Social distancing: how to prevent insurgence | Joseph Robertson

A quote misattributed to various Communist and Nazi leaders, but in reality penned by a 19th century contemporary of the Barrett-Brownings, Isabella Blagden, reads as follows; “If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.” Of course this powerful technique was successfully manipulated by many Communist  regimes. One can also look to the techniques of disinformation purveyed by “The Reich Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” in the Weimar Republic.

Among the pseudo-scientific measures brought in by many governments around the world in cooperation with the World Health Organisation or independent advisory bodies, such as the United Kingdom's SAGE, social distancing is perhaps the most insidious lie of them all. Professor Robert Dingwall, an expert in sociology and advisor for Nervtag (yes, the same body that let disgraced and discredited Ferguson worm his way back  into its ranks), first let the mask slip back in April. So for a year, we have been conditioned to accept social distancing as necessary and factual.

When we look at resistances to a Draconian form of government, either intellectual or violent, necessary or unjustified, we see a trend. From the Cristeros in Mexico, to the Bolsheviks in Russia, to the pacifist resistance against Lukashenko in Belarus, all those groups had or have one thing in common. They all formed in groups. They were physically in the room at the same time as each other - they thought together, fought together and where necessary died together. So in hindsight, not only is social distancing a commendable tactic for those wishing to hone in on ‘Covid separatists’ but imperative to prevent the ‘spread of misinformation’ (read anti-narrative thought). We have seen movements such as StandUpX pull crowds together in protest against the lockdowns. These demonstrations were of course harshly cracked down upon.

  For contrast, let us rewind to the era of the Black Lives Matter movement, back in the haze of 2020. The mass protests of the movement, started in America and snowballing into Europe and beyond led several reporters in the UK to observe a noticeable trend in what could only be described as two-tier policing, when compared to the enforcement of mass lockdowns and ‘Covid legislation’. Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, Shaun Bailey, recently held to account incumbent mayor Sadiq Khan on his role in this display of concessionary policing.

  The lesson we must draw is twofold. Firstly, either Black Lives Matter was protected by the establishment despite the dangers of breaking the distancing rule, or otherwise (as we know), social distancing is merely a ‘rule of thumb’ that bears no scientific meaning. To further strengthen this proposition, we would have undoubtedly seen a spike in cases as a result of the multifarious breaches of Covid discipline that these protests caused. Secondly, anyone who might disagree with a lockdown that has caused mass unemployment and heightened levels of suicidal tendency (as the British Medical Journal has published) is a dissenter, who must be, according to the established narrative, selfish and have no thought of the common good.

Drawing together these two observations, it can be concluded that there is a reason as to why we are being distanced from each other. This is a reason that is other than Covid, since we know that ‘social distancing’ is not an efficacious or strictly scientific response.

To see with some clarity past the smokescreen of the strategy that is being deployed, let us highlight a startling quote that the Institute for Government provided us with back in 2019. This quote, if nothing else, shows the unethical lengths the government of the United Kingdom is prepared to go to, to enforce its wishes upon an unsuspecting public.

The report MINDSPACE, which this excerpt is taken from, comes with the signed approval and foreword of The Cabinet Office. It is authored through the vehicle of the Institute for Government by a team of lead behavioural experts. Its published purpose? To assist the government in "Influencing behaviour through public policy" (with emphasis added):

  “As noted, MINDSPACE effects depend at least partly on the Automatic System. This means that citizens may not fully realise that their behaviour is being changed – or, at least, how it is being changed. Clearly, this opens government up to charges of manipulation. People tend to think that attempts to change their behaviour will be effective if they are simply provided information in an “above board” way - people have a strong dislike of being “tricked”. This dislike has a psychological grounding, but fundamentally it is an issue of trust in government.”

And therein, we find at last the justification for this new form of societal conditioning. Our behaviour is being changed, without our consultation and for whatever reason (who are we to question), because fundamentally we do not trust the government enough to allow them to trick us. We must love our government more.

As Boxer says in Animal Farm, "I will work harder!". If we work harder and think less, we will be freed from Covid restrictions. Until then, we must blame ourselves as selfish, every time we do not comply. After all, these restrictions are purely set in place for our own good.

With Klaus Schwab and co. cooking up The Great Reset, which “will require us to integrate all stakeholders of global society into a community of common interest, purpose and action” we can see that now, more than ever, conformity of purpose is necessary for The Father of All Animals to protect us from the disasters that lie ahead. Climate change, Covid and of course our inability to trust our governments is a real concern for those who are self-entrusted with our well-being on the supranational level. It should be a concern for us too. How indeed can we play our role, so that we may not be endangered by our own stupid tendency to think for ourselves?

The skeptics of skepticism (a novel position reserved for individuals who 'fact-check' anyone who decries the Covid measures as authoritarian and unjustified) will now say to the author of this article; “Surely this is coincidental? Yes, the government wants to manipulate you and yes, social conditioning is a scientific lie but how can we possibly prove that these two things are linked?”. Indeed. Such logic is hard to respond to. Perhaps it is best not to but simply to move on.

At this late hour in the struggle for the soul of society, it is not a case of being prevented from establishing a resistance. It does not matter what the resistance is formed against. Indeed, it does not matter whether there is a resistance at all. What matters is where that resistance takes place. If we are constricted to the internet as a means of forming like minded connections at this time, it takes away our power to remember what we should be aiming for - unhindered ability to interact and encounter real human experiences once again. The ever-optimistic cry of, “let’s meet up when this is all over” is a fragile one. Unless we act, the present crisis will only be over when we no longer have “an issue of trust in government.”

If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating.