Jeffrey Tucker, Brownstone Institute, 10/23
In the course of almost four years, and really dating back a decade and a half, I’ve managed to read most of the writings of the intellectuals, titans of industry, and government officials who constructed the strange reality of 2020 and after. They wanted to conduct a science experiment on the human population. Because infectious disease knows no borders, they knew for sure it would have to be a global one.
They had every detail worked out in their models. They knew how far apart people would need to stand. They knew that the best way to stop any common virus from spreading would be total isolation of the whole human population insofar as that was possible. Families could not do that of course but they figured that they could live in different rooms or simply stay six feet apart. If they couldn’t do that, they could mask up.
It goes without saying – but they said it anyway because their models told them so – that indoor and outdoor venues where people gathered had to be closed (those were the exact words issued by the White House on March 16, 2020). The scheme was deployed first in China, then Northern Italy, then the United States, and the rest of the world fell in line, all but a handful of nations including Sweden, which faced many months of brutal criticism for allowing freedom for its citizens.
It’s truly hard to imagine what the architects of this barbaric policy believed would happen next. Is it as simple (and ridiculous) as believing that a respiratory virus would just disappear? Or that a potion would show up in time to inoculate the whole population even though no one has ever successfully come up with something like that before? Is that what they believed?
Maybe. Or maybe it was just fun or otherwise remuneratively advantageous to try out a grand and global experiment on the human population. Certainly it was profitable for many, even if it wrecked the social, cultural, economic, and political lives of billions of people. Even as I write those words, it’s hard to believe they are not out of some dystopian fiction. And yet this is what happened.
Almost immediately, the idea of human rights took a back seat. Obviously so. So did the idea of equal freedom: that was immediately on the chopping block. By edict, the human population was divided into categories. It began with essential and nonessential, distinctions drawn from military protocols that suddenly pertained to the whole of the civilian world.
That was only the beginning of the stark divisions. The stigmatization of the sick began immediately too. Were they sick because they were insufficiently compliant? Did they disobey the protocols? In a hundred years of public health, we’ve not seen this level and scale of demarcation. Some of this was attempted during the AIDS crisis (pushed by none other than Anthony Fauci) but not this aggressively or comprehensively.
In those days, you could feel the concern for basic rights and freedom slipping, and with it the moral conscience of the public mind. From the beginning, it felt like martial law and the population was being divided: sick vs. well, compliant vs. noncompliant, essential vs non-essential, elective surgeries vs. emergencies needing medical services. And so on.
And this expanded dramatically over the coming months. When face coverings came along, it was masked vs unmasked. When some states started opening, it became red vs. blue. Us vs. them.
When the vaccine came along, the ultimate division hit, piling upon and swamping all the others: vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. The mandates massively disrupted the labor force. The public accommodations of whole cities were shut off to the unvaccinated, so that noncompliant citizens could not go to restaurants, bars, libraries, theaters, or other public places. Even houses of worship went along even though they didn’t have to, breaking their congregations into two parts.
Behind all of this was a political motive that traces to a text that every high expert still celebrates as a prescient and decisive refutation of liberal values: Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political from 1932. This essay is utterly dismissive of human rights on grounds that such notions do not sustain robust states. He was of course a Nazi jurist and his thought laid the groundwork for the demonization of the Jews and the march of the totalitarian state.
In Schmitt’s mind, the friend/enemy distinction is the best method of rallying the people around a grand cause that gives life meaning. This impulse is what gives strength to the state. He goes further: the friend/enemy distinction is best ignited in the reality of bloodshed:
“The state as the decisive political entity possesses an enormous power: the possibility of waging war and thereby publicly disposing of the lives of men. The jus belli contains such a disposition. It implies a double possibility: the right to demand from its own members the readiness to die and unhesitatingly to kill enemies.”
If for years, you have asked the question “Where does this end?” we now have our answer, which seems inevitable in retrospect: war. We are looking at the deaths of innocents and probably this as just the beginning. The lockdowns broke not only the old moral codes and agreed-upon limits to state power. It broke the human personality and spirit the whole world over. It gave rise to a bloodlust that was barely beneath the surface.
Click on Title Below to Continue Reading
The Triumph of the Apocalyptics
Perhaps Mr. Tucker would have reached different conclusions if he’d read the reports of Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci forecasting the appearance of pandemic viruses in the years before the Cov19 virus appeared. For them it wasn’t about preventing a health hazard, it was about exploiting a pandemic for their own motives, which included genocide.
The Cov19 virus had nowhere near the lethality that they sought via their gain-of-function research; it was less than one percent in actuality. It was the “vaccine” which was and still is more lethal.
It appears that they still don’t have any future viruses, whether naturally-occurring or lab-grown like Cov19, which can cause a worldwide pandemic. They’ll use Chicken Little scare tactics such as global “warming” to get compliance to cease the self-sustaining functions of nations.