Imagine living in a world devoid of individual freedoms and basic human rights, where each person’s behaviour, speech and (even) thoughts are determined by the state. A world characterised by ubiquitous surveillance and ensuing censorship of any action or utterance that deviates from the regime’s version of the ‘greater good’, where martial law can be imposed at the whim of unelected bureaucrats under the pretence of keeping us all ‘safe’.
Visualise a cashless society where your debit card habitually pings, and is rejected, because you have exceeded this month’s permitted spend on alcohol, meat, fuel, or travel; (but don’t worry, if you act in a ‘socially responsible’ way your bit of plastic may be re-activated in due course).
Picture our towns and cities devoid of small-to-medium sized businesses, with no pubs, restaurants, or other leisure facilities where the proletariat might mingle; an atomised existence, bereft of human interaction, where our world leaders can control us via a combination of media propaganda and the latest mandated Big Pharma concoction.
A nightmarish prospect, undoubtedly, but one that – with the accelerating authoritarianism witnessed since the onset of the Covid era – is becoming ever more likely. The world-government fanatics are in control and their intentions are clear. Consider the ‘action-orientated aspirations’ of the United Nations as they prepare for their 2024 summit, salivating while they dream of ‘multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow’ and ‘strengthening global governance for both present and future generations’.
These globalists are not going to allow the expression of any viewpoints at odds with their narrative of assumed existential threats from future pandemics or climate change: ‘Across the world, the United Nations is monitoring how mis- and disinformation and hate speech can threaten progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.’ And these unelected overseers of the world ominously pronounce that, ‘It has become clear that business as usual is not an option’. The ongoing power grab by the World Health Organisation in the guise of their ‘pandemic treaty’, together with the revelations of the UK Government’s systematic censorship of scientists and citizens questioning the direction of travel of the regime, provide further evidence of our rapid descent into fascism.
But how can we resist this assault on our basic human rights and individual freedoms?
In July 2021, the Canadian journalist, Julius Ruechel, highlighted the central importance of making dissent visible to our national and world leaders. He persuasively argued that keeping our disgruntlement to ourselves or expressing concerns from behind an anonymous avatar on social media, is not sufficient to halt the fascist march; we need to express our opposition in the real world, to our neighbours, to the bar staff at our local pub, to the hairdresser, and to our family and friends, slipping it into routine conversations when the opportunity arises. Ruechel did, however, recognise the difficulties of this enterprise:
‘Your choice to speak out or stay silent in the face of the naked emperor is your vote. Both options come with terrible risks: the consequences of being bulldozed by the regime if you speak out versus the servile future that is waiting for you if you don’t.’
Encouragingly, there are reasons for optimism that the globalist monster can be kept at bay. The imposition of vaccine mandates was successfully repelled, and the credibility of the ‘safe-and-effective’ mantra promulgated to encourage acceptance of the covid-19 vaccines is crumbling by the day. Wearing a mask in community settings has become a niche activity, resistance to the imposition of 15-minute cities is escalating, and there is growing scepticism about the daily claims of climate Armageddon. Clearly, the fightback has already begun.
According to a recent report by Kings College London, a significant minority of UK citizens already hold highly sceptical beliefs about the dominant globalist narrative. For example, around a third of the population already believe that: centralised digital currencies will be used by governments to control people’s money and restrict their choices; 15-minute cities are an attempt by governments to restrict people’s personal freedom and keep them under surveillance; and the Covid-19 pandemic was part of a global effort to force everyone to be vaccinated. Predictably, the mainstream academics and media dismiss these ideas as ‘conspiracy theories’, failing to grasp the fact that – despite their unprecedented propaganda drive – a sizeable chunk (about 1-in-3) of their fellow citizens are not buying into their narratives.
Barriers to speaking out
If around a third of the UK population already harbour sceptical views about the globalists’ motives and actions, why are more people not openly challenging the imposition of health and climate fascism? I propose there are four main barriers impeding the visible expression of dissent:
1. Propaganda, censorship & manipulation
All of us are influenced by what we hear, read, and see, especially if the source of the information is perceived to be an expert. Consequently, the world elite are funding a huge, multi-faceted campaign to recruit followers to their official narrative while silencing opposing voices. With the slavish support of the bulk of the mainstream media, a range of mind-capturing tactics are being deployed.
The strategies used to manipulate people into – what the global elite would consider – ‘right-think’ mode include: propaganda, involving the strategic mass distribution of both falsehoods and selected truths; the suppression of dissenting voices through a combination of silencing, smearing and coercion; and the widespread deployment of behavioural science ‘nudge’ techniques to scare, shame and socially pressure the masses into obedience in word and deed. The net effects of this state-funded ubiquitous manipulation are that ordinary citizens often hear only one version of the ‘truth’ (the official narrative) and those harbouring doubts about the veracity of mainstream messaging are psychologically manipulated into muteness.
2. Inattention & distraction
Human beings possess a very limited attentional capacity and, consequently, can only focus upon a tiny part of their environment at any one time. Understandably, after enduring years of Covid restrictions, people want to believe that life is now back to normal and are disinclined to think too deeply about what their political masters have inflicted upon them. It is as if the implicit rule for many is ‘Let’s not dwell on the past, but – instead – look to a better future’. Accordingly, they fail to recognise that the unelected global elite, through their control of puppet national governments, are continuing with the imposition of their new-world order under the banner of fighting climate change.
In addition, there is a strong suspicion that our political leaders are inclined to gainfully distract the attention of the masses away from what they do not wish us to recognise (that is, their Covid and climate fascism) onto events that are less threatening to the regime. Thus, for example, over recent months it seems that the state has allowed mainstream media to highlight other attention-deflecting issues – for example, Boris Johnson’s ‘Partygate’ misdemeanours detailing his disregard for his own lockdown restrictions and the ‘lab-leak’ theory about the likely origins of the SARS -CoV-2 virus. Such tactics deflect our focus onto side issues, thereby leaving less attentional resource to reflect on what really matters: the systematic dismantling of our basic human rights and freedoms.
3. Western complacency
Surely, our civilised, open societies would never harbour government and public health bodies that work against the interests of their citizens? As eloquently described by Dr David Bell (a public health physician and former strategist with the World Health Organization) acceptance of this premise constitutes a major barrier to actively opposing the globalist agendas:
‘Our society in the West is built on trust and a feeling of superiority – we built the institutions that run the world and they, and we, are good. We consider ourselves humanitarians, the public health advocates, the unifiers, and anti-fascist freedom-lovers. We consider our system is better than the alternatives – we are ‘progressive’
While Westerners can readily accept that historical regimes, and the current communist administrations in remote places like Russia and China, have exploited the masses for their own egregious motives, there is for many a mental block when it comes to thinking likewise of our own institutions. Furthermore, our trusted – supposedly philanthropic – sources are telling us all is well, and most people believe them.
4. Pain of admitting you were wrong
Humans like to view themselves as righteous and consistent, and we possess a range of cognitive and perceptual biases to maintain this positive self-view. An awareness of any contradictions between our beliefs, day-to-day experience and behaviours typically evokes psychological pain, and we automatically act to avoid this ‘dissonance’ by changing our expressed views and actions accordingly. As discussed in more detail in a previous blogpost, those who previously championed the imposition of authoritarian Covid restrictions will – as the collateral damage of these diktats becomes increasingly apparent – find it difficult to acknowledge having been on the wrong side of the argument.
It may be helpful to view Western populations as comprising five segments on a continuum:
i) The egregious: A tiny group of the world elite who are consciously acting in their own self-interest while fully aware of the huge damage their actions are causing to ordinary people. These ruthless few are benefitting hugely from the ongoing globalist fascism and will not deviate from their mission.
ii) The status maintainers: A considerable number of scientists and administrators are embedded within the pandemic and climate industries. Their livelihoods and professional statuses are contingent upon perpetuating the ‘global emergencies’ that require drastic actions to resolve. This group of partisans will be extremely reluctant to admit that they have backed the wrong horse. As the American writer Upton Sinclair once said, ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding’.
iii) The self-justifying compliers: It takes considerable courage to admit to having been duped. Hence, to avoid painful dissonance, the many people who openly argued in support of the dominant Covid narrative will continue to rationalise why they championed the restrictions – and will potentially comply with future similar diktats – despite the accumulating evidence that lockdowns, masks, and the shutting down of society were both ineffective and harmful. Although it will be difficult for these self-justifiers to switch sides and express dissent, a significant number have already converted and should be commended for doing so.
iv) The ambivalent, but silent: Arguably the largest group, these hassle-avoiders have harboured longstanding unease about the appropriateness of the Covid/climate authoritarianism but have – to date – remained quiet, perhaps in the hope that what we have endured over recent years will pass and we will soon return to normality. Encouragingly, it seems that, by the day, more of this group are expressing dissent.
v) The longstanding sceptics: The vocal (and pilloried) minority who have, since early 2020, openly opposed the dominant narratives.
The first two groups – ‘the egregious’ and the ‘status maintainers’ – are, effectively, beyond reach and will continue to push the ‘imminent disaster’ scenarios. To halt the march of pandemic and climate fascism, the sceptics must encourage many more from groups 3 and 4 to join us in a collective demonstration of dissent and non-compliance. This will require constructive and respectful conversations with the ‘ambivalent, but silent’ and the ‘self-justifying compliers’.
It will be a tough ask to halt the technocratic takeover of our day-to-day lives, the most serious threat to basic human rights that Westerners have faced for over 80 years The power differential between the authoritarian elite and ordinary citizens is vast, enabling the technocrats to control the mainstream media and the academic – ‘science’ – literature, while they orchestrate a programme of psychological manipulation of the masses, the intensity and breadth of which exceeds anything before endured by citizens of the free world.
Clearly, the odds are stacked against us. But it will only take a noisy and uncooperative mass of ordinary people (perhaps around 15% to 20% of the population) to halt our descent into health and climate fascism. If we can: increase awareness of the state’s ongoing censorship, propaganda, and nudging; focus people’s attention on to what really matters; enable others to contemplate that our trusted Western institutions are capable of pillaging us; and encourage more of our friends and family to display visible resistance to the regime, all is not lost.
The authoritarian juggernaut can be halted; are enough of us willing to put our heads above the parapet?