Tactics of the Propagandists: Part 2

Millennia-old wisdom of war has held that a people are easier to conquer if they are divided. There is strength in solidarity, so fragmenting and inciting in-fighting in your enemy will significantly diminish their resilience. Lockdown propagandists have utilized this tactic to weaken resistance to the rights violations. By shaming and viciously slandering people who are not socially distancing, they have incited hatred for these folks among the general public.  

Anyone resisting the rights violations is branded an idiot and enemy of society. Propagandists have convinced most people that these are people to be hated, shamed, and rejected. Snitch lines are everywhere and can hardly keep up with demand from people reporting their own neighbors for having over some friends. Long-time patrons of restaurants now do not hesitate to have their own favorite dig shut down for not enforcing the 2 meter distancing rule. 

By ‘othering’ and inciting hatred towards people resisting rights infringements, lockdown conspirators keep the public’s attention off of themselves and onto these brave innocent citizens. Organizing to stand up for civil liberties has become almost impossible because there are so many self-appointed enforcers looking to punish anyone pro-freedom.

There has never been a more important time for a vigorous and open public discussion on wellbeing, health, and death because there has never been as large a threat to wellbeing, health, and life expectancy as social distancing. No such debate has occurred, however. Social distancing apologists have been able to prevent any discussion of these issues. The only health-related issue discussed in newspapers, radio, or television is “How to decrease exposure to coronavirus.” 

Obviously, every factor affecting wellbeing needs to be considered in lifestyle and public policy decisions. It makes no sense to base health policy based on a single factor of health. It is now actually taboo to discuss the topic “What is best for health?” Only “What is best to limit SARS-CoV-2 exposure?” is an acceptable topic in a world enveloped by Xi Jinping’s lockdown cult.

I wonder how many people have even noticed the peculiar and indefensible limitation of public discussion to coronavirus contagion? Have people not found it odd that there is not so much of a word spoken publicly about what is best for general health? People have become extremely submissive and passive since the Wuhan virus outbreak, especially in how they think. We are told to stop thinking and let our rulers think for us. And we have.

The narrow topic of coronavirus contagion is even odd to substitute for a discussion about COVID. COVID-19 is an illness, so why is there no discussion about treatment and prevention? The media actually lambasts anyone who brings up treatment options and tries to discredit treatments with good evidence of effectiveness like HCQ. 

There are effective, evidence-based ways to prevent a COVID illness, including vitamin D supplementation and anything that strengthens the immune system, such as exercise and smoking cessation. Strangely, doctors have been silenced from educating the public on prevention of coronavirus infection. The media only permits discussion about preventing exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Not many people are even aware that you can be exposed to the virus without becoming infected if you have a robust immune system. Considering the media actively obstructs public education about effective prevention and treatment of COVID, they clearly want more people to die from this illness. The more COVID deaths they can report, the higher their ratings.

What better way to have people accept your message than to have it delivered by the most revered groups in the community? Trade unions, parent-teacher associations, religious bodies, schools, NGOs, and other types of well-respected institutions have been brandished by lockdown propagandists to spread their message of oppression. The news media recognize that readers often consume the news with reservation and don’t ‘believe everything they read,’ while other types of organizations receive comparatively little scrutiny of their espoused views.

It is easy for a reporter to contact many of these under-scrutinized groups until two or three are located that share her views. The reporter may have only one contact at an organization who, in turn, may be expressing what is actually an unpopular view at said organization. Once two organizations in the same respected field are found to share the reporter’s view, she is ready to write a piece implying an informed consensus in the field. The headlines also convey consensus, such as “Children’s charities fight to keep schools closed” or “Churches against reopening the economy.” 

Reading headlines, such as these, people will intuitively think that, for instance, a large majority of children’s charities are opposing school reopening, when it could only be two or three of dozens of charities contacted by the reporter who expressed that view. Have you ever read a headline like “4 of the 30 unions contacted by The Times want [such and such]?” Of course not. News agencies don’t have to be honest, yet alone scientific. They only have to be profitable.

After reading a few news articles claiming that various types of respected types of organizations support lockdowns, it is easy to be influenced to support the lockdowns because of the organizations’ inherent credibility. However, there are other reasons to reject this influence as a bias besides the absence of knowing the proportion of organizations in the field that support the claim. We do not know the extent to which the organizations are knowledgeable on the lockdown issue. We do not know if their views are based on emotions and cognitive biases or sound reasoning. We do not know how many people in each organization are pro-lockdown; it may only be one. 

Lockdowns have also been endorsed by groups of physicians. In Canada, for instance, there have been open letters by groups of doctors asking the provincial government to lockdown or make the existing lockdown more strict. It is very disheartening to see medical professionals abandon their espoused ethics and throw the public to the wolves. Many of the doctors that promote lockdowns understand the enormous net harm that come with lockdowns but have decided that it is more important to signal how woke they are and play to the pro-lockdown mainstream. This is the most status-seeking segment of society, after all.

Medicine has always been an unethical profession. Doctors have always taken advantage of society by charging extortion-level fees for their services, many of which they never performed (ie. medical insurance fraud). Today, most doctors are as relevant as travel agents. In more progressive societies like India, there are only a few medicines that require prescription. People look up their symptoms online and buy whatever medicine they need from the pharmacy without a prescription. But the medical lobby in most countries won’t allow people to take control over their own health and force them to pay for unnecessary medical visits.

The lobby has always prevented administration of healthcare by people other than doctors. This is a major reason why there is a shortage of healthcare in developing nations and even remote regions of rich countries. Very slowly things are improving. More nurse practitioners are being trained and allowed to practice  an appropriate range of services. Even in cities in high income countries, the doctor lobby has caused exorbitant healthcare costs because it refuses to let nurse practitioners and other healthcare workers practice to their full competency.

Nurse practitioners are highly skilled professionals that have been proven to provide as high a quality of care as general practitioner physicians for most health complaints. If medical doctors had any integrity, they would not take us for every dime we’ve got, prevent other types of providers from practising commensurate with their scope, and force people to give them business just to get a prescription that they already know that they need. Doctors didn’t betray their ethics once the pandemic started. They never had any ethics to begin with.

The next time you read in the paper that a certain respected field advocates for lockdowns, ask yourself how that is relevant. It could be that a minority of people in a minority of the field’s organizations support lockdowns, and then only because of fear, propaganda, and a lack of understanding of the issue. 

Using abusive or misleading words to describe opponents is consistently cited in propaganda writing as a common and effective method of dark persuasion. It is truly incredible, the power of this method. To turn others vehemently against your opponents, you don’t need to use any logical arguments at all. You only need to use psychology to convince others of their lack of value. 

Calling your opponents demeaning names creates an unfavorable mental image of them in people’s minds that is remarkably resilient to refutation by logical argument. The resultant negative attitude towards those called names motivates people to look for reasons to reinforce the negative attitude and dismiss information that contradicts it.

Slurs and abusive names have destructive effects on the recipients. They create feelings of inadequacy and shame. Recipients don’t think the names apply but still feel deeply hurt and degraded because society devalues their group. Name-calling makes group membership inherently more challenging so people are inclined to leave or avoid joining the group. 

People who have not been strictly following the latest so-called public health rules have been labelled COVIDIOTS since the lockdown began. In late 2020, it became common to simply call them idiots, as well. These terms have been very effective at discrediting and shaming people who don’t believe in or keep social distancing. 

Human rights activists standing up for lockdown victims are perpetually called “conspiracy theorists” while utter disgust is demonstrated towards them. The government and media accuse the anti-lockdown crowd of having ‘crazy’ theories that SARS-CoV-2 does not even exist. In truth, very few of these people have that view. They simply want to protect themselves and others from the severe harm that social distancing has caused. 

“Anti-vaxxer” and “anti-masker” are terms used to describe people who are against mandatory vaccination for coronavirus and mask mandates, respectively. These names may not seem as objectionable as the COVIDIOT label, but they are said with such abhorrence that they are used as negative terms. These two terms also imply uniformity among anti-lockdown folks. Many people who are against lockdowns would love to be vaccinated against coronavirus, and mask mandates are not a major issue for a lot of them. The media uses these labels against anyone who opposes any pandemic restrictions to make all of them seem like fools without even providing any counter-arguments for why their opinions are wrong.

With the stigma of the many childish and inexcusable names applied to people who dare believe in freedom or wellbeing, most people who don’t believe in social distancing remain in the closet. They are too afraid of being negatively labelled to speak up. Name-calling is indeed powerful propaganda!

This is a very powerful technique that affects beliefs and behavior without anyone noticing. It is very simple: the propagandists act like there can be no debate on an issue because the issue has already been settled. The targets become too embarrassed to oppose the decision or prevailing attitude because they are worried they will be mocked for being stuck on a problem that everyone else has already figured out. It is frequently used in all walks of society, from parliament to your siblings. 

For instance, your boss may have implemented a process change at work that you think is misguided but you don’t want to say anything because all of the managers act like they are completely happy with the new process. You don’t complain about it because you’re afraid the managers will slap their foreheads and say, “Really? Don’t you think we thought of that? We already figured out how to work around those problems. Catch up, honestly!”

There are other reasons why people don’t protest a decision with which they disagree. Often the inhibiting factor is not embarrassment, but overconfidence in the group. Many times after a group makes a decision, an individual will tell herself that that the decision must be correct because everyone else seems to think differently about the issue than her. It happens frequently that the group consensus is actually a minority that has convinced every other person that he or she is the only one who objects, when really, the majority objects. When the ‘it’s already been decided’ ploy is used, the dissenters will either assume that they are wrong or each of them may erroneously assume that he or she is the only one who objects.

In the coronavirus pandemic, morally devoid people have utilized the ‘it’s already been decided’ tactic to silence scientists and human rights activists. The attitude of politicians from the beginning has been that there shall be no public, or even private (ie. on social media) discussion of an appropriate pandemic response because their ‘experts’ have already found the perfect response. Amazing that in 2021 people still have faith in the expertise of their government to respond appropriately to coronavirus even though the response keeps changing: don’t wear a mask… wear a mask… COVID-19 tests are accurate… COVID-19 tests are not accurate at all… and on and on. 

The solidarity angle has been a major part of ‘It’s been decided’ COVID propaganda. “We’re all in this together.” “Do your part.” “Keep your community safe.” This tactic is often used in supporting wars to which many people object. Rather than logically convincing people that the war is just, governments often guilt-trip them into supporting them. Solidarity in the COVID world should not be about supporting restrictions. It should be about supporting freedom of speech and human rights.

Below are some of the issues over which politicians and the media have silenced any counter arguments on the fraudulent grounds that ‘it’s already been decided’ either by ‘experts’ or by prevailing public sentiment:

1. Human rights don’t matter. We are told that they are a mere obstacle in the way of protecting “public health.”
2. Suspecting government misconduct regarding pandemic response makes you a conspiracy theorist. Au contraire, it means that you are aware of the very real fraud that it is occurring. 
3. Lockdowns save lives. All the evidence shows that lockdowns will kill more people than they save over the long-term, and possibly even in the short-term.
4. Quality of life doesn’t matter. All that matters is extending the lives of the elderly and infirm.
5. Dying from COVID-19, and only COVID-19 is bad. The media hides the increase in deaths that have already occured from social distancing. If reported on, they often commend these deaths as good and necessary.
6. COVID-19 (PCR) tests are reliable with only a 1% false positive rate. Not many people know that the false positive rate is really around 90%, but scientists are silenced from warning the public of this fraud.
7. HCQ and vitamin D don’t work. There is plenty of evidence that vitamin D and HCQ significantly improves outcomes for preventing and treating COVID-19, respectively.

The lovely “It’s been decided, folks” technique seems to have been used effectively in many aspects of the pandemic response. Using this ploy, the media and government have convinced people of everything from their rights and wellbeing being irrelevant to the reliability of bogus COVID tests. Many people now have mistaken beliefs that there is scientific consensus that lockdowns are good for public health and that most people have stopped believing in human rights. 

I hope that you will continue to question and hold to scrutiny anything in this world that doesn’t seem right to you. If your misgivings regard an issue that is taboo or appears to have a large majority of people that think it is settled, it is even more important to bring it up! Social progress only occurs when people question the unquestionable. Let people laugh. They’ll thank you later.

The world has dramatically changed in 2020. Basic human rights were not only abandoned, they were made taboo to verbally defend. All of the most fundamental rights that were universally revered such as freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to be healthy, have been rendered passé and void in World War III: Rise of a New Cold Virus. Domestic constitutions and international human rights laws are now viewed as disposable impediments in winning the war.

The characterization of fundamental human rights as a yoke on the neck of society is deeply troubling. Basic rights are necessary for human wellbeing and flourishing. They can never be violated without causing serious harm. We can see the suffering and misery caused by right violations all around us. It is extremely hard to make a friend or find a job these days. Basic material and emotional needs are literally blocked from fulfillment by our own governments. Many people have lost interest in living altogether. 

Lockdown apologists have used numerous pseudo-arguments to convince people that basic rights are bad all-of-a-sudden. Chief among these is the branding of rights violations as “public health orders.” Makes them sound pretty legit, doesn’t it? No matter how cruel and harmful the violations of rights, the public has accepted them as long as they carry the ‘public health’ stamp. 

Another persuasive method used to turn people against human rights is the villainization of human rights activists. The media and government have made every false accusation of right activists imaginable, from being motivated by attention to being “idiots” and, of course, promoting murder. Being around others is characterized as murder because it involves intentionally spreading a lethal disease. Advocating for rights is therefore inciting murder, according to lockdown rhetoricians. 

A truly dirty trick used by lockdown bullies is to make a false analogy about rights. You may hear a politician say that violating rights is a necessary public good and provide a few examples. For instance, I have read “You don’t have the right to drive as fast as you want or to park anywhere that you want. Why should you have the right to human company?” These bullies know that they are giving examples of things that are not rights in any way. 

There are two primary definitions of human rights. One is the philosophical definition. It states that rights are basic elements of living that every person should have to satisfy his or her basic needs. For instance, if someone says “I have the right to earn a living” she is exclaiming that her and everyone else has a moral right to fulfil their material needs and wants. Human rights also has a legal definition. If you ask a lawyer, a human right is an article in a legal document, such as a constitution, stating that all citizens are allowed to do something. For instance, Canadians have a right to freedom of assembly because that right is enshrined in Section 2(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If Canada’s government amended the Charter to remove 2(c), Canadians would no longer have the right of freedom of assembly. 

When lockdown bullies tell us that rights don’t matter because we don’t have the right to drive through red lights or something in that vein, they are not speaking about rights. They are speaking about limitations on actions, which is distinct from rights. Anti-lockdown activists are requesting the government to respect their basic God- and constitution-given rights. They are not trying to eliminate any limitation on human behavior.

Derogation of human rights law is lawful, we are told, because it is necessary to protect public health. However, the pandemic restrictions cause hundreds of times more detriment to health than they prevent, so that is an empty argument. Moreover, we are told that only ‘health’ matters and freedom has no intrinsic value. I beg to differ! Freedom is an essential good in and of itself. Freedoms are more important than health, in fact. For instance, public health and longevity would be dramatically improved if everyone was forced to keep a very strict diet and exercise regime. However, that would not be beneficial because it violates the most important aspect of life — freedom. Does anyone want to be a healthy slave?

In response to the common complaint that lockdowns destroy the economy, propagandists have taken to proclaiming that the economy will be equally affected without any social distancing. Their argument goes that without lockdowns, COVID-19 will keep so many people at home sick that the economy will collapse. There are many problems with this argument. Firstly, empirical studies on the effectiveness of lockdowns in decreasing contagion have shown that they provide no benefit. For instance, in the U.S., states with no restrictions have no more COVID cases or fatalities than ones in strict lockdown.

Secondly, many people can be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 without getting sick, whether it is due to cross-immunity from similar cold viruses, a strong immune system, or because they have already had an infection and are now immune. Entire demographics, such as people under 30 years old, seldom get COVID-19 (the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2) even if exposed. Vaccinated individuals have a low risk of getting COVID.

A third reason that economic collapse from COVID-19 infections is unlikely is that the disease only lasts one week in most people, after which they are totally immune, probably for at least a few years. In most people, the illness is mild, so they could work from home if their vocation permits. One week without work for the rest of the workforce is a short period of time. No companies will go out of business because some of their workers experience a one-off sick week. Finally, once a portion of the population gets infected, perhaps 30% (this is in addition to those who have cross-immunity from other cold viruses), herd immunity will keep contagion permanently stable, even without vaccinations. 

Of course, politicians don’t offer any credible scientific backing for their claims that COVID infections will obliterate the economy as badly as have lockdowns. They rely on the public’s misplaced trust in their intentions. A number of popular pro-lockdown voices have even claimed that the economic collapse of 2020 was directly and totally due to the virus, and not to social distancing, which is simply laughable. Others have made similar claims that their state should re-enter a lockdown to save the economy. People will say anything to use the coronavirus pandemic to further their own agenda.

Nothing says “No bully here” like expressing empathy. Have you noticed that some of the worst bullies you have met in your life were fond of the “I’m doing this because I care about you” act? Abusers often express care and concern for their victims. It makes it psychologically harder for the victims to face the reality of the situation and admit to themselves that the abuse is occurring. This tactic is commonly used by people in positions of power over their victims, like teachers or parents, because it is easier to be accepted in roles seen as caring or protective.

Expressions of caring go a long way to disguise malicious behavior. A teacher who enjoys yelling at her students can tell the students it is tough love for them to grow up right. Clergy are notorious for doling out love to their congregants to blind them to their selfish motives. False empathy takes advantage of human psychology. It is hard for people to admit to themselves that someone can be kind and cruel at the same time. But they can.

Lockdown propagandists have driven this tactic into the ground. Whenever we hear a politician or journalist extolling social distancing, it always comes with a torrent of loving concern: “Too many people have died from coronavirus. Please protect yourself and stay home.” It has certainly worked. People actually think that the rulers who have condemned them to isolation and poverty are their protectors.

Even slimier than expressing concern for people getting COVID is the false empathy over the suffering caused by the coronavirus restrictions. Some lockdown apologists regularly express their deepest sympathies for the hardships created by lockdowns and social distancing. But it is all necessary to save lives, they tell us. “No matter how bad it is, continue isolating. You are protecting your neighbors.” Through feigns of empathy, elites are able to get away with what would otherwise be unthinkable — telling people that their suffering should be unlimited; that their pain must continue no matter how unbearable; and that there is no level of damage at which lockdowns should be rethought.