuses” of Clap for Carers could only keep us from being sceptical for so long before it became redundant, after which it quietly disappeared to be replaced with something much more insidious: the importation of Far-East facemask culture to the West. There can be little doubt of the efficacy of this measure as a control mechanism: it is instantly visible and  marks one out as either “one of us”, or “not one of us.” This is its purpose, and it has been the most successful indoctrination tool used by the state so far in its war on its citizens. Families, anathema to Marxists and leftists, are being torn apart by emotional battles as, inevitably, some people question facemask wearing. Members of the public are actually being encouraged by mass media and even implicitly by police forces, to attack other citizens who are “failing” to wear face masks. With this divide-and-conquer tactic, government is facilitating a culture of snooping and petty authoritarianism, in which resistance to its edicts is even less possible than previously.

 

Another emerging phenomenon used by twentieth-century despots is of course, mass media. The role of the media in indoctrinating the public during this “crisis” and its counterpart, the “climate crisis”, is virtually undeniable. To learn what we are to expect as the next phase in this developing emergence of the new totalitarianism, look no further than the pages of the Guardian. This odious, global-elite propaganda rag, having spent years lecturing us about “climate change”, “climate crisis” and “climate emergency”, hectoring the public with sermons written by intellectual bigots like George Monbiot and Suzanne Moore, is now clamouring for a second national lockdown. It was the Guardian which began agitating  earlier  this year for forced facemask wearing in the UK.  The fact that its paper  sales are relatively small must not make anyone underestimate the Guardian’s influence: its presence online is so all-pervasive that one could be forgiven for thinking it’s all anyone reads. And the Guardian is not alone in this: Sky News, the BBC and other mainstream outlets are peddling the same narrative of fear and questionable “science” to continually manipulate public opinion. Investigative journalism, never needed so urgently, is absent from this narrative.

 

In this excellent presentation, 16 Basic Principles of Mass Indoctrination,

 https://mediapsychology101.com/2016/09/28/16-basic-principles-of-mass-indoctrination/, it is a relatively simple matter to demonstrate how we are being manipulated by the media. For the purpose of this essay, I will show examples pertaining to Covid-19 and its counterpart, the “climate crisis”, given that Covid-19 is relatively new.

 

1. Start While They’re Young. There can be no doubt that the “climate crisis” is now imprinted on the minds of young people and schoolchildren in particular. It is now an endemic part of education in UK schools, with “climate clubs”, text books with lessons about this in various subjects and school-wide presentations organised by the students themselves talking about “the sixth mass extinction.” In addition, we are faced with the gross obscenity of parents fitting facemasks to children, some less than five years old.: no doubt with the best intentions in the world, but at this tender age that children should have this monstrous thing imposed on them is a horror we should as thinking and feeling humans, regard with disgust.

 

2. Create the Illusion of Political Freedom. While we may be free to take to the streets to promote a movement like Black Lives Matter, with its agenda of revising history and disenfranchising law enforcement, or climate alarmism, we seemingly are not supposed to protest about mask-wearing or lockdowns. Protests which do not suit the state’s agenda are described in mainstream and social media as “far-right,” in order to discredit them.  And in the end as many will know, whether we vote Labour or Conservative, we get more of the same.

 

3. Use Simplistic Stereotypes to Sway Public Opinion. Deniers, mask-shirkers, anti-vaxxers, the list could possibly be as long as you want to make it. We may as well include the demonisation of benefit claimants during the Cameron government’s “austerity” measures as  “feckless workshy scroungers.”

 

4. Mix facts with lies. Yes, there may be far-right factions protesting about lockdowns, or face-mask fascism. Yes, some people questioning the “climate crisis” may be underinformed. However this is being used to deligitimise what is in fact, a legitimate protest. One may as well describe the Hong Kong “protesters” as “violent” to delegimitise their independence movement. This is partially true, but is largely absent from Western narratives about Hong Kong.

 

5. A big lie is more convincing than a small lie. “The earth is burning up because of man-made CO2.” “By 2013 the polar ice caps will have disappeared.” “Covid-19 will kill 60 million  people worldwide.” “We are on the verge of the sixth mass extinction.” Why would anyone make this up, you may want to ask, despite the fact that there is no empiric evidence for any of these claims and some like these have already been proven false.

 

6, Give the masses bread and circuses to keep them well-fed and distracted. “Clap for Carers” is the most obvious example of this so far, yet we can easily include “reality” TV shows like Big Brother and Love Island. Leading dystopian future novels all feature this phenomenon which was made use of by the most corrupt regimes of the Roman Empire.: the “feelies” in Brave New World, the “families” in Farhrenheit 451, and the Two Minutes’ Hate in Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

 

7. Simplify Complex Issues by Portraying them as Dichotomies. Wearing a mask will keep you protected and everyone protected from Covid-19. Not doing so means you are an enemy of humanity. You’re either a “masker,” (a tool of the state) or a “mask-denier,” (an enemy of the people.)

 

8. Spread propaganda by all means possible. If you’ve read as far as this, one imagines that it would be counterproductive to weary you with the almost ubiquitous examples of this.

 

9. Ostracise dissident voices through ridicule or defamation. As previously stated, “deniers,” the most ubiquitous example of this, is accompanied by “anti-vaxxers” and “the tin hat brigade.” Articles are beginning to appear in national newspapers showing anyone who is opting out of the face-mask edict in the worst possible light. The mass media also went out of its way during Brexit, to discredit politicians promoting the Leave Vote. One of the most memorable examples of this was propaganda about the Leave Bus with its mention of a £350 million pound figure that could be used to support the NHS and its origins in Boris Johnson’s campaign strategies.

 

10. Faith in the Correctness of a Religion or Ideology is More Powerful than Force. In the case of the “climate crisis,” this unproven and largely unverifiable narrative is now presented as incontrovertible fact, as is the case with face-mask wearing. There is however, insufficient empiric data to verify either. Both are rapidly assuming the status of religions, with belief cited as evidence.

 

11. Manipulate History Records to Support your religion or Ideology. The Black Lives Matter movement can be seen to view history in the light of its own values, rather than the values of the time. Saying “Churchill was a Racist” may be to utter a truth. I’m not aware of any historian that seeks to conceal this. Telling us to rewrite history on that account is quite another thing. It is telling that methodological studies of face-mask effectiveness which fail to support public face-mask wearing are being removed or debunked, despite the fact that they were created before the “pandemic” and therefore cannot be regarded as “anti-mask propaganda.” And at this time the government is busy creating scientific “studies” telling us that face-masks work, after instructing us to wear them.

 

12. Control different sides of the same debate and you control the outcome. If our mass media is all owned by a few plutocrats, we may, even when reading an article challenging established faith, do no more than identify ourselves as either supporting the state’s agenda, or failing to do so.

 

13. The masses are less swayed by reason than by stirring their emotions. This is why mask-propaganda and dramatic use of language about “deadly droplets” works. Screaming at the public that by “failing” to wear face-masks they are endangering one another requires no proof whatever. Reasoning that face mask wearing is of zero value in public and asking what kind of world we want to live in places one in a hopeless position.

 

14. Drive the opposition into a corner. When they fight back, act like a victim. By fronting the climate crisis movement with a teenager living with a form of autism, its advocates are able, when someone objects to her views or methods of expression,  (“How dare you?”) to accuse that person of “mocking a child.”

 

15. Label all non-conformistic behaviour as pathological and promote “cures” for them. We are only a few steps along this road with the “anti-vaxxer” narrative, but it is not too difficult to see this escalating. The expression “anti-vaxxer” carries connotations of morbid opposition to medicine, akin to Jehovah’s Witnesses who refuse their children blood transfusions. “Cures” in this context will only mean changes in law.

 

16. Use rituals and mass events to keep people occupied and strengthen their faith. Again, this brings us back to “Clap for Carers,” which even NHS workers finally begged us to stop as they clamoured for better PPE.

 

On current evidence, it is hard to believe that the UK Government has any intention of  relaxing or reversing its measures invoked in the name of Coronavirus in the foreseeable future. It is  expedient to look at these measures with particular attention to their counterparts in Asian nations. They include in no particular order: closing of shops, pubs, restaurants and bars, closing of schools, restriction of foreign travel, near-total ban on free movement, mandatory face-mask wearing, tracking of public movement via mobile phones, localised “lockdowns” and at present edging after a specious “decision” to withhold a planned “relaxation” of these measures, toward a second near-total free movement ban on the basis of a “second wave” of coronavirus expected to be “ much much worse than this one.”, which of course justifies much much harsher measures to be imposed on the British people. As stated above, tracking citizens and mandating face mask use everywhere are known facets of life in China’s surveillance state, which we have had the temerity until now to mock, deride and criticise. We live in a time when we are utterly at the mercy of the State, which is free to pluck figures from thin air and justify measures whose severity can be limited only by our imagination.

 

Another relevant aspect of the emerging dystopian state is the rise of activism and its role in destroying parliamentary democracy. Again and again, we have seen, particularly in our mass media, activists “calling for” various things including banning tourism to certain places, changes in law to facilitate “voluntary” euthanasia, banning meat, demanding the abandonment of fossil fuels etc. What these demands have in common is an utter disregard for anyone who might disagree with them, and what is revealed by this common denominator is the simple fact that activists are not, by nature,  democratic or freedom fighters. They are deeply authoritarian figures with a specific agenda to be imposed on the majority of the people whether they like it or not. And time and again, government has declared itself an ally of these “activists.” Presumably this is when the aims of the activists match those of the state, which is almost certainly true in the case of the “climate crisis.” Tellingly, the aims of the climate change agenda and that of the “coronavirus crisis” are virtually identical: total annihilation of personal freedom. One example of the success of activism is its imposition of an almost total ban on eating peanuts in public because of an intransigent minority with an alleged peanut allergy affecting a miniscule percentage of the global population. The majority, wanting to be seen to do the right thing, complied with this.  However well-intentioned, it represents the power successful media activists wield over the rest of us.

 

How should we, the supposedly free, British people, or the people of other nations, respond? Advocating social disobedience is a dangerous game, and activism is a game of exploiting connections by the well-connected. If activism were democratic we would see activists and campaigns defending the scientific method, defending freedom of speech, defending our right to a decent standard of living, defending the human expectations of poorer nations to be freed from poverty by technological advances. But we see none of these, with activists continuing to be the same intransigent, morally superior, entitled people they were when their demands and agitations gave rise to the Russian Revolution and the Third Reich. Yet it is difficult for the observer to fail to notice that face-mask wearing cannot be effectively enforced. Police forces are depending on the public to comply with this edict or bully others into doing so because they lack the facilities or powers to do so. Private properties (shops and public transport facilities) only have the same power they have had previously: the right to refuse service, which is part of the contract between the provider and the customer. We know that reason is not likely to work because fear, the oldest of all our emotions, has been successfully invoked to control the most basic functions of the human mind. To conjecture is to use our imagination  and look for ways to use that which we know works: propaganda.

 

Let us take one example:

 

STAY HOME, PROTECT THE NHS, SAVE LIVES.

 

This pronouncement, simple to read, is more cleverly thought out than one might suppose at first reading. It appeals to our emotions and our essential humanity, and uses Aristotle’s Rule of Three, in which your message is expressed as three components or three repetitions.

Let us in light of this, consider an alternative:

 

ASK QUESTIONS. PROTECT FREEDOM. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.

 

This of course does not refute the first: which is its strength. It merely gives a set of values that may prove to be at odds with the first. Even so, this possibility depends on the first being proved empty, unsuccessful and valueless, which I feel, is only a matter of time.

 

What is yet to come? The possibilities are limited only by our imaginations. Mass demonstrations will almost certainly lead to martial law. Should we demonstrate anyway and accept this? Would it finally wake the populace to the horror that has been unleashed on them in the name of this “emergency?” Or will they just blame us, the ones standing up for humanity and freedom? Forced vaccination is already being talked about in the media. If lockdown becomes permanent, as implied by the insidious phrase, “the new normal”, billions of people will die. If fear’s your thing, try that for size.

 

 

 

I quote from Architects for Social Housing:

 

 

We’ve seen, too many times in history, what happens when a people signal, loudly and clearly, that they are willing to do anything and everything their government tells them to, and what governments do when that signal is given. I will not be a collaborator in this attempt to implement a surveillance regime based on the opinions of politicians quoting scientific factoids every bit as false as those invented by Nazi eugenicists.

 

Source: https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2020/04/23/good-morning-coronazombies-diary-of-a-bio-political-crisis-event/

 

The information we are being fed is conflicting and manipulated. The author of the above article writes much better than I do and provides statistics to evidence his arguments.

 

That the dystopian state is now upon us is our fault. We have, collectively, failed to question lockdowns, demand exit clauses, hold our politicians to account or even to demonstrate effectively. We have continued to support indoctrination by the mass media by continuing to read and listen to, the BBC, the Guardian, Sky News, CNN and host of other media outlets peddling the fearmongering narrative that facilitates endless lockdown. We have signalled our compliance by standing outside our houses hooting and clapping our hands every Thursday in a display of astronomical gullibility.  Most unforgivably, we have accepted face-mask wearing. I quote again:

 

 

When, on 1 September 1941, by order of a decree signed by Reinhard Heydrich, all Jews within the Third Reich and its conquered territories were forced to wear the yellow Star of David with the word ‘Jew’ written across it, the Jews under its jurisdiction were already lost. This decree had several purposes.

First, it helped the police to identify Jews, who were so scared of recriminations that they voluntarily identified themselves for the treatment they subsequently received. What they thought would save them led them straight to the gas chambers.

Second, it identified the Jews as biologically separate from the rest of the population, thereby increasing the attacks on them by the non-Jewish populace. This is a classic example of the way in which fascist regimes encourage its population to police themselves, becoming both informants and community support officers implementing what the police don’t have (or need) the numbers to impose.

Finally, it was a test to see whether there was any fight, any resistance left in the Jews. There wasn’t, and wearing the yellow star was the final sign, made by themselves, of their complete subjugation to the Aryan race, their total obedience to the Nazi regime. It was important, therefore, that the decree imposed the most insulting and degrading measures. Self-abnegation and humiliation was crucial to the function of the yellow star. From now on, the Nazis could do what they wanted with the Jews. And they did.

https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2020/04/23/good-morning-coronazombies-diary-of-a-bio-political-crisis-event/

 

This is from the same article. I cannot find a better way of making it clear that accepting face-mask wearing in public is an act of capitulation so colossal as to render any further resistance to the emergence of a new barbarism absent. Anyone who thinks or says that at some point the public will wake up and realise they’ve been tricked is wrong. We have already passed that point. The anger this foments in me is incredible and if you are either a) a mask-wearer convinced you are right and I’m wrong, or b) a citizen worried about your civil rights, or even if you are c) unsure either way, consider this:

 

By wearing a face-mask, you are colluding with the state in its project to introduce the new totalitarianism. You are helping to condemn all of us to the hell of a Brave New World. If you had been Jewish in Germany in 1941 you would have walked the streets proudly displaying your yellow star and snitched on your own people.

 

I cannot think of another way to respond to the self-righteousness of face-mask wearers, and yet, all of us have something in common. We must not allow ourselves to become further weakened by descending into hatred of our fellow human beings because of their position on face-mask wearing. What we have in common is that we are now all frightened people. It’s just that we’re frightened of different things.

 

We could, if we only had the courage, stop this madness tomorrow by throwing away our face-masks and proudly walking the streets as free citizens. There just aren’t enough government servants to lock up 68 million people. But we won’t. Because we’ve failed the biggest and last test of our resistance. Because we’re wearing face-masks in this country.

 

The new totalitarianism is here, now.

 

And we have only ourselves to blame.

FURTHER READING

 

The New Normal: What is the UK Biosecurity State? (Part 1. Programmes and Regulations)

Lockdown: Collateral Damage in the War on COVID-19

The State of Emergency as Paradigm of Government: Coronavirus Legislation, Implementation and Enforcement

Manufacturing Consensus: The Registering of COVID-19 Deaths in the UK

Giorgio Agamben and the Bio-Politics of COVID-19

Good Morning, Coronazombies! Diary of a Bio-political Crisis Event

Coronazombies! Infection and Denial in the United Kingdom

Language is a Virus: SARs-CoV-2 and the Science of Political Control

Sociology of a Disease: Age, Class and Mortality in the Coronavirus Pandemic

COVID-19 and Capitalism

 

FORCED VACCINATION COULD BE WEEKS AWAY

When a mainstream media outlet like Good Morning Britain asks “Should vaccinations be mandatory?” the public should experience the deepest alarm. Time and again, government policy has been presaged by one of these propagandist media sensations which attempt to elicit the support of, or influence,  public opinion. Sanctimonious editorials appear in national newspapers and on television news stations demanding changes in law. We’ve seen it all before with calls for carbon-neutral industries, banning coal, banning cars that run on petrol, demanding everyone wear a mask in public. This is accompanied by cherry-picked references to dubious and questionable bits of “science” in order to further bamboozle the already befuddled audience.  The great British public then does what it always does, takes to social media and rails against any dissenting voices often before they appear,  labelling them “anti-vaxxers,” “deniers” and enemies of humanity without a speck of human decency, with the support of national newspapers like the Guardian agitating for extreme measures to be taken. Shortly after, the law is changed often without consultation either in or out of Parliament, as we have seen with forced face-mask wearing.

 

Make no mistake: at present forced vaccination cannot be permitted in law. There has been no new amendment to British law permitting this: expect that to change as soon as the public has been softened up by clarion calls from the media and the gullible, whose capacity for being fooled or wilfully blind is matched only by their obnoxious self-righteousness. These measures do not even seem to be debated: the silence from the House of Lords at this time is deafening.

 

Hitler’s “Enabling Act” originally passed in 1933, and revised in 1937 and 1941, implicitly legalised the Holocaust: in other words this monstrous process was technically permissible in the law of the land at that time. It is no defence against anything that is self-evidently wrong for anyone to protest: “But it’s the law!” Leave aside for the moment the proposition that for a Covid-19 vaccine to have been developed in less than six months, when past vaccines have taken years or decades to produce, is intellectually preposterous. Leave aside the fact that there is no possible way in which the safety of such a product can be meaningfully tested in anything short of  a long span of time. Being forced to submit your person to being invaded with an unfamiliar substance by injection is a prospect so horrible that any sane person must naturally recoil from it: yet the British public is, I fear all too ready to submit to this, as we have seen with masks.  One can already hear the voices of the righteous denouncing anyone who feels like this as a sociopathic threat to humanity and a criminal for whom no fate could be too bad. Is there nothing the British public won’t accept?

 

The Nuremberg Code of 1947, accepted worldwide as an ethical blueprint for medical experimentation, states:

 

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

 

It is important to note that this document is not binding in law: however at present British law does not allow forced vaccination. Yet how much longer we can expect to be protected in this fashion cannot be known. And if we accept this as I’ve no doubt we will because the great British public is essentially, weak, gullible and compliant, what’s next? Euthanasia?

 

The entire “vaccine” narrative is deeply suspect with a number of media claims that society cannot return to normal without a vaccine. This presupposes that a vaccine is possible, which cannot be known. It also implies a perpetual lockdown unless the masses agree to be forcibly injected with an unknown agent. And how many times have we heard the “eighteen month” timeline for such a thing to be developed? These messages do not inspire confidence.

 

I may be wrong. I hope I am. But it is possible that we are witnessing the beginning of the greatest crime against humanity since the Holocaust. And by the time it happens, it will be legal.

 

REFERENCE:

 

Nuremberg Code:

https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf

 

Enabling Act 1933

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

 

Law regarding forced vaccines.

https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/coronavirus-legal-news-views/coronavirus-act-2020-does-it-permit-mandatory-vaccinations

CROSSING THE RUBICON: THE UK SLIPS INTO A REPRESSIVE STATE.

Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon River in 49 BC  in defiance of Roman law placed  him and his army on a direct collision course with Rome,  leading to the Civil War which established him as Roman dictator. It is a well-established metaphor for a point at which there is no going back and at which things will never be the same.

 

I predicted a few weeks ago that the UK Government would in the near future try to force everyone to wear facemasks in public. Leave aside the plethora of information that makes it clear face masks are of practically zero benefit in everyday circumstances, and may in fact be dangerous, the forced wearing of facemasks is a transgression so fundamental and of such significance that it is difficult to adequately express. It implicitly hands your body over to state control, and renders one of your most basic existential freedoms subject to state interference. For the first time, the right to exercise a choice of whether you should inhibit your respiratory faculties and hide your face in public is taken out of your hands. If you doubt the significance of this, try to remember the public outcry that followed a debate regarding banning the wearing of burkhas and hijabs in the face of Islamic terrorism, and the connotations this had for civil liberties at the time. Facemask wearing is the visible hallmark of Asian states perceived in the West as repressive and authoritarian. It is a badge of serfdom, akin to the yellow star that Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. There is no greater invasion of your person possible short of tattooing you with a number.

 

This astonishing about-turn in policy has not happened overnight or without preparation. It has been preceded by a cleverly-orchestrated media campaign which seeks to bizarrely turn established professional and scientific research on its head, making virologists, infection-control bodies and academics who have published papers for the medical profession into liars and charlatans. This campaign has included editorials and blogs which talk in disapproving and accusatory tones of “mask-shirkers” and “mask-deniers” allegedly “refusing” to wear face masks. Leave aside the obvious fact that refusal cannot take place without a demand: in other words someone has to give you an instruction to which you reply, “No, thanks.” Absent such a demand, you are not refusing anything, merely making a choice. And until now there has been no such demand. But those making this choice are now psychopaths and enemies of humanity without a shred of integrity, respect or regard for their fellow human beings. When I returned from Asia early this year the advice was clear: face masks do not protect you from infection and it is not advised that you wear them. What is more, face mask wearing was actively discouraged because of limited supplies required for hospital environments, where infection control is king and every precaution makes sense. Above all the only situation in which it is appropriate to wear a facemask in public is if you are unwell and have a cough, in which case why not stay at home?

 

But this piece of simple logic has been covered by the mask-advocates whose logic runs like this: “You may have coronavirus without knowing it, and may infect others with your breath even at unlimited distances so you need to wear a mask.” This covers all bases despite the evidence for this being at best negligible and at worst  manipulated and dishonest.  It is part of the greater logic that renders every societal value worthless unless it contributes to the impossible task of making sure that not one single individual anywhere, ever,  is infected with Covid-19.  None of this means I think we should do nothing about this pandemic. But there is now a growing awareness that the cure proposed is not indefinitely sustainable and may in fact be worse than the disease.

 

The virtue-signalling of face-mask advocates is easily refuted. Facemasks have been available for decades for use in industry and ideas generally considered good are taken up by the public. Nobody needed the government to tell them to go out and buy a car or a television set. So if you’re so convinced face masks are a good idea why has it taken the State to tell you before you came to this Eureka moment? And for how many years or decades have you been going around disrespectfully infecting your fellow human beings by going out without a mask when you had a cold or the flu?

 

However, apparently all the established research is now wrong and face mask wearing is essential. It is a vast game of “Simon Says,” in which we only do anything when Simon says. And it won’t stop there. Expect newspapers like the Guardian to run sanctimonious editorials demanding that face-mask wearing be extended to pubs and restaurants, and eventually to every departure from your home. Following this such a move will become policy: indeed, the  British public will do what they are already doing, gleefully embracing this perverse doctrine, boasting of buying colourful face masks for their children, and showering anyone who has a different point of view with disapproval.

 

I’m forced now to doubt that we,  the British people value our freedom as much as we profess to. We take to the streets in droves to embrace new forms of repression, such as an anarchistic movement that seeks to rewrite history and dismantle our police forces, or an anti-human death cult that seeks to suppress all human activity by frightening us all into believing we are destroying the Earth by existing. But in the face of mounting attacks on our liberty and our freedom, we are silent. We have had our liberty taken away from us. Our movements are monitored. Our discussions are censored via social media. We are no longer free even to make fundamental choices about our bodies. A public that will silently accept these things has learned nothing from history, will accept anything and deserves its fate if that is a dystopian world-state.

 

We are no longer entitled to lecture other nations about being repressive states. Their representatives, quite rightly in my view would laugh in our faces. There is a growing fear in the minds of many of us that Western lockdowns may be permanent. The spectres of identity cards, martial law and forced vaccination now hover over us. Dismissing this as “conspiracy theory” and accusing those who feel this way of an inhuman disregard for life is the rhetoric of fascism, a force that always thrives in the face of a perceived threat. I believe forced face-mask wearing in British streets is a brutal act that crosses the Rubicon, and finally signifies our descent into a de facto repressive state.