Why are there Lockdowns?

The decision of governments to impose lockdowns has not been made out of the expectation that a lockdown will provide a public benefit. Governments claim that lockdowns are necessary for two reasons: to slow contagion and prevent hospitals from becoming overburdened with COVID-19 cases.

At the start of the pandemic, it is reasonable to expect that lockdowns could be effective at both of these functions. However, due to the foreseeable consequences of lockdowns, they do not explain the existence of lockdowns by themselves. Governments have always known that social distancing will result in serious consequences that greatly outweigh the above benefits. By 2020’s end, mind you, many studies have determined that lockdowns are useless at slowing contagion, and yet politicians still impose them on innocent citizens. Below we will explore reasons that may more fully explain why so many governments have chosen the destructive lockdown route, and still adhere to them in 2021.

Within a country, too, state governments are influenced by the actions and attitudes of other state governments on issues. Evidence from social science research indicates that peer influence is greatly heightened in periods of novelty or uncertainty. When people are not sure which action to take, they quickly look to their peers for guidance. Thus, it is likely to be a major factor in the decision of a government to impose a lockdown. Politicians notice that states are entering lockdowns like dominoes, signalling to them it is the correct course of action (politically).

From the time the first coronavirus case is confirmed in a country, it seems as though the only thing people care about in that country is containing coronavirus. Residents hold their governments accountable for preventing the contagion of coronavirus above all else. Mass hysteria sets in. People demand that their government take sweeping action to slow the spread of the virus and may not even think about the negative consequences of such action. Politicians get the message that their careers hang on this one issue. Public benefit  is summarily swept aside. If citizens were to demand that their government act in the public interest, including consideration of quality of life and long-term public health, lockdowns would be far less likely. There is not even public pressure on political leaders to respect the constitution and maintain democracy. 

Listen to a leaked conversation of New York Governor Cuomo in which he laments that lockdowns are not science-based and he only implemented them out of a public outcry to do so. In late February 2022, a number of Democratic governors ended vaccine and mask mandates as soon as an internal party memo recommended doing so would be well-received by the restriction-wary public.

When viewed in light of the public agenda, politicians’ actions in enforcing social distancing are perfectly reasonable. The role of politicians is, in large part, to carry out the interests of their constituents. That is essentially what has played out. Constituents have stopped caring about everything but slowing the spread of coronavirus, and the actions of their elected representatives have reflected that.

Media ethics around the world have suffered a dramatic decline since reporting began on coronavirus. News media outlets increase their profits when people tune in to their TV shows or buy their newspapers more often. And media execs know that nothing gets people consuming the news more than hysteria around a single major issue. At the start of the coronavirus outbreak, objective reporting was thrown out the window and almost every news source has decided to incite panic among its consumers. 

Almost universally, the news media embraced strict lockdowns as the only way to handle the pandemic and harshly slandered anyone who dared question lockdowns. They seem to particularly enjoy name-calling such as COVIDIOT to describe anyone who attempts to exercise his or her constitutional freedom. Social scientists have noted that the agenda of politicians is typically set by the public agenda, while the public agenda is often determined by the media’s agenda. The influence of the media both on the views of citizens and on public policy regarding the pandemic cannot be overestimated.

In many countries, government directives to the media force them to endorse the official pandemic response policies and refrain from objective reporting. A survey by Freedom House found this to be the case in 91 countries. News media actually receive grants to support elite interests. For instance, Bill Gates, one of the architects of the global lockdown scam, has given media corporations hundreds of millions of dollars to promote his ideas. As a result of social distancing, most of the world has become much poorer, but billionaires have increased their wealth by over a trillion dollars, snapping up failed businesses for pennies on the dollar. In the United States, billionaires have increased their wealth by 40% since lockdowns began.

Evidence has emerged that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been instrumental in inciting lockdowns throughout the world. In January 2020, China became the first country to ever use a large-scale lockdown. The WHO immediately condemned the response, quipping “it is certainly not a recommendation the WHO has made.” At the time, lockdowns were considered immoral and counterproductive in the public health field. They were not recommended by the WHO, nor were they part of any pandemic plan in the world. Lockdowns are the brainchild of Xi Jinping.

After showing the world the joy of mass home incarceration, the CCP flooded the world with hundreds of thousands of fake social media accounts which promoted the practice and shamed politicians for not using them. Their first target was Italy. China leveraged the influence it had on Italian politics from its Belt and Road Initiative to pressure Italian politicians into shutting down the country. Once Italy locked down, the other Western countries fell to the lockdown cult like dominoes.

Following the WHO’s initial condemnation of the Wuhan lockdown, it quickly changed position. It started praising their use by Xi Jinping and recommended their use everywhere in the world. (Advice it would later rescind in late 2020). Many people believe that the WHO was being controlled by the CCP. The United States government was so convinced of the WHO’s corruption by China that it pulled all funding for the WHO in April 2020. You can speculate for yourself about China’s motivation for spreading lockdowns, but consider that China is the only major economy to have grown in 2020.

The theory of lockdown proliferation as a CCP operation has been echoed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. In an April 2021 interview with the Epoch Times, he blamed the Chinese Communist Party for inciting lockdowns in the West in order to harm their economies. “The West did a lot of damage to itself by adopting some of these policies, which have proven to not work to stop the spread, but to be very economically destructive,” DeSantis said.

No federal or state legislature has the legal authority to limit people’s rights as has occurred during lockdowns. Political leaders have therefore suspended the normal operation of the legislature and declared a “state of emergency” in order to exercise absolute power. There is no basis in any constitution to exercise this type of power, except possibly during wartime or a natural disaster. The coronavirus pandemic is anything but a war or disaster, however. It is a mild respiratory infection with a 0.2% fatality rate that doesn’t even put a dent in national life expectancy. 

Without the legislative branch of government operating, the party in power operates as a dictatorship. They can pass any law they want with no opposition from other parties. This is what has happened in many countries. The government in power has used the emergency powers it claimed to pass bills that they have wanted for a long time. 

There is never a time to suspend democracy. The more uncertain the situation facing a country, the more important it is to have rigorous political debate, checks on governmental power, and a free public debate. Moreover, history has consistently shown that when governments give themselves newfound powers in response to a crisis (whether actual or fake), they hold on to much of that power permanently. Termed the ratchet effect by historian Robert Higgs, it has never posed such a critical threat to wellbeing and self-determination.

The coronavirus pandemic has presented democratically elected leaders with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to exercise absolute power with no consequences. In fact, the prevailing attitude in high income countries is that the tougher the politician is on coronavirus contagion, the more that politician is a hero. Human rights laws are considered an inconvenience in this regard, garnering praise for politicians who heroically ignore them. 

It takes a strong person to resist the opportunity to play king-hero. Politicians and formerly faceless public health officers who may have had admirable motivations in the past have had placed in front of them an irresistible opportunity to 1) act as an absolute monarch with impunity and 2) be regarded as a savior with murals and songs honoring them. For public health officials, the pressure to justify their jobs and do something in the face of public outcry is immense. How could a governor keep his public health officer if she doesn’t do anything about the only public health issue that anyone cares about?

The public health officers know that the crazed public will not understand if they are told that there is nothing that the government can do to prevent coronavirus contagion short of catastrophic violations of human rights that harm people’s health much more than the virus. Public health officers, therefore, know that they would probably be fired — and they would be blacklisted from the field — if they didn’t implement these harmful measures. These positions are, in reality, political appointments with a health branding. The job of a public health officer is to be the government’s leader in propaganda related to health policy, not to actually promote public health.  It isn’t hard to see how such a situation can corrupt even the most upright political and health leaders.

The newfound hero status of politicians and health officials is actually a major reason why people are not open to learning the truth about lockdowns. They zealously defend any human rights violations of politicians on the grounds that any action by their heroes must be correct. The realization that their heroes are frauds who are intentionally harming them is too hard to accept.

Possibly the most bizarre development of lockdowns is the fact that the politicians that are responsible for the lockdowns are not held accountable for them by anyone. Opposition parties know how popular lockdowns are among their constituents, so they won’t criticize them. The media reports on the ill effects of lockdowns but only in such a way as to explicitly state that lockdowns are necessary, brushing off any problems that come from them as collateral damage. Organizations that profess to be advocates of human rights or civil liberties are silent on lockdowns. 

The health, social, and economic catastrophe that is lockdowns is perplexingly not held against those responsible for them. In a one-issue society that only cares about infectious disease, every related social problem is deemed a necessary evil. The flagrant abuse of power and dismissal of the constitution by lockdown tyrants are not even mentioned. It is hard to remember a time in which politicians were granted absolute impunity by the public, no matter how serious their crimes. In this upside-down COVID world, government accountability is a thing of the past. 

When treated medically, SARS-CoV-2 has lower mortality than the flu. Without medical treatment, it is still more survivable than the flu for people under 70. With vitamin D supplementation, COVID-19 contagion slows to a crawl because our immune system prevents us from getting sick. In short, there is no Hollywood movie outbreak from which we need protection. The pandemic is a creation of the government and media. The restrictions themselves are the source of the belief that there is a pandemic. 

If you see someone wincing, contorting his face, and grabbing his chest, you would surely conclude that he has a pain in his chest. If you saw someone watering his lawn, you would likely conclude that he wants his grass to grow. We infer things based on our observations. Interestingly, we also make inferences about our internal state based on observing ourselves and our own actions. For instance, if you tend to stay up late at night, you might infer that you are a “night person.” If you watch Fox News regularly, you would probably infer that you are conservative-leaning.

Without lockdowns, two-meter interpersonal spacing rules, and mask mandates, no one would be afraid of SARS-CoV-2. We hear about our friends getting COVID and they tell us it’s no different from having a cold. We wouldn’t be afraid of COVID and we certainly wouldn’t change our lifestyles in an effort to avoid it. However, the restrictions cause us to infer that there is a serious threat to our safety. Even the act of putting a mask on our own face lures our brains into thinking that air is a threat. Our subconscious notices that our environment, our neighbors, and our own actions are responding to a serious threat and consequently infers that there must be a serious threat. Afraid and confused, we become all too eager to relinquish our basic rights, seek vaccination, and obey every whim of our rulers. 

Look at countries or states that have little to no restrictions. Developing countries have few restrictions and no one is scared of SARS-CoV-2. They recognize that it is only a gentle cold. Also, in Western countries. Belarus hasn’t had restrictions — everyone lives normally and no one is afraid of coronavirus. Now turn to a prison block country like Canada — the government has severely limited human activity and most people are absolutely terrified of SARS-CoV-2 to the extent that they have thrown themselves at the feet of their rulers. The difference is the restrictions. With no direct evidence of a public health emergency, people can only be convinced of one’s existence inferentially. By observing a militant pandemic response, we deduce that we must be in grave danger and need our government to save us.

In March 2021, the motive behind the corona-hoax finally became clear. The trumped up panic and restrictions of freedoms were designed to have the public accept a social credit system, similar to the one in existence in China. This population tracking and control mechanism is usually referred to as a “vaccine passport.” Everywhere you go — to a restaurant, a supermarket, or the subway — it will be required to swipe your passport. That lets the government know where you are and who you are with. 

Vaccine passports (social credit technology) allow government to track your every move and control your life. Producers of these passports in the U.S. have bragged that they can even prevent people from leaving home. For instance, by barring people from using public transit. Passport scanners can become mandatory on personal vehicles, preventing the vehicle from starting if points are too low. Healthcare access can be denied. All of the fear-mongering and mass torture implementing by governments to ‘control coronavirus’ was to get us to this point of complete government control over peoples lives via social credit technology.  

Vaccine passports have already been widely implemented in Israel. Without a COVID vaccination, you can hardly do anything in that country. Britain, America, Canada, and many other countries are currently developing them for rollout as soon as possible, often at the state level. Social theorist, Dr. Naomi Wolf, has an excellent video message on the subject here. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer VP of Respiratory Division, also has a fascinating theory that government’s disinformation campaign and COVID restrictions exist to usher in vaccine passports (starting at 9 min 30 sec). In June 2022, the government of China used its COVID passport system to block access of hundreds of people to their bank accounts and prevent them from using public transit, travelling out-of-town, entering restaurants, etc. There is speculation that the government turned the passports of these people red in order to prevent them from protesting.

Finance expert Catherine Austin Fitts, and her organization, the Solari Report, have presented a strong argument that the pandemic and its response was dreamed up by central banks as a way of implementing a digital control system for society. Under this narrative, the pandemic restrictions were put in place to make way for vaccine passports, which is the first phase in a system of intense monitoring and control of the population. Solari has a fascinating series on the issue.

Solari’s concerns appear to be correct. In October 2021, Rishi Sunak, UK Minister of Finance, announced the G7’s plans to implement central bank digital currencies (CBDC) in each country.

Any kind of emergency, such as a war or natural disaster, makes for capitalist opportunity. The bigger the emergency, the bigger the potential for profit. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented the biggest opportunity for elites to enrich themselves in history. This happens in two ways. One is intentional economic destruction. Making small and medium-sized companies go out of business is good for big corporations and wealthy individuals. They can either be bought up at fire sale prices, or their market share can be annexed. The Big 7 tech companies reportedly appreciated by $3.4 trillion in 2020. The other route is through public spending. Government expenditures have gone stratospheric during the pandemic. Emergency economic aid packages have been rushed through parliament with little scrutiny, providing corporations with a remarkable opportunity for profitable government contracts.

The scale of both these forms of profiteering in the pandemic has almost been incalculable. In April 2021, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, estimated that the wealthy have seen their net worth increase by a mind-boggling $5 trillion in the preceding 12 months. In January 2021, it was estimated that $3.7 trillion in wages have been last since the pandemic began. In January 2022, Oxfam reported that the wealth of the ten richest people in the world has doubled while the incomes of 99% of people have decreased. Even WEF members admit that the pandemic response has been great for billionaires and horrible for the rest of us. Take this statistic: every 30 hours during the pandemic, a new billionaire has minted; and every 30 hours, one million people fall extreme poverty in 2022, reversing the trend of the preceding decades.  All due to the pandemic response.

By October 2021, it has been estimated that almost $20 trillion has been printed since the pandemic started. An analysis by Americans for Tax Fairness in January 2022 found that the 10 richest people in the world have witnessed their wealth double since lockdowns began, becoming about a billion dollars richer everyday. Quantitative easing programs have clear winners, such as the banks that receive the initial funds. According to Catherine Austin Fitts, at least $21 trillion has been stolen from the U.S. treasury in the past few years, and the pandemic could be a means used to hide the theft.

The pandemic is being used to transfer wealth from the poorest to the richest at a pace never before witnessed. No wonder the ruling class is trying to keep lockdowns going for as long as possible. Every month the economic suppression continues, they become hundreds of billions of dollars richer — more companies go out of business, and more commercial and personal collateral is signed over to the banks. Our governments don’t work for us. They work for elites and major corporations.

Almost every country has been spending well beyond its means during the pandemic to ‘stimulate the economy.’ Needless to say, no amount of money will help the economy as long as the crippling restrictions remain intact. In the United States alone, $5 trillion in economic stimulus has been spent as of March 2021. Stimulus bills are an invaluable opportunity for politicians to give funding and provide tax breaks to their corporate friends — and reap the generous reciprocation that affords.

The coronavirus pandemic is a case study of a catastrophic level of near-term policy bias. The only issue on the public agenda is controlling coronavirus, no matter what the cost. In fatal cases of coronavirus, death occurs within weeks after infection. Every death from COVID-19 gets reported by the media every day. But COVID-19 deaths are rare, and occur almost exclusively in elderly people with existing illnesses dying a few months or years earlier than they would have otherwise. Coronavirus, therefore, does not even have a measurable impact on national life expectancy.

Lockdowns, by contrast, are expected to take years off of the lives of most people. Without jobs, financial security, socialization, exercise, romance, and good mental health, an individual’s life expectancy will likely decrease by at least a few years. Coronavirus kills only about 1 in 600 people that it infects. Lockdowns adversely affect almost everyone. Even a short lockdown may steal years off of the lives of a large portion of the population.

Since lockdowns kill more people than they save from coronavirus, why do we have them? It is because politicians are only held responsible for deaths on their watch. People who are close to the end of their lives are dying now from coronavirus and politicians are held accountable for these lives. However, the billions of deaths projected from the lockdown genocide will occur gradualling over the next several decades as people who’ve lived through the lockdown pass away before their time. The genocide has already begun — deaths that would not have occurred were it not for lockdowns. Let us not be afraid to categorize them as such nor hold politicians accountable for the people that their policies kill long after their terms in office.

For almost all of us, coronavirus is the first pandemic that we have experienced. The last pandemic of this magnitude was the Spanish Flu in 1918. I am using ‘pandemic’ here (and throughout the website) as a social construct. In a real pandemic, the infection fatality rate would be much higher than that of SARS-CoV-2. Having been plunged into an unfamiliar world with constant fear mongering by the media, people are understandably scared and confused. Politicians are no exception. The fear of a new, mysterious threat to human health accentuated by a media greatly inflating the danger to boost their ratings has resulted in a populace that supports any measure that could contain their new enemy. The normal weighing of advantages to disadvantages is absent.

Like the castaways in William Golding’s novel, Lord of the Flies, society has witnessed a steep slide away from use of the intellect and towards acting on our most primitive instincts. The pandemic has people so afraid and confused that their rational minds have succumbed to primal impulses. We have lost our ability to think rationally. We have clamped down on any debate on how to respond to coronavirus. Anyone who questions or abstains from extreme social distancing is shamed, humiliated, and reported to the police. Reputable news outlets have seen a tangible decline in the professionalism of their reporting. The media only gives a platform for pro-lockdown voices and mercilessly attacks “COVIDIOTS” for not joining the manic crowd in their stampede over the cliff. 

Thus, a major cause for lockdowns is the precipitous decline in rational thought and behavior emanating from what can only be described as mass hysteria. This hysteria influences policy both directly and indirectly. Directly, because politicians are humans subject to the same fears and biases during times as stress as everyone else. Indirectly, through the pressure exerted on them from the public who have devolved into single-issue warriors, having lost the ability of independent reasoning. 

The Great Reset is the brainchild of Klaus Schwab, founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum. It is widely believed to be the primary impetus for the staged pandemic operation in the freedom community, including at prestigious Corona Investigative Committee.

The WEF is a Swiss-based forum that for over forty years has brought together the most powerful people in the world to discuss global issues such as poverty and climate change. The WEF has developed a very high degree of political influence around the world. Great enough to be regarded as having hijacked the UN and many sovereign governments. Not surprisingly, many of the leaders of The Terror, including heads of state, are graduates of the WEF’s Young Global Leaders program.

The Great Reset and Building Back Better are WEF terms used by politicians around the world to describe their planned long-term response to the pandemic. It refers to a major restructuring of political and economic systems. Great Reset proponents claim that the reforms are necessary to reduce economic inequality, mitigate climate change, and improve pandemic readiness. In a now-legendary PR video, the WEF says that after the Great Reset, everyone will “…own nothing and be happy.” 

At first approach, it would appear that a public policy which caused all citizens to ‘own nothing’ would involve appropriation of all citizens’ assets by the government. Most people wouldn’t be happy at all if all their stuff was stolen. So what does the Great Reset involve exactly? Therein lies the problem. No one really knows. Citizens owning nothing certainly implies Communism, the economic system in which the government controls and owns almost everything.

In 2020, Schwab published the book COVID-19: The Great Reset. The book is a defense of the heavy-handed pandemic response and a call to comprehensive societal reform in order to, among other things, better prepare the world for future pandemics. Conspicuously, it doesn’t mention anything tangible about what this reform — the Great Reset — will entail, other than saying that it will involve much greater international cooperation and powers of government. If one thing can be taken from this book, it is the determination that Schwab has to incite a Great Reset: 

Lockdowns are not themselves the Great Reset. The Great Reset has not yet materialized. The release of an engineered virus and ensuing ‘public health’ response were staged in order to get the public to submit to radical economic and political reform. The upcoming changes are necessary to get us out of the debt crisis caused by “COVID” and protect us from future pandemics, we are told. As of February 2022, the most striking evidence of the Reset being pursued is that most countries are now developing a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

The most compelling and coherent explanation for the genesis of the Great Reset comes from economic historian Martin Armstrong. Armstrong is renowned for his deep knowledge of history and is widely considered the world’s most accurate forecaster. According to Armstrong, sovereign nations, central banks, and major commercial banks have reached a limit on their ability to borrow. He asserts that they are insolvent across the board and have conspired to default in a covert manner, under the branding of a benevolent restructuring of the economic system which they call the Great Reset. 

However, Armstrong, like everyone else in the freedom movement, thinks that the Reset will in reality benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. He states that there are ways of handling default of the government and banking sector that will be far less harmful to the public. He has personally consulted governments around the world on the matter, but his advice has so far not been accepted. Armstrong also states that Schwab’s intention is to abolish borders and have the United Nations directly govern the world. Martin Armstrong’s understanding of the world is unsurpassed. I highly recommend his interviews, website, and documentary.

The Great Reset theory of the pandemic response is not necessarily in contrast with the theory that lockdowns are a CCP-invented weapon to socially and economically destabilize the West. The CCP and the WEF appear to be well-aligned. Xi Jinping gives speeches at WEF meetings. It isn’t well known, but besides the Davos, Switzerland annual WEF conference, there is also a WEF global conference held in China every year since 2007. In addition, other regional WEF conferences are held in China. All indications point towards the WEF, CCP, UN, and BIS (Bank for International Settlements) conspiring together for a global revolution that will benefit elites and hurt everyone else.