THE LOCKDOWN IS A PSYOP: CONSEQUENCES OF THE PANIC-DEMIC
What follows are 12 articles I penned between April and June of 2020, and published at the Affirmative Right (www.affirmativeright.blogspot.com) website.
As the matter of the lockdown and the panic-demic are still very much “fluid,” this collection does not represent an exhaustive examination of the topic.
Where things go from here is anyone’s guess. I strongly suspect that follow-up articles will become necessary to compose in the coming months.
Stay tuned. --Andy Nowicki, June 30, 2020
1. A CONTRIVED CRISIS
Five years ago, I published Conspiracy, Compliance, Control, and Defiance.
In that extended essay, I put forward my observations regarding the psychology of those who set out to arrogate to themselves dominion over the rest of the population. I attempted to make distinctions between what is commonly known as the “sociopath”-- the sort of person bereft of conscience but also not typically possessed of excessive ambition—and the superficially similar type that I called the “reptilian,” whose absence of moral scruples is matched by a boundless desire for power and control over his fellow man.
In using the term “reptilian,” I sought simple metaphorical verisimilitude; I did not intend to propose that those belonging to what I called “the reptilian ruling class” actually possessed any non-human DNA. Instead, they were, like reptiles, “cold-blooded,” with no capacity for empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, or other traits generally regarded as redeemably “human.”
Though the “reptilian” comparison was metaphorical, it was by no means intended to be hyperbolic. I still find it thoroughly apt, though I regret that in some cases it lent itself to misunderstanding among many who took me as being literal, i.e., of claiming that these “reptilians” were actual reptiles, or so-called “lizard people.”
Nevertheless, I have little desire to scrutinize these truly appalling creatures-- be they literally reptilian, literally mammalian, or literally otherwise-- anymore. What I wrote of this murderous claque in 2015 is, I find, just as true of them in 2020. Still, in light of the extraordinary events that have befallen much of our world in March and April of the current year, with an utterly unprecedented and obscenely absurd imposition of a “lockdown” being imposed upon billions of human beings on the flimsiest of pretexts, I find that I must return to this subject again, in order to provide a sort of addendum to what was covered in that earlier essay.
It is my position that “#Lockdown2020” has been a largely contrived and fabricated event. I do not reach this conclusion lightly or frivolously, but upon careful and thoughtful consideration of the circumstances at hand. It is further my assertion that, like 9/11, Sandy Hook, and other heavily hyped, much discussed, and avidly sensationalized high-profile disasters and tragedies, the Corona-Covid19 pandemic is being shamelessly exploited by our “reptilian”rulers in order to achieve cold-bloodedly nefarious ends.
Reckoning with the panoply of motivations likely involved this operation is, however, beyond the scope of this treatise. Other inquiring minds possessed of independent, non-compliant spirits are already hard at work unearthing the infernal nature of the enterprise, which finally devolves, one gathers, into some naked power grab of mammoth proportions. What I aim to examine here is not the various dimensions of the why so much as the numerous iterations of the how. It is my thesis that, much like the notorious top-secret MK-ULTRA project, which sought to produce mind-slavery through the intentional imposition of trauma upon human beings (who in many cases never consented to being victims of such inhuman experimentation), so in a broader sense, humanity is now being intentionally subjected to trauma in order to create in them what could be called a state of mass compliance, through which they can be manipulated into accepting greater and greater outrages being perpetrated against their lives and liberties, all for the stated purpose of promoting their ostensible well-being.
A warning before proceeding further: If you are of the opinion that those who have almost uniformly imposed patently draconian restrictions upon much of the world’s population, in some cases essentially amounting to placing innocent people under indefinite house arrest, have enacted these measures out of genuine concern for public health and safety, then you will not find what I have to argue here to be at all palatable.
If however, you can at least conceive of the possibility that those supposedly appointed—or in many cases self-appointed-- to your guardianship may in fact have more interest in power and control than in providing earnest shepherdry to their appointed, or self-appointed, “flock,” then read on, while of course exercising appropriate discernment and careful consideration.
Finally, a disclaimer of sorts: I do not trumpet myself as one possessed of any sort of technical expertise, only as a careful observer of human behavior, a fierce hater of totalitarianism, a tireless chronicler of rhetorical flimflamery, and ceaseless combater of intellectual dishonesty. I claim these, and no academic degree or other mark of status, as my bone fides. To these ideals alone do I here aspire. The reader alone may judge the extent to which I may finally have succeeded or failed.
*************
The uniformity of this imposition across much of the globe, with only a few exceptions here or there, should give the thoughtful observer immediate pause. How often have we seen the controlling regimes of the various nations of the world marching in this type of lockstep in their shared push to impose a “lockdown” on their citizenry/subjects?
All regimes enforcing these conditions have acted ostensibly under the auspices of “emergency powers,” a phrase which contains within itself a multitude of rhetorical mischief. In nearly every case, the presumption of such powers is constitutionally dubious, if not outright prohibitive (at least among countries which observe, however nominally, a constitutional form of governance). Rights, after all, such as those famously codified in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, are not meant to be viewed as merely conditionally allowed, excepting the manifestation of some intervening “emergency.” Instead, such rights are fundamentally asserted as existing absolutely, regardless of changing conditions or circumstances, even circumstances designated as “emergencies.”
These disparately-oriented regimes have acted in collectively repressive lockstep. Their shared tyranny takes more severe form in certain places than in others, but in all cases amounts to the forceful closure of businesses deemed “unessential,” a term which introduces the slippery slope fallacy by the very arbitrariness of its undeniable connotative ramifications. For just what is “essential,” pray tell? I have observed some odd notions that can at the very least be called counterintuitive on this front, such as bookstores closing up shop while liquor stores remain open for business. (So.... booze is essential, but books aren’t?) And some states have even forbidden the selling of seeds enabling people to grow vegetables or fruits in their backyards. (Since when is the quest to become more self-sufficient during a time of crisis an “inessential” activity?)
In fact, such conditions now endure in certain places (God grant it not be much longer) that citizens/subjects are likewise demanded to refrain from “nonessential” activities. Again, though, what is “essential”? To live healthily, a person should be able to exercise. He should have access to nature and the outdoors. One would think it perfectly reasonable to claim such activities as “essential.” Yet in many places around the country and the world right now, such healthy behavior is either forbidden or severely curtailed by the ruling authorities. Instead, people are required to remain cooped up inside with only a few exemptions granted for absolutely necessary occasions. Wilderness areas, such as public parks, are now shut down in many regions. Basketball hoops and tennis nets have been removed to prevent unwanted indulgence in outdoor activities by irresponsible miscreants.
Meanwhile, in some locales, drones are even dispatched to harry and harass solitary journeyers on country paths. Hefty fines are dispatched to nefarious dog-walkers or incorrigible young parents with the temerity to take their kids out for a stroll or play “catch” with them in an open field.
 |
| Streets are empty due to the global "lockdown", even in Dubai, UAE |
Not even language is safe. “Quarantine,” up until very recently, meant restricting the movement of the sick, in order to prevent a contagion from spreading. Now the term has been sinisterly repurposed to mean the act of isolating everyone from everyone else. In the “lockdown” paradigm, those “quarantined” are not the sick, but the well.
Why are the healthy being forced into isolation? We are told that the only way to protect everyone is, as one news reader was heard to put it, “to act like you already have the virus.” So the healthy are automatically treated as if they were "already" sick. If there is truly a contagious virus about, one is indeed well-advised to take prudent and reasonable precautions. However, in the contemporary “lockdown” paradigm, prudency and reason are translated into their opposites; namely, panic-promotion, fear-mongering, and trauma-inducement.
Radical, unprecedented and utterly un-Constitutional mandates, such as those which prevail under the “lockdown” paradigm, are sold as moderate and soberly-conceived notions by experts who assure the population, in soothing tones, that they certainly know what is best for us.
Our leaders, moreover, recite, parrot and promulgate ominous jargon like “social distancing,” somberly instructing us always to stand six feet apart from one another (Why six feet, exactly? Isn’t it enough to keep a wide berth and avoid contact when necessary?) all while giving press conferences in which they stand cheek by jowl with one another on a narrow stage. Meanwhile, vast construction projects for major corporate organizations continue to be pursued (look out your car window sometime and you will likely see them taking shape in your town.. a new Chase bank, another high-rise apartment complex, an add-on to your local Walmart or McDonalds, etc.) with construction workers and builders standing in very close proximity to one another. Are these projects, invariably involving high-level corporations and influential and well-placed organizations, truly “essential”?
Such questions never seem to get asked. And the cognitive dissonance mounts. The wearing of masks is first discouraged, then encouraged, and finally in some places become mandatory, with no explanation given for the shift in policy. And concerns about the economic well-being of those who live paycheck to paycheck (that is to say, most of the population) but who now must forgo receiving paychecks indefinitely, are haughtily dismissed as if they were a matter of no consequence. Lower-waged working people are sanctimoniously lectured to “Stay Home” and sit idle while their livelihoods dissipate, and if they complain about this perilous set of circumstances or protest for an end to the lockdown and a re-opening of the economy, they are attacked by the lapdog media as “virus deniers” or some such. News organs, ostensibly the “fourth estate,” who pride themselves on their supposed eagerness to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted,” never seem actually to deign to advocate for the well-being of those who actually struggle (such as the people, spoken of above, who desperately seek economic relief); instead, they grotesquely fawn over the powerful. Paunchy ‘Billy Sixpack” holding up a sign at an anti-lockdown rally gets mocked, derided, and impugned, while profit-minded vaccine peddler, unrepentant child-maimer, unscrupulous tycoon and pedophile-befriender Bill Gates receives unending praise, laud, and plaudits.
 |
| Epstein and Gates: best buds! |
Thus, in a perverse inversion, are the afflicted further afflicted while the comfortable are granted even greater degrees of (supremely unearned) comfort.
Most appallingly, our would-be leaders and their media facilitators and enablers foment cognitive dissonance by telling boldfaced lies about the supposed source of the crisis: that is, the virus itself.
2. ANATOMY OF A SCAMDEMIC
 |
| Heroic nurses dance the "Big Booty" whilst a "deadly pandemic" rages around them. |
by Andy Nowicki
Continued from Part One
I will not treat here of the matter of whether the virus is a true "novel" phenomenon, or the various problems with testing for it, or other disputed aspects regarding its origin.
Let us simply, for the sake of argument, stipulate Covid-19's reality as an authentically newly-formed microbiotic phenomenon. Certain concomitant truths about it are nevertheless well-nigh indisputable: 1) the lethality rate of this supposedly novel disease is quite low, and 2) those who die with this ostensible condition tend, as with most flu-related deaths, to be elderly, already in poor health, and/or already suffering from underlying health-compromising conditions.
Similar instantiations of "novel" viruses, resulting in high levels of contagion but low lethality rates, have been declared "pandemics" in recent years, most notably during the SARS outbreak of 2003 and the HINI virus, or "swine flu" epidemic in 2009.
As with Corona-Covid-19, these previous maladies most greatly impacted the already frail and decrepit; those who were not elderly and/or in relatively good health were rarely profoundly affected, much less killed, by these viruses. Still, their contagiousness posed a problem which called for certain reasonable, non-onerous precautions to be put into effect, particularly among the aforementioned health-vulnerable. Recommendations were thus duly administered (avoiding human contact whenever possible, washing one's hands often, applying disinfectant, etc.), but no elaborate overhaul in social and economic conditions was mandated. Businesses were not forcibly shuttered; schools remained open, restaurants and bars served dine-in customers, sporting events, conventions, and concerts were allowed to take place, and no one was browbeaten to "stay home" or lectured to remain a certain arbitrary distance from one another at all times.
In short, while SARS and H1N1 raged across the globe, claiming numerous victims, life was still generally permitted to go on as before. By the time each of these previous outbreaks died out, millions had been sickened, and many perished, but-- as has been the case throughout human history-- these sicknesses and deaths were taken in stride (though the latter were appropriately mourned, as the dead are ever and continually mourned), and normalcy was, for the most part, permitted to endure.
Yet today, as of late April 2020, a supposed virus which, even if it be truly "novel," does not differ markedly in virulence or lethality from those previous ones, has for some reason become the flashpoint for a declaration of "emergency powers" amongst ruling blocs in nations, provinces, and municipalities across the earth. This time around, for some reason (after SARS and swine flu perhaps the third time's the charm?), we find ourselves instructed, nay commanded, to respond in a manner that is utterly incongruous to the actual threat level on display.
What is more, we discover that those same perpetually edict-issuing rulers, supposedly so zealously vigilant in their concern for the continued maintenance of our health and safety, are shamelessly stacking the deck by fudging the numbers, telling us that terminal cancer patients, heart attack victims, and so forth are in fact Covid-19 casualties.
But even our duplicitous ruling claque can't conceal the truth that emergency rooms are mostly not filled with Corona-plagued patients on the brink of expiration, but instead are largely empty and bare, with much of the staff getting laid off or furloughed, while those on duty seem to have enough time on their hands to coordinate elaborate flashmob dances on Twitter and TikTok, all while geared up in their scrubs, masks, gloves, and other hospital implements. Such displays of silly, frivolous, and debauched stripper-style gyrations in the hallways of hospitals that are supposedly "battle zones" of death and mayhem lends a certain surreality to the proceedings.
| Pan-dance-ic! |
Yet in spite of the inflated numbers and the furloughed staffs and the twerking nurses... in spite, that is, of the mounds of evidence that the crisis has been laughably overblown, we are still somberly commanded to consent to the veracity of their clearly bogus tale about a pandemic which threatens our civilization (or what is left of it), with the implication that it would be nothing short of treasonous of us to resist this untenable, un-Constitutional lockdown for as long as our rulers see fit to continue to impose it.
Under such circumstances, one needn't be especially astute to comprehend that this virus-- even if it truly does exist in the manner that they claim-- still represents little but a pretext to impose indefinite martial law. Again, the question of why this is being done now, and why such a pretext wasn't exploited in the recent past with the outbreak of either SARS or H1N1, is surely not a question with a simple answer. That it all boils down to a raw, shameless seizure of power under deeply dubious auspices, however, strikes the discerning observer as quite impossible to deny, if he is honest with himself.
*************
Again, though, the "why" is not my primary focus in this inquiry. Yet when one contemplates the proclivities of the ruling claque, as well as their patently "reptilian" characteristics, one is moved to wonder if the point of this collective power grab might not simply be to capture and delight in the possession of power for power's own sake; thus, this entire usurpation could well be motivated more by the hunger of the nether regions of their filthy bowels than in the perverted thoughts of their depraved minds.
Regarding the "how," however, it must be reflected that our rulers have conducted massive reams of research on the methods by which men and women can be reduced to a state of mind-slavery, it would follow that they possess both the means and the inclination to manipulate the public, whom they after all regard as mere pigs or cattle, to be herded or culled when necessary. It is well known that cognitive dissonance is a potent tool of torture. If an experimental subject is told two opposing messages simultaneously, and is induced into believing both messages with passionate and uncompromising intensity, that subject's consciousness will finally collapse under the strain, his neurons fried by the ordeal of attempting to make sense out of nonsense.
I have discussed how our rulers have employed cognitive dissonance as a weapon against the populace with regard to the largely contrived, heavily manufactured "virus crisis" at hand. Next, I shall enumerate and explain other methods being used to create mass compliance: namely, the inducement of demoralization, panic, and finally, hatred.
One day in early March, I was chatting with an acquaintance who is an avid sports fan. By that time, I had already heard an earful about the much-ballyhooed "Coronavirus," as it was then exclusively being called: these were the days before the subsequent coining of "Covid-19" as the formal designation (though jocularly irreverent sobriquets for this condition, such as "the WuFlu," "the Kung Flu," and "the China Syndrome" were already widely in use).
As my friend and I sat in a bar (remember those?) and watched an NBA game on one of the many screens, he casually mentioned something that rather took me aback. The NCAA tournament, he told me, was going to be played in empty arenas this year, due to virus-related concerns.
It took me a full moment to grasp what he was saying. To use a cinematic metaphor, I was struck with disbelief much the same way that Marty McFly was upon learning that his elderly friend had fashioned a time machine out of a Delorean. In a tone similar to that of Marty's incredulous inquiry, I demanded, "Wait a minute! Are you telling me that they've stopped selling tickets to college basketball championship games?"
If the in-person audience was excluded, it seemed to me, then the viewer would be robbed of an essential aspect of the experience. The games themselves might of course still be close, intense, well-played contests, but without the roar of the crowd, it just wouldn't be the same.
In fact, the thought of those games being played without any spectators in the arena struck me as thoroughly depressing. I, of course, had no particular "skin in the game"; I wasn't a college hoops fan, nor did I follow or root for any school's team: none had won my affection through the years. But though I was, and still am, quite indifferent to the tournament itself, there was nevertheless something incredibly demoralizing about the notion that this powerful, culturally relevant, patently elemental phenomenon could get forcibly drained of its vitality like that, all on account of the national leadership's capitulation to immensely onerous CDC dictates concerning needful public behavior.
At this point, of course, I hadn't yet formed any opinion about the forces behind the making of such a decision. Soon enough, it became clear that the NCAA tournament would not be played before sepulchral venues full of empty seats; in fact, it would not be played at all. The tournament would be canceled, as, eventually, would nearly all other sporting events, both professional and amateur, across the world. When my son's school soccer league was announced to be "off," I wasn't just demoralized, however; I was in fact livid. My son loves soccer, and loves playing it with his friends, and I hated that it was being taken away from him by bureaucratic busybodies who actually believed that a handful of boys playing games on an open field in front of a couple dozen parents in attendance posed some serious public health threat.
It was around this time I began to sense that we were in the grips of what amounted to a "panic-demic." However, the panic hadn't sprung up spontaneously; I felt sure that it was, in fact, being orchestrated. Yet though I didn't believe the hype, I couldn't help but feel continually in the grips of demoralization as every day brought a new litany of announcements of closings. Conventions, concert tours, and other long-planned events all were either scuttled or indefinitely "postponed." Schools closed their doors for the remainder of the year, relegating students to hastily thrown-together online education; churches likewise ceased to operate or dispense the Sacraments to the faithful, instead offering only "streaming services" to their congregants.
The accumulated effect of this seemingly neverending string of shutdowns-- culminating of course in the infamous "stay at home" order relegating billions of people to the sudden status of house arrest, and the elimination of all jobs not deemed "essential," leading surely to dire economic circumstances-- was nothing if not funereal. At around this time, I recorded a video entitled "The Closings Will Continue Until Morale Improves," in which I formulated the notion that it seemed there was something purposeful in the manner with which normalcy as we knew it was taken away from us suddenly, with little warning, in the twinkling of an eye, on dubious if not non-existent legal grounds.
Then the "lockdown" really went into full effect. Restaurants, malls, movie theaters, and most other public places of leisure were forcibly closed down by order of some petty state, county, or municipal tyrant citing "emergency powers." And then came the technocratic babble justifying house arrest, ("shelter in place") and effectively preventing fraternization with friends or colleagues, ("social distancing."). Demoralization continued apace. Most ascribed their grim thoughts to fear of this solemnly-announced pandemic, now called "Covid-19," but in fact, the origin of such sentiment was much more likely ascribable to the nonstop message, communicated by both state and media sources, that the lockdown would never really end, that the new, suddenly-imposed dispensation was well-nigh permanent, and that we would all just have to adjust to a "new normal."
The phrase "new normal" was in fact circulated relentlessly, again, in a seemingly systemic manner, as if, like "social distancing" and "sheltering in place," it were being intentionally injected into our collective mind. One could even be forgiven for feeling that there was something eerily ritualistic about it all, like we were being primed for a transformation by our "betters," who were eager to make us over into something entirely "novel," which could only be achieved first by breaking us down through systematic infliction of trauma and by the relentless pummeling of weaponized demoralization.
As my friend and I sat in a bar (remember those?) and watched an NBA game on one of the many screens, he casually mentioned something that rather took me aback. The NCAA tournament, he told me, was going to be played in empty arenas this year, due to virus-related concerns.
It took me a full moment to grasp what he was saying. To use a cinematic metaphor, I was struck with disbelief much the same way that Marty McFly was upon learning that his elderly friend had fashioned a time machine out of a Delorean. In a tone similar to that of Marty's incredulous inquiry, I demanded, "Wait a minute! Are you telling me that they've stopped selling tickets to college basketball championship games?"
"Yep. And they've refunded the money of the tickets they already sold," he said.At this point I had edged beyond astonishment; I was, in fact, struck dumb.
"Can you believe it?" my interlocutor asked. I couldn't. "The Final Four is gonna be in Atlanta... imagine all the money that they'll be losing!"He was right: Atlanta stood to lose millions of dollars if they went ahead and excluded the in-person audience from the venues where the games were to be held. For me, though, what truly rendered the notion incredible was trying to imagine these fast-paced, high-profile, high-stakes games being played without any in-person crowd dynamic in effect. I just couldn't fathom it. When a lower-ranking team pulled off a stunning, bracket-busting upset with an amazing buzzer-beater shot, no one would be roaring with thunderous fervor! When finally one team was crowned champion, none would there to share in the ecstasy with the players and the coaches; as a result, the energy would be lost; the atmosphere would surely more resemble a practice scrimmage, or perhaps an insignificant pick-up game played on a street corner or in a humdrum gym.
If the in-person audience was excluded, it seemed to me, then the viewer would be robbed of an essential aspect of the experience. The games themselves might of course still be close, intense, well-played contests, but without the roar of the crowd, it just wouldn't be the same.
In fact, the thought of those games being played without any spectators in the arena struck me as thoroughly depressing. I, of course, had no particular "skin in the game"; I wasn't a college hoops fan, nor did I follow or root for any school's team: none had won my affection through the years. But though I was, and still am, quite indifferent to the tournament itself, there was nevertheless something incredibly demoralizing about the notion that this powerful, culturally relevant, patently elemental phenomenon could get forcibly drained of its vitality like that, all on account of the national leadership's capitulation to immensely onerous CDC dictates concerning needful public behavior.
At this point, of course, I hadn't yet formed any opinion about the forces behind the making of such a decision. Soon enough, it became clear that the NCAA tournament would not be played before sepulchral venues full of empty seats; in fact, it would not be played at all. The tournament would be canceled, as, eventually, would nearly all other sporting events, both professional and amateur, across the world. When my son's school soccer league was announced to be "off," I wasn't just demoralized, however; I was in fact livid. My son loves soccer, and loves playing it with his friends, and I hated that it was being taken away from him by bureaucratic busybodies who actually believed that a handful of boys playing games on an open field in front of a couple dozen parents in attendance posed some serious public health threat.
It was around this time I began to sense that we were in the grips of what amounted to a "panic-demic." However, the panic hadn't sprung up spontaneously; I felt sure that it was, in fact, being orchestrated. Yet though I didn't believe the hype, I couldn't help but feel continually in the grips of demoralization as every day brought a new litany of announcements of closings. Conventions, concert tours, and other long-planned events all were either scuttled or indefinitely "postponed." Schools closed their doors for the remainder of the year, relegating students to hastily thrown-together online education; churches likewise ceased to operate or dispense the Sacraments to the faithful, instead offering only "streaming services" to their congregants.
The accumulated effect of this seemingly neverending string of shutdowns-- culminating of course in the infamous "stay at home" order relegating billions of people to the sudden status of house arrest, and the elimination of all jobs not deemed "essential," leading surely to dire economic circumstances-- was nothing if not funereal. At around this time, I recorded a video entitled "The Closings Will Continue Until Morale Improves," in which I formulated the notion that it seemed there was something purposeful in the manner with which normalcy as we knew it was taken away from us suddenly, with little warning, in the twinkling of an eye, on dubious if not non-existent legal grounds.
Then the "lockdown" really went into full effect. Restaurants, malls, movie theaters, and most other public places of leisure were forcibly closed down by order of some petty state, county, or municipal tyrant citing "emergency powers." And then came the technocratic babble justifying house arrest, ("shelter in place") and effectively preventing fraternization with friends or colleagues, ("social distancing."). Demoralization continued apace. Most ascribed their grim thoughts to fear of this solemnly-announced pandemic, now called "Covid-19," but in fact, the origin of such sentiment was much more likely ascribable to the nonstop message, communicated by both state and media sources, that the lockdown would never really end, that the new, suddenly-imposed dispensation was well-nigh permanent, and that we would all just have to adjust to a "new normal."
The phrase "new normal" was in fact circulated relentlessly, again, in a seemingly systemic manner, as if, like "social distancing" and "sheltering in place," it were being intentionally injected into our collective mind. One could even be forgiven for feeling that there was something eerily ritualistic about it all, like we were being primed for a transformation by our "betters," who were eager to make us over into something entirely "novel," which could only be achieved first by breaking us down through systematic infliction of trauma and by the relentless pummeling of weaponized demoralization.
4. THE 'NEW NORMAL' AND ITS DISCONTENTS
Even if one ignores nakedly draconian "stay at home" orders still in effect across much of the world, and defiantly opts to leave his place of residence whenever,however, and for whatever reasons he pleases, out of a certain quaint belief in an unalienable right to personal liberty, he will still run into certain difficulties, given current circumstances.
For even if such a hearty soul manages to avoid getting fined, jailed, or otherwise molested by overzealous goons dispatched by some petty tyrant to punish dissent against an inherently unconstitutional edict, issued under a dubious claim to "emergency powers," and even if such a defiant one manages not to run afoul of snitch-happy neighbors, primed to snoop on malcontents and report miscreant behavior to authorities, he will still run up against a certain insurmountable problem: namely that, once he leaves his home, there is basically nowhere for him to go.
Public parks, he finds, are cordoned off with yellow tape, as if they were crime scenes. Access to beaches and other recreational areas are boarded up. Malls, bars, restaurants, and movie theaters are closed, basketball hoops and tennis nets have been removed from public play areas; games and competitive events have been altogether discontinued. So after a desultory journey of general futility, he will return to his domicile, little better for wear, his mental state altogether unrefreshed.
For such as him, the lockdown, which he defiantly resisted, became instead an effective lockout. He was able to escape house arrest, only to emerge into what has effectively become a "prison planet," whose rulers seem bent on causing him to feel enslaved even when he moves from his "in-place shelter," like one whose onerous bonds and heavy chains follow him wherever he goes, weighing him down in both body and spirit.
What is more, he soon discovers that he has lost his job, on account of it being deemed "nonessential." He will presently receive a stimulus check from the government, of course, but those funds are unlikely to keep him afloat until the lockdown ends and things finally return to normal. What is more, he finds himself blitzed by demoralization propaganda, telling him that "normalcy" will in fact never arrive, and that he must instead prepare for the dawning of a nascent dispensation that his betters and their minions are now confidently declaring to be "the new normal."
This ominously ballyhooed "new normal," or "new way of life," he ascertains, will invariably (of course) involve greater restrictions on liberty of thought, speech, assembly, and movement. It will also be infinitely drearier and generally more bound up in irritating restrictions and obnoxious regulations.
And such was seemingly the point of this whole exercise from the very beginning. Even as we were first given our marching orders, to "stay home," "socially distance," and "shelter in place" indefinitely for the ostensible sake of public health, we were at the same time, it seems, determinedly demoralized by the same order-givers, who from the start went out of their way to be exhaustive dispellers of cheer and nonstop purveyors of doom and gloom.
Indeed, their carefully curated portrayal of this ostensibly "newly normed" future was something very like the Orwellian dictum of "a boot kicking a human face, forever." The drudgery, they intimated, would be unrelenting and would last months, years, even decades. Our faces would indeed get kicked many times, and we would just have to learn to tolerate such abuse. It was unfortunate, of course, but highly necessary, and ultimately for our own good (even if it made us miserable).
*************
The attempted normalization of the so-called "new normal" continues apace. Passivity, we are advised, would really be our best option on this front, since, it is implied, we really have little say on the matter, it being most assuredly above our pay grade. Best to leave such decisions to the experts, no? Complicity is urged upon us, even as we are shown an entirely grim picture of what will become of us once we do properly acquiesce to the designs of our betters.
It all makes for a quite peculiar style of propagandistic manipulation, since it features not the typical "threatening with a stick while enticing with a carrot" method favored by most social engineers. Today's manipulators seem, in fact, only to be brandishing sticks; instead of warning of pain while offering pleasure, we (their unwitting experimental subjects) are instead asked to volunteer for the supposedly right kind of pain, while scrupulously avoiding pain of the wrong kind.; pleasure, meanwhile, seems to have been altogether removed from consideration.
For example, if a person declines to wear a mask, or refuses invasive disease-detection testing or tracking, or opts not to be injected with any future vaccines, he will run the risk of being fined, arrested, or not allowed to travel freely, given the now openly-announced plans to mark vaccinated folk with a "tattoo" signifying their societal acceptability.
So we are urged to be compliant, lest we receive a lashing of the "stick" of condemnation and social disfavor. But then, where is the "carrot" for the loyal and compliant?
Surprisingly, things are projected as altogether grim, even for those who readily leap through every proferred hoop, who obediently "stay home," losing their jobs and letting the economy tank at the behest of their ascendant masters; who only go out when absolutely necessary and always "mask up" whenever outside the house, who rush to queue at the local clinic when those same ascendant masters command them to offer up their veins for a needled syringe larded with all the latest junk deemed fit for their bloodstreams... Yet for all of their needful acquiescences, such people receive precious little encouragement.
Instead, if current rhetorical trends are any indication, these compliant citizens will only be perpetually told that the struggle is far from over, that sacrifices must continue to be made, that nothing will ever be normal again, so it is best simply to adjust their life expectations in order to conform with whatever their ascendant masters now declare the "new normal" to be.
5. THE RHETORIC OF FAILURE
by Andy Nowicki
It is a bit mystifying, considering prevalent manipulation tactics and typical Machiavellian machinations, why the compliant citizen in post-pandemic America isn't even allowed any "reward" for his obedience to his masters, but instead is only treated to an indeterminate spate of grim, gray subservience, compounded by forced isolation and increased absence of privacy, all inflicted upon him for the sake of some supposed "greater good," the fruits of which he will seemingly never be enabled to enjoy.
One can only think of another mass propaganda effort, namely war, and a certain master demagogue in particular: Winston Churchill.
Most of the speeches delivered by this bald, rotund, altogether physically unprepossessing Prime Minister during World War II are now looked upon as inspirational triumphs of soaring rhetoric, yet when one examines the content of these radio-delivered missives, one is in fact struck by how very little is offered in the way of comfort, cheer, or resolution, only a constant demand that citizens ceaselessly strain for the sake of the war effort, their collective struggle to be marked by the steady stream of "blood, sweat, and tears" sure to issue forth endlessly from their persons as they suffer and perish in a war generated by a spat between rival ruling factions, each seeking world domination.
Most of the speeches delivered by this bald, rotund, altogether physically unprepossessing Prime Minister during World War II are now looked upon as inspirational triumphs of soaring rhetoric, yet when one examines the content of these radio-delivered missives, one is in fact struck by how very little is offered in the way of comfort, cheer, or resolution, only a constant demand that citizens ceaselessly strain for the sake of the war effort, their collective struggle to be marked by the steady stream of "blood, sweat, and tears" sure to issue forth endlessly from their persons as they suffer and perish in a war generated by a spat between rival ruling factions, each seeking world domination.
This conflict which at its essence had little relevance to the lives of ordinary Britishers but was instead visited upon them by their rulers, who in turn saw fit to sacrifice their "lessers" in order that their own exalted ends of a transformed society might be realized.
For it is crucial to note that Churchill in these speeches is not demanding greater effort from himself or his fellow rulers, who, with their shared positions of rank and status, were largely impervious to the death and destruction then ravaging much of the population. Though he used the pronoun "we" in his stirring invocation to resist the invaders ("We shall fight them in the air, fight them on the beach," etc.), this was a disingenuous rhetorical feint on his part; it would have been much more honest, albeit far less persuasive, to declare, "YOU will fight them in the air and on the beach, and wherever else... while my high-level friends and I stand by and occasionally deliver high-minded oratories as you lot get menaced, maimed, and murdered for the sake of our exalted cause..."
*************
Today, our ruling claque commonly excludes themselves from the obligations attendant upon the "emergency powers" they illegitimately use to impose tyrannical edicts upon the populace. They jet around the globe while making ordinary citizens stay in their houses under penalty of law; they casually claim exemptions, often on the most hilariously specious of grounds, to the very onerous and draconian measures they push on their subjects.
Yet like Churchill, our contemporary public spokesmen attempt to set a solemn tone, invoking a need for their lessers to be agreeable to greater austerity, further restrictions, and the wholesale forsaking of "normalcy," in favor of the obligatorily invoked "new normal," yet few if any contemporary demagogue-wannabes possess Churchill's oratorical chops; as a result, their rhetorical efforts prove feeble and mostly ineffectual.
 |
| Mayor Lightfoot... you're no Winston Churchill! |
The near future will likely see an escalating tension between habitually "compliant" citizens-- those forever eager to conform but growing ever more weary of the death march-like slog they are continually being coerced into performing at the behest of their betters-- and the "betters" themselves who, in their zeal to instill docility amongst their "lessers," run a constant risk of carelessly overreaching in their arrogance... and thus fanning the flames of angry revolt.
6. THE PANIC-DEMIC UNLEASHED
7. THE 'YOU'RE KILLING GRANDMA!!" LIE
6. THE PANIC-DEMIC UNLEASHED
"There's panic on the streets of London," caterwauled the prophetic Morrissey several decades ago. "Could life ever be sane again?" he mournfully inquired. In the wake of the "panic" that he foresaw, normalcy had gone out the window, never to return.
Seemingly the only solution to this irrepressible "panic," was revolution, which he metaphorically formulated in the song as an act of violence against a nightclub: "Burn down the disco, hang the blessed DJ/ Cuz the music they constantly play don't say nothing to me about my life."
That predicted panic has arrived, but the streets of London and most other cities of the world are now largely empty. Shops, restaurants, and theaters are boarded up, and citizens are coerced to stay indoors, whilst their livelihoods dissipate and the economic conditions of the laboring class grows ever more desperate, due to edicts issued by those metaphorical "DJs" of Morrissey's vision, who are milking the "panic-demic" to full malignant effect.
One wonders, under such conditions, if it might not in fact be high time to do as the song invites the listener to do: namely, to "burn down the (proverbial) disco" and (metaphorically, of course) "hang the blessed DJ." Such a notion certainly ought not be neglected, in any case, given the sort of nightmare world those nefarious "DJs" have created.
 |
| "DJ" Bill Gates gets creampied |
There are, of course, certain panics which arise spontaneously, while others are contrived, orchestrated, and shamelessly stoked. Here we clearly have an instance of the latter. Again, we need only compare the current state of things to prior responses to similar events (discussed in a prior segment of this extended essay) in the recent past in order to glean that in this case, drastic and extreme rhetoric is being marshaled to create a climate of fear, dread, and terror that is all out of kilter with the facts at hand.
Corporate media has been instrumental in relentlessly pushing this panic-demic. it is of course true that at times media outlets sensationalize events with no agenda in mind beyond garnering ratings, gaining clicks, or collecting advertising revenue. While lurid tales of fearful events and frightful eventualities are often exploited for merely mercantile benefits, there are also times when the numerous factions of the media establishment evidently pool their collective forces; ceasing temporarily to be competitors, they instead become intent on promulgating a shared message, which has been handed down from a higher source, to whom they all appear to owe unbounded fealty.
The degree of monolithic coordination that we have lately seen on this front with respect to virus-related issues has been astounding indeed. it has extended from the news media to all major corporate entities; they have stood as one in promoting panic and pushing the now notorious triumverate of behavioral recommendations: "Stay at home; wear a mask; practice social distancing." They likewise support the lockdown of businesses and the shuttering of the economy; provided, that is, that these businesses are deemed "inessential."
 |
| Implicit message: "'Inessential' employees are losers" |
Interestingly (and surely uncoincidentally), most of the rich, powerful corporate entities are excluded from this forced lockdown; thus Walmart, McDonalds, Target, Amazon.com, and other massive global conglomerates remain open for business, while their smaller, less influential "mom and pop" alternatives are forced to close up shop under the novel dictates of the new "viral dispensation."
Yet in spite of this illegitimate seizure of the market, under the pretext of "emergency powers," with state and corporate authorities operating in blatantly monopolistic tandem, one nevertheless gathers that the operation has not been undertaken merely for financial motivations. For one thing, these organizations already exert maximum monetary pull. Though one may always be greedy for more, in the case of these entities, there really isn't too much to gain when you already own most of the proverbial pie.
Instead, their collective endeavor displays naked collusion toward another end entirely. In fact, it is precisely this readily apparent oligopoly they have formed which casts into bold relief their actual intentions; for it is precisely in this collusive conglomerate that their employment of panic-mongering and "fear porn" is employed for maximum impact upon a captive populace.
 |
| A capitve populace forced to consume Covid-19 fear porn |
7. THE 'YOU'RE KILLING GRANDMA!!" LIE
by Andy Nowicki
Every tyrannical regime aims to encourage a conviction of passivity among those it aims to exploit and oppress. Yet such psychological campaigns are typically most effective when dressed up in rhetorical stealth.
To declare definitively "We own you, you are our slaves, you must do as we say, because you have no real choice in the matter," would be giving the game away; it would in fact run the risk of waking people up to the raw deal they've been sold, instead of persuading them to acquiesce to it.
Lately, there has been a concerted effort among corporate advertisers and establishment PR apparatchiks to induce a sense of helplessness in the viewer/consumer/citizen. As with coined slogans like the now notorious "New Normal," the purpose of these PSA-type spots concocted by such immensely well-funded and sophisticated entities is to reinforce the ostensible normalcy of dysfunction, despondency, and demoralization.
To declare definitively "We own you, you are our slaves, you must do as we say, because you have no real choice in the matter," would be giving the game away; it would in fact run the risk of waking people up to the raw deal they've been sold, instead of persuading them to acquiesce to it.
Lately, there has been a concerted effort among corporate advertisers and establishment PR apparatchiks to induce a sense of helplessness in the viewer/consumer/citizen. As with coined slogans like the now notorious "New Normal," the purpose of these PSA-type spots concocted by such immensely well-funded and sophisticated entities is to reinforce the ostensible normalcy of dysfunction, despondency, and demoralization.
Take the HBO-sponsored spot, "It's OK to not feel OK (sic)," in which one celebrity after another speaks of facing debilitating mental problems coping with the effects of the announced "pandemic" and the consequent "lockdown."
Once the grim 90 second montage of futility is over, the viewer has been cruelly drained of any sense of hope of rising above his depression, which (as he has been subtly instructed) has been inflicted upon him by powerful forces that he can neither reckon with nor control; under the guise of phony compassion, he has basically been instructed to be miserable; still more, to know that misery is surely his destiny in this new, developing dispensation, this "brave new normal," and that he should forget any plans to avoid or circumnavigate it.
Indeed, he must endure misery because he has been conditioned to panic and be fearful, and has been solemnly scolded never to be so arrogant as to question the veracity of his conditioning. The virus, he is told, has the potential to wreak enormous havoc unless we all adhere unquestioningly to certain radical measures: staying at home as much as possible, always wearing masks, and remaining an arbitrary distance-- six feet-' from one another at all times.
The panic-stricken and misery-conditioned are, however, given a means of venting the bile that has been built up in their collective spleen by regularly indulging in rages-- "Two Minutes Hate"-style-- against those miscreants who have the gall to leave their homes, go maskless, and question the efficacy of the "six foot" social distancing rule. For such scofflaws as these, the orchestrators of the panic-demic have invented a novel means of shaming and reproach, whereby the disobedient and non-compliant are called to task for alleged recklessness bordering on the homicidal; it is alleged that, by their refusal to remain on house arrest, their disregard for masking, and their lack of respect for effectuality of social distancing, they are in fact not just putting themselves at risk, but are moreover guilty of spreading the disease to those most vulnerable to die from it.
Because of their naughty refusal to live as ones imprisoned, or wear garments that have been regarded as generally ineffective at disease-prevention-- is a cloth mask not a permeable fabric?-- the non-compliant are now, incredibly, vilified as virtual murderers.
Those promoting such absurd regulation talking points must be challenged, and challenged aggressively, concerning these dubious and highly irresponsible claims. it is well worth noting that mankind has lived for centuries through epidemics far deadlier than the current one (which isn't raising the bar that high, since, as noted, the current epidemic is not terribly deadly). In fact, as stated previously, each year "flu season" proves fatal for tens of thousands of people, sometimes more. Yet at no time previously, even during the spread of far worse contagious diseases, were the healthy held responsible for the vulnerable getting sick (or what has often become known as the "You're killing grandma through your non-compliance!!!" line of argument).
Instead, throughout the history of health care, during epidemics, including flu seasons whose casualty numbers match or exceed the number of Covid-19 deaths it was the vulnerable who were urged to take precautions during such circumstances. The healhy weren't castigated for visiting crowded areas, but those with frail constitutions-- the so-called "grandmas"-- were warned against putting themselves at risk of contracting a virus which might prove fatal.
The current effort, then, to cast guilt and shame upon healthy people who resist draconian lockdowns which absurdly limit the movement of the well rather than quarantining the sick, must be recognized as an entirely unprecedented and utterly unreasonable mindset, with its root in truly poisonous propaganda designed to stigmatize, even pathologize, dissenting behavior.
In fact, no person who makes use of his inalienable right to go where he pleases, when he pleases (while of course respecting private property and national borders) can or should ever be assessed as guilty of indulging in untenable, much less homicidal behavior, provided of course that he refrain from doing obviously reckless things, such as coughing, sneezing, or breathing on "grandma," or otherwise behaving in a manner which might be held reasonably to be injurious.
8. THAT 'FLU GAME' OF '97 IN CURRENT CONTEXT
Once the grim 90 second montage of futility is over, the viewer has been cruelly drained of any sense of hope of rising above his depression, which (as he has been subtly instructed) has been inflicted upon him by powerful forces that he can neither reckon with nor control; under the guise of phony compassion, he has basically been instructed to be miserable; still more, to know that misery is surely his destiny in this new, developing dispensation, this "brave new normal," and that he should forget any plans to avoid or circumnavigate it.
Indeed, he must endure misery because he has been conditioned to panic and be fearful, and has been solemnly scolded never to be so arrogant as to question the veracity of his conditioning. The virus, he is told, has the potential to wreak enormous havoc unless we all adhere unquestioningly to certain radical measures: staying at home as much as possible, always wearing masks, and remaining an arbitrary distance-- six feet-' from one another at all times.
*************
Because of their naughty refusal to live as ones imprisoned, or wear garments that have been regarded as generally ineffective at disease-prevention-- is a cloth mask not a permeable fabric?-- the non-compliant are now, incredibly, vilified as virtual murderers.
Those promoting such absurd regulation talking points must be challenged, and challenged aggressively, concerning these dubious and highly irresponsible claims. it is well worth noting that mankind has lived for centuries through epidemics far deadlier than the current one (which isn't raising the bar that high, since, as noted, the current epidemic is not terribly deadly). In fact, as stated previously, each year "flu season" proves fatal for tens of thousands of people, sometimes more. Yet at no time previously, even during the spread of far worse contagious diseases, were the healthy held responsible for the vulnerable getting sick (or what has often become known as the "You're killing grandma through your non-compliance!!!" line of argument).
Instead, throughout the history of health care, during epidemics, including flu seasons whose casualty numbers match or exceed the number of Covid-19 deaths it was the vulnerable who were urged to take precautions during such circumstances. The healhy weren't castigated for visiting crowded areas, but those with frail constitutions-- the so-called "grandmas"-- were warned against putting themselves at risk of contracting a virus which might prove fatal.
The current effort, then, to cast guilt and shame upon healthy people who resist draconian lockdowns which absurdly limit the movement of the well rather than quarantining the sick, must be recognized as an entirely unprecedented and utterly unreasonable mindset, with its root in truly poisonous propaganda designed to stigmatize, even pathologize, dissenting behavior.
In fact, no person who makes use of his inalienable right to go where he pleases, when he pleases (while of course respecting private property and national borders) can or should ever be assessed as guilty of indulging in untenable, much less homicidal behavior, provided of course that he refrain from doing obviously reckless things, such as coughing, sneezing, or breathing on "grandma," or otherwise behaving in a manner which might be held reasonably to be injurious.
8. THAT 'FLU GAME' OF '97 IN CURRENT CONTEXT
 | ||||||||||||||
Flu-stricken Jordan supported by
teammate Scottie Pippin
That this absurd mindset has now to a large extent taken over, rendering human beings little more than penned-in cattle, testifies to the unfortunate degree to which propaganda is effective when promoted in an atmosphere of smothering fear and insufferable panic.
Yet I recall a time, not at all long ago, when such notions would have struck everyone as totally alien. In early January of this current year, for example, I fell ill of a malady which was diagnosed as "the flu." Yet in spite of this diagnosis, no one at that time sternly instructed me never to leave my home or to quarantine myself indefinitely.
During the course of my illness, even though I was certifiably sick (not just "potentially sick," as the healthy are commonly regarded now in our new "clown world"-worthy dispensation), I did not utterly lock myself away from everyone, though when around others I did take reasonable precautions to avoid potentially infecting them.
Indeed, prior to March of 2020, those ill with colds or flu were at times even commended for continuing to work in the midst of their sickness, for doing so demonstrated their commitment to their work ethic.
*************
A conspicuous instance of this mindset was displayed in the sports world during the 1997 NBA playoffs, when superstar Micheal Jordan, though reportedly ill with the flu, nevertheless played 44 grueling minutes through pain, fever, and nausea, leading his Chicago Bulls to victory against the Utah Jazz in Game 5 of the tightly-contested series.
At the time, Jordan's performance was lauded as a heroic instance of a champion rising above adversity. It is still generally regarded as such by sports historians. Yet from the perspective of today, with the draconian edicts that have been of late promulgated by our current rulers and enforced by their paid, state-hired goons, Jordan's behavior would be deemed far from heroic.
Today, in fact, people who are perfectly healthy, displaying no symptoms of illness, are still routinely chided for violating lockdown protocols-- since (the argument goes) they may be carriers of the sickness, and thus in interacting with anyone they are probably helping to spread the infection to people who are vulnerable to grave illness, even death, i.e., the "You're killing grandma!" argument.
Yet Micheal Jordan-- though at the time suffering from apparent influenza, a contagious illness which often kills hundreds of thousands of people per year-- was praised for doing what the architects of the new dispensation would decry as reprehensibly irresponsible behavior!
The obvious questions, to stave off a veritable plague of cognitive dissonance, are the following:
(1) If Micheal Jordan's choice to play while seemingly sick with a highly contagious and often deadly ailment was heroic, NOT irresponsible, much less homicidal back in 1997, during a time when-- as with every flu season--huge numbers of people were perishing from the flu, then why would it not be heroic today?
(2) Conversely, if it is truly behaviorally reprehensible to go into public in close proximity with others (race riots notwithstanding) during a time of a highly contagious epidemic, even when one displays NO symptoms, simply because one COULD have the illness and therefore COULD hypothetically spread it to others, including vulnerable "grandmas" who COULD die from it, then how could it have been inspringly heroic of Micheal Jordan to play while sick with the flu during the 1997 playoffs?
If one tries to hold that Jordan's choice to play in 1997 was justified and admirable, but that it wouldn't be justified or admirable today, then one is in an untenable contradiction. But if one dared to assert that playing while sick in 2020 would be equally as heroic as it was in 1997, then one's very consistency marks one as a dangerous wrongthinker who is "anti-science."
Yet the modern-day cultural commissars who fling such vituperative slurs have yet to explain how such new protocols are justified in current circumstances, but were not applicable to past circumstances which in fact closely resemble those of today.
Such rhetorical dissonance is of course perfectly harmonious with the overall discordant cacophony of nonsense being spouted by the mouthpieces of our new "viral dispensation," which seeks conditioned mass compliance through the imposition of arbitrary edicts designed to enhance the power and control of our "reptilian" rulers.
9. THE FLIPPING OF THE 'FLOYD' SWITCH
As May gives way to June, a switch appears to have been flipped, having the effect of ripping the populace from the maw of one psy-op and flinging them headlong into the teeth of another.
Indeed, the "lockdown" paradigm seems practically to have disappeared overnight, making way for a massive and well-funded campaign of orchestrated street agitation in multiple cities in the wake of George (aka "Pink") Floyd's apparent street execution by murderously overzealous cops in Minneapolis.
In the days which followed Floyd's death,, thousands of people showed up to protest (and for some, "protest" was clearly a euphemism for "riot"), gathering in close proximity and in numbers clearly verboten under "lockdown" protocols. Yet nearly all lockdown proponents and enforcers--including numerous governors who instituted particularly draconian "stay at home" rules — abruptly became supporters of these demonstrations, with many even enthusiasticaly joining in.
After months of authorities outlawing public funerals and barring worshippers access to church services, George ("Pink") Floyd was granted a massive mourning ceremony, which gave the painfully feckless Minneapolis mayor a chance to kneel before the coffin and affect a bout of copious sobbing, an unspeakably egregious display of grief-grandstanding for the cameras.
The blatant hypocrisy showcased by these shame-free politicians has been noticed by many. It highlights a certain nagging question that lingers in many people's minds. Namely, if this virus were truly so deadly that everyone needed to hole up in their homes indefinitely, until that happy day arrived when our Lord and Savior Bill Gates conjured up a vaccine to save us all, then on what grounds was this dispensation granted for hordes of people to violate the repressive tenets that had been so avidly, doggedly, rabidly enforced for nearly three months' time?
Of course the lockdown protocols have not technically been rescinded; they are (in writing anyhow) still in effect across much of the world, and it is unlikely that this circumstance will change anytime soon. Now, however, a conspicuous crack has formed in the lockdown promoters' already shaky foundation of bogus rhetoric, dubious assertions, and outright lies.
From this time forward, that is, it will become increasingly difficult to take the virus psyop seriously, since our rulers' supposedly zealous concern for our health and well-being can be so blithely cast aside, without even anything resembling deliberation.
*************
One almost suspects that this latest orchestrated crisis might be designed to inject the willfully compliant with an even larger, possibly lethal dose of cognitive dissonance.
For now, such people as these find themselves thrust into a truly intellectually untenable double-bind. Those very authoritarians who claim the right to rule us have thoughtlessly violated the principle of non-contradiction. After mandating that everyone must stay indoors and keep apart from one another, else be castigated as grandma-killin' ne'er-do- wells, they then immediately rushed out of their homes and into large, tightly-packed crowds of people for the sake of obtaining a virtue-signaling photo op, thus rendering themselves, according to their own rhetoric, irresponsible, disease-spreading miscreants guilty of "grandma-cide" by proxy.
For those who fully bought the virus hype, and obediently guzzled down the corona- Koolaid, it must be deeply flummoxing to witness the most ardent upholders of these dogmas suddenly behave as though they were, all along, predicated upon a meticulously-crafted scam.
10. CELEBRATING THE 'ESSENTIAL'
|
Great
ReplyDeleteExcellent stuff.
ReplyDelete