In following the debate that’s happening during and post-Covid I’ve had a chance to hear many different viewpoints. Many of us rail against the corruption of our medical system such that the massive abuses of the physician/patient relationship, of physician independence, and of scientific integrity— to name but a few of the abuses— could take place.
One of the salient points concerning Covid was the creation of police-state conditions such that the police could be called if one didn’t wear a mask, for example, or else kept a non-essential business open. Even today doctors are being persecuted by their hospitals and state boards for countering the dictums of the CDC, for speaking up against state authorities who determine what shall and shall not be an appropriate stance toward what they say.
Let’s remember here that the historical justification for the right to criticize the government was to root out “bad ministers,” i.e., corruption. Through censorship of criticism it would appear, though, that the current authorities wish incompetence and corruption to remain hidden.
I believe the core problem we’re facing isn’t one of a corrupt medical establishment and a corrupt scientific establishment that would publish misleading science in order to support ideology, even though surely this anti-science policy— masquerading as science— is one of the most reprehensible aspects of our current milieu. But consider that if physicians had been able to speak freely and openly to criticize such abuses of science and weren’t censored, unconstitutionally, by our government acting through big tech (see Missouri v Biden) then the abuses of science would’ve seen at least some checks and balances and citizens would’ve had recourse to arguments against the official science and ‘data’ put out by the authorities.
I believe the core problem we’re facing isn’t biomedical or scientific in nature but rather is that of an unwieldy government (“the state”) acting against the people: an expansive bureaucratic state with the ability to impose police conditions on society at whim, and now controlled by factions within and without our own government that stand to gain from their ability to call upon police powers to enforce the plans they’ve made for us. These factions include globalist alliances.
Our real enemy now is quite simply the state and its power over us, such that it was able to create a medical police state and can do so again. Yet instead of focusing on the real enemy, I’m hearing arguments of why this person or that person is controlled opposition, or debate about how much forgiveness or not we should give those who perpetuated the harmful Covid policies, or whether or not viruses exist. So long as the state has undue power over us, none of this matters. So long as an arbitrary police state can happen, it doesn’t matter who we want to hang— the state will simply dismiss our claims, censor us, and perhaps imprison us for thought-crimes (after all, now our thoughts and expressions are considered “cognitive infrastructure” under state jurisdiction to “protect our democracy.” Can anything be more Orwellian?)
The state depends on a “we’re all in this together” compliant mentality such as seen during High Covid. We heard that the non-compliant would kill granny, a version of the “we’re all in this together” meme. But what exactly was “this” that we were all in? It was simply the exercise of state power over the individual justified by an appeal to the collective good, and masquerading as the pseudoscience of “following the data.” But, whose data, and how was it selected? Challenges to this data were censored in favor of the dominant narrative leading to lockdowns and medical mandates imposed by governments and private entities. What we were “all in together” was an exercise of state power over us disguised as a medical emergency, but which emergency would have quietly dissipated had not medical voices advocating for early treatment, for example, been viciously censored by the state and by those who erroneously trusted and depended on the state for guidance. Censorship was an essential element of state power in warping Covid guidance to make it a bastardization of true public health, which handles medical challenges rationally without destruction of the social fabric or the creation of a medical police state.
The core problem we’re facing today is that our governments— and especially that of the United States, designed to check and balance overbearing state power— are on the whole becoming more and more like police states. Many recognize this fight against the makings of a police state as the core fight while still others are engaged in arguments which, while important in a society wherein the freedom to speak without penalty is taken for granted, are less relevant in a society wherein the ability to speak freely is itself in danger.
The road to totalitarianism is paved in censorship by the state and censorship’s partner, propaganda, and as I’ve expressed before, this road has been cloaked by the insistence that totalitarianism is actually a psychological phenomenon of “mass formation” derived from mechanistic thinking, itself derived from Enlightenment reason. This is a pure distraction from the agency of the state in totalitarianism and fails to recognize that the mass formation during Covid was induced by factions within our own government, attempting to control the populace through deliberately planned censorship and propaganda. The seduction of this theory of mass formation is that we did indeed see something we could call “mass formation,” and seeing this, we then thought that the theory of the psychology of totalitarianism must be correct. But the cause of mass formation was hidden from us: the mass formation was induced by massive and unrelenting censorship and propaganda, not spontaneous and nearly inevitable because of the supposed masses of mechanistic thinkers. This massive censorship and propaganda effort is the causal chain that the popular book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, shrouds.
High Covid was a political exercise, not a medical emergency, and the apparent goal of that exercise was to subjugate the people to police state conditions under the guise of a medical necessity which simply wouldn’t have existed in the first place, had the state not engaged in massive censorship of views opposed to its erroneous, absurd, and un-scientific policies. Thus the policing of thought, of opinion, was the origin of the abuses of public health we witnessed during Covid and are witnessing now, even as this policing remains invisible to those attuned favorably to the censorship/propaganda machine, and too trusting of the state benevolence and power that our founders knew well was a double-edged, dangerous, and ultimately liberty-killing sword.
The Death of the Technocracy as a Viable Social Program
Many of us understand that behind the perversion of science that was Covid and is continuing now are entities like the WEF and the WHO, whose backing factions are invested in a philosophy of technocracy (but likely only to give a veneer of legitimacy, an allure of “science.”) The idea is that technology and data can guide us in the future and that we should “follow the data,” and indeed we were primed for this new world of technocracy—a Great Reset— through incessant incantations during Covid that our leaders were merely following data. Yet it’s an article of faith among even minimally competent scientists that data can be selected, sliced and diced to say virtually anything, and a certain amount of honesty, objectivity, and good-will has to applied to any assessment of data. This honesty, objectivity, and good-will were wholly lacking in the authoritarian science presented to us not only by our own CDC and FDA, but even by the supposedly objective medical journals, many of which instead gave us abundant censorship, conflicting and confusing assessments, and statements contrary to public health measures accepted as valid and sane prior to Covid, not to mention attacks against remarkably safe drugs that many physicians were advocating to prevent serious Covid. Instead of honesty and objectivity we got groupthink driven by institutional, technocratic-leaning authorities who abused data to promote their narratives of how the world should run.
So, then, if a society is to be ruled by data as the WEF technocrats suppose, and if we’re to be hackable animals who, for the greater good, can be subjected to such things as airborne vaccines or public-health-oriented tracking tattoos— against our consent and supposedly for the greater good that the cabal of technocrats have decided for us— then of course this necessitates only the purest, most objective, most comprehensive data to point the path to least harm and greatest good. Not only that, but this massive power to control, through data, requires a benevolent government that would never use this power against the people, and that would be beyond corruption.
Such an animal doesn’t exist.
This is what Covid showed us about the technocratic dream: it’s a hollow, washed-up fantasy that can never succeed in a real world of impure motives and power grabs and the very real possibility— exhibited as reality during Covid— that all of this seeming technocratic purity is a stinking mess of self-importance and aggrandizement. At the very least, “the data” harmed and killed people, it destroyed businesses and incomes, it rent the social fabric, it hobbled our children, it made the frail and old to die alone in isolated hospitals, and it enabled tyrants.
Technocracy has shown us its true colors and as a social philosophy, it’s dead. Nothing can resurrect it from the mire into which it has sunk; it’s sustained now only by the vain hopes of those who refuse to see it for what it is. It lives on, hobbling, only because of pie-in-the-sky idealists supported by factions who want nothing more than to see liberty and freedom die by its hand. The ideology of technocracy is no more than a tool for seduction, part of the censorship and propaganda campaign that’s the true origins of totalitarianism.
The allure of technology, though, is that it bestows power to those who own it. Thus, the on-going secret projects of advanced governments (such as the bioweapons labs that were largely secret prior to Covid) allow them great power over those who hardly suspect that such technology exists. Although as a viable philosophy technocracy is dead, the actual power of advanced weaponry is very much alive. By now this power is beyond any reasonable constraints; the challenge of humanity is to recognize this and work to dismantle it. How? By challenging the authority to hold such weapons in the first place and by deciding that we want a civilization of peace, instead of unrelenting wars, and by deciding that we can no longer afford to be ruled by the insane.
I'd add that I don't think we should be ruled by anyone. We can keep decisions local, a concept known as subsidiarity, wherein problems are handled at the most local authority. This runs completely counter to the ideas of the globalists who want their fingers in everyone's pie.
We never needed a global answer to Covid as it could've been handled perfectly well at the local level. We don't need a global answer to CO2 because CO2 catastrophe isn't real.
But what we do need, I think, is a re-vamped International Criminal Court and severe penalties for using technology to harm, hinder, control or surveil the population, regardless of whether this is done knowingly or not. Imagine the power of technology 50 years hence. We have to ensure this isn't used against the people, and stop the current abuses.
So, to circle back to other concerns, whether or not viruses exist pales in comparison to the problem of encroaching technological control. It's not even an issue, in my book, even if viruses don't exist.
I feel as if I'm clapping (vigorously) in an empty theatre! You have nailed the situation so well.