The Modern Left is Out of Touch With Reality: Part 3 – Universal Basic Income

As argued in the first two parts of this series, the modern left has lost touch with reality.

In order to recap my definition of the modern left, it consists of those who agree with many left-wing economic policies and share the critique of imperialism with the traditional socialist left, but who have a heavy focus on identity politics. Examples would be outlets such as The Canary and Novara Media. For a more detailed explanation, see the first article in these series.

The first two parts of this article addressed two ways in which the modern left has lost touch with material reality. The first of these, the left-wing support for lockdowns, shows their detachment from the reality of working-class job losses, income losses, and mental well being. The second of these, their support for transgender ideology, shows their detachment from the material reality of biological sex.

The third part in this series will address the issue of Universal Basic Income, or UBI.

What is UBI?

First, we need a definition of Universal Basic Income. Investopedia defines the term as such:

Universal basic income (UBI) is a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money on a regular basis. The goals of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty and replace other need-based social programs that potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement.

UBI is a popular position among many people on the left, including many who could not be considered part of the modern left. In the US, the idea has gained more traction due to the Democratic primary challenger Andrew Yang running as a largely one-issue candidate focusing on UBI.

While there are right-wing cases for UBI, made by individuals such as Milton Friedman, I will not take these into consideration in this article. Nor will I attempt to use the fact that some right wingers support UBI as prima facie discrediting the idea.

The Left Case For UBI

An article published in Novara Media by Andrew Dolan brings up 7 reasons as to why he supports UBI. In short, his reasons are: 1) that wages are too low, 2) full employment is not possible, 3) that it is unconditional, 4) makes working less necessary, 5) It is becoming a mainstream idea, 6) it provides and opportunity to move beyond capitalism, 7) potential to create a unified movement.

At first glance, these seem to offer some good reasons to support UBI. The fact that UBI supplements wages, for example, seems like a good way to reduce poverty, as does the fact that it is paid to everybody, including the unemployed. The fact that it takes the emphasis from paid work could also appear as a positive benefit as it could reconfigure life to be more focused on other aspects of the human condition such as family.

So where is the snag in the argument?

The Biosecurity Context

There are many people who object to UBI on economic grounds, such as that the policy would lead to high levels of inflation, or that it would lead to large levels of government debt. Another objection is that the taxes used to pay for the policy would end up being taken from the poor, particularly if it is funded via VAT (which was a suggestion made by Andrew Yang). However, these kinds of arguments do not concern me, and are not the reason for my objections to UBI. Even if all of these arguments could convincingly be debunked, I would still oppose UBI.

This is because of the capitalist biosecurity state context in which the UBI policy would exist.

We cannot abstract UBI from this context, which is the major flaw in the left case for UBI. So what is a biosecurity state context and why is it problematic for the case for UBI?

We live in societies where the state already has a large amount of control over people’s lives. While the 1940s creation of a welfare state could be said to have had some benefits for working class people, such as improving access to healthcare, it also acted as a control mechanism over the working class, particularly in terms of unemployment benefits.

The working class under capitalism have had the choice of the ‘friendly societies’ that were common in the nineteenth century or state provision of unemployment benefits. Friendly societies were organisations set up by workers as a kind of insurance policy that they paid into and would receive stipends from if they were made unemployed or injured at work. This was a form of self-organisation, but often proved inadequate when capitalist crises happened. On the other hand, workers accessing state-based solutions have been subjected to the long-standing idea of the ‘deserving’ vs. the ‘undeserving’ poor.

The amount of state control over the lives of ordinary people has increased over time and is reaching the stage where alleged Western ‘democracies’ are teetering on full-blown authoritarianism. In the UK, this can be seen in the increase in mass surveillance, and the increasing control over free speech, including the persecution of Julian Assange and coordination between state and social media platforms to remove dissenting opinions. A significant step towards this was the 9/11 event, sold to the public as being caused by ‘terrorists that are trying to destroy our way of life’. This meant that the government was able to pass a range of ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation, aimed at the public. Similar trends exist in the US and some other ‘Western democracies’.

The measures imposed over the past year – allegedly in response to the virus Sars-Cov-2 – are the next stage in this growing authoritarianism. The first step was the ‘lockdowns’, forcing people to ‘stay at home’ and banning them from social interaction. Following on from this policy came the forced masks, used to maintain the image of fear while no-one was dying in July and August. Then came more lockdowns, and now the government is making their play for permanent tyranny – the vaccine passport.

The government is currently attempting to soft pedal the passport by suggesting the idea that it will be temporary, or that it will not be needed for certain businesses, such as ‘non-essential’ shops and pubs. However, once the passport is introduced, it will be impossible to get rid of it without a massive effort, and it will become slowly more draconian over time. Such a mechanism may begin only with international travel, theatres and sports, but will expand to shops and every other possible organisation.

This is the context we need to understand when looking at the reality of UBI as a policy. While fighting for UBI may seem like a good response to lockdowns due to the destruction of jobs caused by this policy, in reality UBI will strengthen this control matrix.

One of the desires of the elite is to create universal digital IDs for the entirety of humanity. There is a campaign group set up to advocate for this called ID2020. This group is associated with Microsoft and the GAVI Vaccine Alliance and thus has ties to Bill Gates. While the ID2020 website tries to portray its strategy of giving every human being on earth a digital identity as empowering people through the promotion of more choice and control, in reality such a system would lead to more elite control over humanity. The ID2020 website links to another site called the Good Health Pass Collaborative, designed to promote the vaccine passport.

The aim of any UBI that is introduced – and the government could use the mechanism of furlough to do so – would be to tie it into this digital identity matrix. UBI would then be used as a control mechanism. It would be ‘universal’ in the sense that anyone could have access to it, but it would require compliance – for example, having all the latest vaccines that Big Pharma demand, or not resisting or opposing the government in any way.

Critics of this argument may object that what I am criticising is not UBI, since that would be without preconditions. However, this argument shows that what would happen in practise when this policy is implemented by a capitalist state. In order to combat this argument, it would need to be demonstrate that this would not be how such a stipend would work in practise.

Conclusion

Universal Basic Income is a distraction for the left, and if any similar policy was implemented by a capitalist state, it would merely enhance the control mechanisms of such a state. The left should forget about demanding this policy and instead focus upon organising to end the draconian ‘Covid measures’ and other signs of an emerging biosecurity state.

The Covid 19 Narrative is About Destroying Our Links With the Natural World (Part 2)

Introduction

In the first part of this article, I discussed the Covid-19 narrative in the context of nature. The article concluded that there were significant signs of an agenda to detach human beings from nature: firstly, in the denial of the reality of death, and secondly, through the normalisation of mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccinations.

However, the discussion of the connection between devaluing nature and the Official Covid Narrative does not end there. There are further significant links which are helping to make Klaus Schwab’s “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities” a reality. This part of the article will discuss the normalisation of nanotechnology through use of the Covid Narrative, as well as the coming ‘Smart Cities’ being pushed by the World Economic Forum.

The NanoTech New Normal

A 2004 report from the British Royal Society can serve as an introduction to the concept of nanotechnology. This report states that:

A nanometre (nm) is one thousand millionth of a metre. For comparison, a single human hair is about 80,000 nm wide, a red blood cell is approximately 7,000 nm wide and a water molecule is almost 0.3nm across. People are interested in the nanoscale (which we define to be from 100nm down to the size of atoms (approximately 0.2nm)) because it is at this scale that the properties of materials can be very different from those at a larger scale. We define nanoscience as the study of phenomena and manipulation of materials at atomic, molecular and macromolecular scales, where properties differ significantly from those at a larger scale; and nanotechnologies as the design, characterisation, production and application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanometre scale. In some senses, nanoscience and nanotechnologies are not new. Chemists have been making polymers, which are large molecules made up of nanoscale subunits, for many decades and nanotechnologies have been used to create the tiny features on computer chips for the past 20 years. However, advances in the tools that now allow atoms and molecules to be examined and probed with great precision have enabled the expansion and development of nanoscience and nanotechnologies.

Institutions such as the US Government have been interested in nanotechnology for several years. The National Nanotechnology Initiative was launched by Bill Clinton and the organisation has received funding from Congress.

The cumulative NNI investment since fiscal year 2001, including the 2018 request, now totals more than $25 billion. In addition, more than $1.1 billion has been invested cumulatively since 2004 in funding for nanotechnology-based small businesses through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs of the participating Federal agencies. 

At first, the kinds of technologies that are being advocated for seem benign or positive developments, such as to improve the functioning of computers. The benign uses of such technologies can mean that they become more accepted in society.

However, certain uses of nanotechnology that are desired by the elite are considered to be taboo by ordinary people. In particular, the integration of nanotechnology within the human body. Much like concepts such as Genetically Modified foods, many people consider interfering with nature in this way to be immoral and playing god. A lot of people still maintain some connection with nature and do not desire nanotechnology to be used within the human body. The inculcation of mass fear around the Sars-Cov-2 virus, and the idea introduced through this fear that nature is the enemy, is a way to get around this problem.

The Covid-19 narrative is being used to slowly normalise the idea of ‘implantable biosensors’ that will monitor your health. Back in 2018, a company known as Profusa claimed to have developed these small injectable sensors that can be used to monitor all aspects of body chemistry, marketing them as a step up from fitness trackers and other wearable watch like products. Their sensors overcome issues with the body rejecting such interventions as foreign and causing inflammation in response. These sensors – injected at the surface of the skin – can be scanned via smartphone devices in order to retrieve the data they have collected. The research carried out by Profusa is supported by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), one of the main institutions pushing techno-tyranny as a ‘solution’ to Covid-19. DARPA have been interested in the notion of ‘predictive health’ for a long time and have been examining the issue since at least 2006.

The link between these technologies and Covid-19 is made explicit in this article. Profusa has developed another sensor that allegedly detects sickness with a particular virus before the person shows symptoms, a concept that Ryan Cristian has usefully called ‘Medical Precrime’. The article acknowledges that some people might be wary of the idea because of privacy concerns but brushes that aside, claiming that the sensors can only transmit information when they are scanned.

The idea of Medical Precrime ties into the War on Death, discussed in the first part of this article. Accepting the need for these sensors to tell you that you are sick involves rejecting the truth of your own body. This is a step up from the focus on RT-PCR testing to see whether or not somebody has Sars-Cov-2, even if they have no symptoms, and the whole narrative around ‘asymptomatic transmission’.

Dissociation from your own body is required to get you to accept transhumanism. If you accept your body as part of nature that you are in touch with and related to, you will not want a transhumanist future. The elite, however, want this transhumanist future whether you like it or not, so they have to develop bridging ideologies and constructs to get ordinary people to accept that future, and The Official Covid Narrative is one of these.

Endgame: The Totalitarian Smart Cities

According to the Smart Cities Readiness Guide, a smart city can be defined as such:

A smart city uses information and communications technology (ICT) to enhance its livability, workability and sustainability. First, a smart city collects information about itself through sensors, other devices and existing systems. Next, it communicates that data using wired or wireless networks. Third, it analyzes that data to understand what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen next.

Another key aspect of the Smart City is the Internet of Things, which connects all devices – from kettles and fridges to computers and mobile phones – to the internet. This kind of system would require 5G to function because otherwise there would be far too much latency within the system.

Searching online for ‘Smart Cities Covid 19’ brings up a multitude of links relating to the issue. For example, this article states that:

Density – it’s part of what makes cities bustling cosmopolitan hubs for transnational commerce and mobility. It is also what makes them particularly vulnerable to the risks of outbreaks such as COVID-19, with some experts arguing it will force a significant rethink of urban planning if we are to achieve long-term survival in a pandemic world.

This article portrays the Smart City approach as a positive way to ‘control the pandemic’ by using the ‘collective intelligence’ of people in relation to the high level of data collected by the sensors embedded within the smart city.

Another article links Covid to Smart Cities through a false ‘green’ agenda, stating that the lockdowns have reduced road traffic and that smart city technology can be used to continue this reduction in pollution and carbon emissions. For example, they claim that AI can be used to reduce congestion through steering traffic. The article then uses this idea as a lead into normalising alarms going off if people are not ‘social distancing’.

The World Economic Forum, and other elites, are deeply invested in promoting this smart city vision, and using whatever concerns of the public – from pollution to pandemics – that they feel will get people to accept this agenda. While we are allegedly living in the ‘deadliest pandemic in a century’ the elite are concerned about pushing this technology more than anything else. In November 2020, The World Economic Forum selected 36 cities to pioneer these kinds of technologies:

Cities are facing urgent challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and other major disruptions, which are expected to culminate in a budget crisis that could reach $1 trillion in the United States alone. They need data and innovation to become more resilient, responsive and efficient. Yet there is no global framework for how cities should use these technologies, or the data they collect, in a way that protects the public interest.

In reality, despite the PR lavished on Smart Cities, such a system would be a heavily controlled one, where there would be no ability to dissent from what the elite want. Every move and every possible piece of data would be tracked. AI would begin to control more and more of people’s lives through the processing and analysis of the endless data collected from the multitude of sensors. There would be no privacy, and the elite could make rebellion essentially impossible, by cutting off every single device that an attempted rebel owns – even their heating or fridge. And there would be no room for things that the elite are not able to control in this new dystopia – including the natural world.

Conclusion

We must defend the value of nature and the natural, as well as our own connections with nature and the cycles of life, in order to fight the Covid-19 Narrative. This narrative begins with the denial of death as a natural process but ends with everything in our lives being controlled through the mechanism of technology. In a smart city where everything is controlled through sensors, monitoring, and artificial intelligence, there is no room for nature and the natural. Even humanity itself will become modified by mRNA gene therapy and concepts like Elon Musk’s Neuralink which will connect people to computers and thus into the Smart Cities themselves. Here we end up at Klaus Schwab’s dreaded “fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities.”

The Modern Left Has Lost Touch With Reality: Part 2 – Transgender Ideology

In the first part of this series, I discussed the pro-lockdown stance of the modern left and how that indicated a break with reality.

In order to recap my definition of the modern left, it is those that claim to be independent from the mainstream media, advocate for left wing policies on the economy and criticise US/UK foreign policy but have a large proportion of their focus on identity politics. For an expanded definition, see the original article.

The second part of this series will discuss the modern left’s belief in transgender ideology, and how that indicates that their break with reality came earlier than the Covid Narrative.

What is Transgender Ideology?

People who support transgender ideology will claim that there is no such thing as transgender ideology (or alternatively, Gender Identity Ideology).

Transgender ideologists believe that each human being has an innate gender identity. This can either match the biological sex of the person (‘cis’) or not match the biological sex of the person (‘trans’). This gender identity does not have to be male or female; the most popular alternative to male or female identities is ‘non-binary’ meaning not identifying as either male or female. This identity is considered to override biological sex, so if a man ‘identifies as’ a woman, he is a woman, if a woman identifies as non binary then she is non binary.

This ideology seeks to change the way that society is constructed, to change the point of reference from sex to gender identity. So female toilets should be those for a female gender identity and not for the female biological sex. This applies to all other things segregated by sex – they should become segregated by identity (or not segregated at all). Pronouns are also another key part of this ideology. Rather than pronouns simply being used to shorten communication and to avoid contorted sentences, they are used as a form of validation of the individual’s gender identity. It is common nowadays in ‘queer’ spaces to state the pronouns ‘you use’ (i.e. that other people use about you) while introducing yourself to the group. She/her if you identify as a woman, they/them if you identify as non-binary etc. Some use multiple pronouns like she/they or ‘neopronouns’ (new words) like zie/zim.

The Left and Transgender Ideology

The modern left is heavily invested in supporting and defending this ideology and protecting it from criticism. Many of the individuals that I identified in my previous post, such as Kerry Ann Mendoza, Ash Sarkar, and Owen Jones, put a lot of energy into defending gender identity ideology. Here’s a few examples of how that applies in practise.

Sarkar and Jones, in particular, have criticised the High Court ruling in Bell/A. vs. Tavistock. This legal case was brought by Keira Bell, a detransitioned woman, and Mrs. A., the mother of a teenager with rapid onset gender dysphoria. It regarded the issue of whether children can consent to puberty blockers – drugs that prevent natural puberty which are the first step towards medical transition. The High Court declared that children under 16 were very unlikely to be able to consent to the use of puberty blockers.

Both Jones and Sarkar support the notion of the ‘trans child’. Of course, this follows from the notion of an ‘innate gender identity’ which children are capable of ‘just knowing’ by magic whether they are a boy or a girl (I would suggest that anyone who believes this try interacting with some children.) They believe that saying that children cannot consent to puberty blockers is discrimination against the ‘trans child’.

This isn’t the only position that these left wing activists take that is completely out of touch with reality. They also consider the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to be ‘transphobic’ because it requires a waiting time of two years before ‘gender’ can be changed and the presentation of medical evidence of gender dysphoria. Instead, they want this system to be operated on the principle of ‘self-ID’ – anyone can change their ‘gender’ at any time for any reason.

This article criticising Liz Truss for rejecting reforms along these lines from the Canary is a good example. One sentence of this article – talking about the fact that the GRA does not mention ‘non binary’ identities – is particularly revealing:

“Right now, non-binary individuals have nowhere to turn to legitimise their gender.”

The idea that the state and government legislation exists to legitimise an individual’s belief about themselves is of course, absurd and extremely narcissistic. The article does not answer the question as to why the state should consider ‘gender’ to be a valid category at all to include in law, other than that people’s feelings will be hurt if it is not.

Meanwhile, women’s concerns about men in their spaces are dismissed as transphobic. Women are perceived as the oppressors of those poor trans-identified males because we don’t consider them women and don’t want their male bodies in our spaces. This of course is a complete inversion of reality, where patriarchy oppresses women through male violence and the threat of such.

Transgender ideology has become a key plank of the modern left, and one which brooks no dissent, similar to the Covid narrative. The publications that are part of this milieu would refuse to publish any woman talking about the harms of this ideology (even publishing an article by her on a completely different topic) because in their view she is a ‘transphobe’ and a ‘terf’. The mantras are – ‘No Debate’ and ‘Trans Women are Women’. Anything other than full belief is transphobia.

What’s wrong with Gender Identity Ideology?

What’s the problem? Someone might ask. After all, isn’t this just about being kind to people who are suffering from mental distress? Isn’t this just about alleviating an individual’s dysphoria by being polite and kind? Well, no.

It should go without saying that criticising an ideology is not the same thing as expressing hatred towards a person. If one criticises Christianity or Islam, because they disagree with those religions, that is not the same as hating individuals that profess belief in those faiths. Whereas say, abuse towards someone for wearing a religious symbol would be an example of hatred towards the person believing in that religion. It should go without saying, except for the fact that transgender ideologists frame any disagreement with the concept of ‘gender identity’ as personal hatred and denial of their existence. They often abuse women for criticising their beliefs as ‘terfs’ and ‘transphobic’. So what are the problems with this belief? I am going to outline the fact that gender identity ideology is both misogynistic and homophobic.

Misogyny

Gender identity ideology is misogynistic.

How can one ‘identify’ as a woman? Women (and in general, non-gender identity believers) would say that female is a biological sex which is defined by the body type designed to produce eggs (large gametes). Women generally develop certain primary and secondary sex characteristics (womb, vagina, breasts) etc. That said because female is the type of body that is designed to develop large gametes, women who have certain disorders with regards to hormones or differences of sex development are still female, despite some transgender ideology claims that sex is a spectrum.

It’s clear that males cannot identify as having female biology, because that does not make any sense. Males by definition cannot have female biology (and vice versa). So, if a male identifies as female, what is he identifying with? Males who claim they are female claim to have some sort of inner female essence. What this amounts to in reality, however, is that they consider this female essence to be feminine stereotypes. Obviously, reducing women to feminine stereotypes is misogynistic.

The sexism is also very notable in the discussion around ‘trans kids’. ‘Affirmative’ parents – those who accept their child is the opposite sex – generally make comments about how their male child always liked dresses and dolls or their female child always liked trucks and climbing trees. The implication of this logic being that if a boy likes dresses he must really be a girl inside. This is regressive and encourages medicalisation of children who do not conform to gender stereotypes.

Gender identity ideology implies that women can identify out of their own oppression, as if ‘gender identity’ is the cause of women’s oppression, then women could escape this by identifying as men. This is obviously wrong, as women and girls cannot avoid FGM, forced marriage, rape, domestic violence and prostitution simply by identifying as male. Gender ideology also believes that men who identify as women are more oppressed than women because of their ‘identity’, and because of the fact that women refuse to ‘respect’ this identity. This ignores the male violence that women face, and also equates the oppression of trans identified homosexual males in prostitution in South America – a form of homophobic male violence – with the alleged oppression of middle class white trans-identified males in the West.

This ideology also reduces women’s safety, by allowing men who identify as women into spaces designed for women such as female toilets and changing rooms. It reduces the ability of women to be able to say no to men in these spaces for fear of being accused of transphobia. It also leads to dangerous situations where males are placed in female prisons and attack women.

Homophobia

Gender identity ideology is homophobic.

A lesbian is a woman who is attracted to other women and a gay man is a man attracted to other men. These terms are defined on the basis of biological sex. Gender identity ideology redefines these terms by stating that ‘woman’ is anyone who says they are a woman and ‘man’ is anyone who says they are a man. It follows that lesbians must include trans women in their dating pool and gay men must include trans men in their dating pool. This is imposing compulsory heterosexuality on gays and lesbians, which is homophobic.

Lesbians and gay men are subjected to abuse if they define their orientation as same sex attraction. There are endless amounts of twitter comments that state that if a lesbian refuses to sleep with trans women she is a ‘terf’, a ‘transphobe’ and that she is ‘denying that a trans women is a real woman’. There is even a term used by trans activists for this, the ‘cotton ceiling’, in other words framing lesbian sexuality as a barrier to be overcome by trans women. The same applies to gay men in reverse.

Trans ideology is also homophobic because it encourages children to ‘transition’. Gender dysphoria in children is more likely than not to resolve or decrease if a child is allowed to go through puberty and the number of these children that grow up LGB is higher than statistical average. There are also cases – revealed by whistleblowers at the Tavistock gender identity clinic in the UK – that many parents who do not want a gay child will seek their child’s transition as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality.

Where did Transgender Ideology Come From?

How did the absurd idea that men are actually women if they say so become so popular? After all, it is a laughable idea, or would be, if it wasn’t being used as a basis to undermine women’s rights and give harmful drugs to children.

Transgender ideology would not have been able to have become so dominant in society without a large amount of money behind it. Unlike Civil Rights and Gay Rights, transgender ideology has completely captured society in a small period of time without any real input from the broader society and without any attempts by activists to build public support for their position. The powerful men behind this ideology have captured institutions from the top down.

Stonewall, for example, used to be an organisation for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. It was designed to combat discrimination and to abolish homophobic laws such as Section 28. In 2015, Stonewall added the T to the previous Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual activism that it had been doing. Stonewall started pushing for extreme claims such as that biological sex does not matter and that same sex attraction is actually same gender attraction. The amount of funding that Stonewall has increased since they started promoting transgender ideology.

This idea was able to capture many large institutions in the UK through the mechanism of the ‘Stonewall Diversity Champions’ scheme. This scheme involves organisations paying Stonewall money to have a label placed on their website that shows that they are affiliated with Stonewall. This is then used to push their ideology and silence dissent, as has been seen with the case of Allison Bailey, a barrister who disagrees with gender identity ideology.

It is far more than just Stonewall, of course. Stonewall is merely a footsoldier in this war, the main drivers of this ideology are certain billionaires invested in pharmaceutical companies, and those who seek to change humanity through the mechanism of transhumanism. Big Pharma has an incentive to promote transgender hormones and surgeries as these make a large amount of money as opposite sex imitation requires a lifelong hormone regimen. Trans-identified male Martine Rothblatt has been the most vocal in promoting the intersection between transgenderism and transhumanism. The idea of transgenderism, in the words of Jennifer Bilek, is the “normalisation of disembodiment”, which opens up a path to lead to transhumanism as transhumanism is based on rejecting human embodiment and seeking to upload human beings to the cloud and other similar projects.

So How did the Left Become Duped by this Big Pharma based Ideology?

This ideology is another case – similarly to the Official Covid Narrative – where a detachment from material reality has led to the left supporting something destructive and dangerous, that benefits the billionaires that they claim to oppose. In the case of transgender ideology it also leads to the left promoting ideas that it claims to be opposed to such as misogyny and homophobia.

Both the Covid Narrative and Transgender ideology are able to manipulate the idea of compassion. The left considers itself to be compassionate and caring, so the idea that they could possibly be a ‘bigot’ for criticising transgender ideology is extremely upsetting to them. In fact, many on the left spend a lot of energy on calling other people bigots. When a large part of your identity is wrapped up in not seeming to be bigoted, and you are automatically the ‘kind’ one because you are on the left, the idea of being called phobic is a possible psychological harm to you.

Misogyny also likely plays a role, because trans activism inherently privileges the opinions of men over women. Learned misogyny makes people turning to the left more likely to take men’s claims that they are women seriously. There has been a significant history of misoogyny on the left, and one of the reasons that women created their own movements was because of the lack of support for women’s rights within broader movements. Thus I don’t think implicit misogyny can be ruled out as an influence on the left – as although the left has adopted more women’s rights positions over time, it cannot be expected that they would be immune to misogyny. Misogyny also means that they dismiss women’s counterarguments to transgender ideology as being bigoted and hateful.

The detachment from the reality of biological sex means they fail to see how the ideology harms women. Their detachment from material reality in terms of class and economics means that they fail to examine the massive amounts of money behind this agenda, and fail to see that the more people ‘being their true self’ by taking hormones and having surgery, the more money for Big Pharma.

The left also fails to understand the concept of autogynephilia. If you understand this concept, the behaviour of trans-identified males makes perfect sense. Combine this with big pharma based ‘activism’ for the acceptance of this fetish and the mixture is truly toxic, but the left fails to understand this.

Many trans-identified males, and former trans identified males, have admitted that autogynephilia is or was their motivation to ‘transition’ from male to female. Autogynephilia can be defined as a fetish in which a man is sexually aroused by the idea of thinking of himself as a woman. This fetish can involve being aroused by female clothing, female biology (such as breastfeeding or pregnancy) etc.

The concept of autogynephilia explains male trans activist behaviour exceedingly well. It explains the obsession with entering female spaces (as this involves being validated as a ‘real woman’ and not a man claiming to be a woman and this is a crucial part of the fetish), why they desire to sleep with lesbians, etc. It also explains the anger they show if they do not get their fetish validated – the anger of male entitlement.  When men get sexually rejected by women, they often get angry.

People find it hard to believe that there could be men out there that are so sexually obsessed and motivated by their fetish that they could go to the extremes of transitioning. However, there are many cases of men murdering women because of sexual rejection. The idea that there is a subset of men that would take hormones and have surgery for their fetish is really not so extreme.

Conclusion

Transgender Ideology is another sign of the left’s detachment from material reality. In particular, the material reality of biological sex, which is undermined and in some cases outright denied by transgender activists. But also the reality of the fact that this ideology is promoted by Big Pharma as a means to create profit, and has nothing to do with ‘being your true self.’

The Covid 19 Narrative is about Destroying Our Links With the Natural World (Part 1)

Introduction

One of the main functions of the Official Covid Narrative – the idea that Covid 19 is a uniquely deadly virus that requires the use of lockdowns, masks, and social distancing as well as vaccines being given to the vast majority of the human population – is to destroy the connections that human beings have with nature.

Human beings are inherently reliant upon nature to survive and traditional societies had a clear awareness of the cycles of nature and had spiritual beliefs based on natural processes. Modern industrial societies, that exist in the Western world, have reduced the connection with nature to a large extent. For example, human beings used to act within the natural light provided by the sun and divide up their days based on that, whereas nowadays we use times more suited to regimented industrial production.

However, even in our world with a large number of unnatural features, there are certain ideas that human beings naturally baulk at and consider to be immoral or disturbing. There are certain uses of technology that people consider to be going ‘too far’ and that many people who practice a faith consider to be ‘playing God’. Even if they cannot articulate a clear objection when asked, they feel in their gut that it is wrong. These aspects involve issues related to genetic engineering (including genetically modified foods), and anything related to transhumanism: from implantable sensors to becoming cyborgs.

Individuals such as Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, want to completely sever the linkages humans have to nature in order to create a techno-dystopia. Schwab has openly referred to the Fourth Industrial Revolution as “a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.” Most people are deeply uncomfortable with this idea and will need to be softened up to accept it and not put up mass resistance to it. Schwab has been open about the fact that he hopes to use the Covid-19 narrative as a means to completely reshape the world, in order to create his techno dystopia.

Here are the techniques that the mainstream media, the government, and psychopaths like Schwab are using to get people to reject their nature and accept transhumanist control. This article will discuss the first two aspects of this: ‘The War on Death’ and the nature of the Covid 19 vaccinations.

“The War on Death”

As has been pointed out by CJ Hopkins, the Official Covid Narrative essentially amounts to declaring a War on Death. This is self-evidently absurd:

We can’t let these […] coronavirus-sympathizers confuse us. They want to convince us that Death is, yes, scary, and sad, but inevitable, and natural. How utterly heartless and insane is that?!

No, we need to close our minds to that nonsense. People are dying! This is not normal! Death is our enemy! We have to defeat it! We need to hunt down and neutralize Death! Root it out if its hidey hole and hang it like we did with Saddam!

The Covid Narrative talks endlessly about death, death figures, and how many have died after a positive test. Yet, perversely, while the Covid Narrative obsesses over the reality of death – it also seeks to deny it. Every death is blamed on some sort of violation of the ‘pandemic restrictions’: ‘The Government didn’t lockdown early enough’, ‘people didn’t wear their masks’ and so on. The unspoken implication of this is that death is preventable so long as people obey the government. This is obvious nonsense, and magical thinking to the highest degree. This monomania is seen at its height in the ‘Zero Covid’ movement – a bunch of fanatics who want to completely eliminate Covid-19 from the earth without caring about the cost of the endless lockdowns they demand.

The fear of death is something that is present in all human societies and there have traditionally been societal means of managing this fear. Historically, religion has been one of the key ways of doing this, but there are also others that do not depend on faith in a deity (such as the idea of leaving a contribution to society behind). However, the global elite are more than aware of the psychological weaknesses that make human beings vulnerable to manipulation on this issue. For example, the UK Government has a ‘Scientific Pandemic Insights on Behaviours’ group specifically designed to manipulate the public so that they will obey the government. These individuals are aware that people’s fear of death can be used to get them to accept authoritarian governance and desire conformity. Psychologically, people are soothed by the idea that they can prevent death by following orders. The structure gives them something to focus upon: a way to avoid having to think about and accept the inevitable.

The government are attempting to detach people from the nature of life and death with this narrative. However, so far as this goes, this could still just be a form of authoritarian opportunism designed to get people to accept more government control. In order to see that this ‘war on death’ is part of a broader narrative to detach people from nature we must go deeper into the heart of the narrative and explore the vaccines.

The Nature of the Vaccine Saviour

From the beginning of the alleged pandemic, the idea of a vaccination was promoted as the solution and the only way to return to normal. This is despite the fact that natural solutions were and are available to mitigate the ‘pandemic’, even according to their own narrative.

According to the Official Narrative, Covid 19 is an upper tract respiratory virus, similar to influenza and the common cold. We already know the most important ways to lower risk of getting sick with such diseases. One of the most important of these is Vitamin D, which improves natural immunity. Rather than encouraging its citizens to help their immune system fight off the virus by getting Vitamin D, the government did not mention such solutions. Instead in fact, governments in the Western world locked down their populations in March and April 2020 – likely reducing Vitamin D intake when people could have been going outside in (at least here in the UK) glorious weather.

Of course, there are reasons why the government and pharmaceutical companies may downplay natural solutions that do not relate to the idea of attempting to disconnect us from the natural world and promoting transhumanism.

The first one is the profit motive. Vitamin D does not provide large amounts of profits for pharmaceutical companies as it can be got through diet, exercise, and cheap supplements. On the other hand, a vaccination has the potential to create billions in profit for these companies. We have already seen significant corruption of this type during the alleged 2009 ‘Swine Flu’ pandemic that turned out to be essentially completely fabricated as Swine Flu proved to be much less deadly than ordinary influenza. The World Health Organisation declared a pandemic because of this virus, but it turned out that many people declaring this ‘pandemic’ had connections to pharmaceutical companies that were producing a vaccination. This question was even investigated by the Council of Europe. The GlaxoSmithKline vaccine for Swine Flu, Pandemrix, turned out to be very harmful, causing a large number of narcolepsy cases.

The second reason is that the vaccination can be used as a mechanism for control. From the beginning of this narrative, the idea of vaccine passports has been floated by the elite. The World Economic Forum have been positively portraying vaccine passports and more recently the British government have launched a consultation on vaccination passports, showing that they are seriously considering them.

Both of these arguments are entirely valid and correct. However, I believe the aims of the vaccination go beyond these two goals and are designed to promote the transhumanist agenda. Both the profit motive goal and the control goal can be achieved by traditional vaccination. Traditional vaccination can be defined as interventions that inject a dead or attenuated virus into the body to prime the immune response. These new vaccines do not fit this category, and in fact fit into an ideal that allow the normalisation of changing humanity and bring us one step closer to transhumanism.

There are two different types of Covid-19 vaccination. The first type is the mRNA vaccination, and this type is the one that has generated the most discussion and criticism among alternative media circles. The vaccines that fall in this category are the Pfizer and Moderna injections. These jabs contain a piece of mRNA, messenger RNA that will enter into your cells. The mRNA will then get these cells to produce a ‘spike protein’: the protein that is (supposedly) on the surface of the virus Sars-Cov-2. After the cells at the injection site have created the spike protein, the immune system will produce antibodies to this protein. Theoretically these antibodies will then be able to fight off the virus if they come into contact with it.

What about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccination? This does not use the mRNA technology. However, the vaccination cannot be considered traditional, either. This is because it does not contain dead or attenuated Sars-Cov-2 virus. Rather, it contains a chimpanzee adenovirus, which has been genetically modified in order to have the Sars-Cov-2 spike protein on the surface.

There is an interesting article published on the ‘Alliance for Science’ (whose “primary source of support is a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation”) called ‘Yes, Some Covid Vaccines use Genetic Engineering. Get Over It.’ This article promotes the creation of hybrid viruses and reprogramming some of your cells as ‘way cool’, as if it’s just a special effect in a science fiction film. Of course, according to the article, everyone who is a bit sceptical of this is a lunatic anti-vaxxer. The article also links this scepticism to anti-GMO views – explicitly criticising those who prefer natural approaches.

The classification of such interventions as vaccination means, to quote Dr. Andrew Wakefield, “we now have genetic engineering put in the category with vaccines”. This is obviously a very concerning development. The creation of these vaccines also show us what these scientists really think about nature and natural processes. They view natural processes in a completely instrumental way, rather than as complicated and interlinked processes that can be heavily affected by changes in one part: they think problems can be solved in a mechanistic manner. This also demonstrates the extreme hubris of these scientists – and their backers such as Bill Gates.

There may be one final argument against my position, and that is that many if not most people are not aware of the real nature of these injections, thus the vaccine cannot be said to normalise transhumanism. It is true that many people are not currently aware of the nature of these injections. However, as these people have already accepted their vaccination there will be a powerful incentive for them to rationalise that choice when the reality of the injection becomes more clear. This rationalisation, of course, will end up amounting to the idea that this sort of messing with nature is actually good, or fine, or ‘nothing really went wrong and the scientists know what they are doing’.

Conclusion

The story so far has demonstrated that there is an agenda to declare war on the nature of our humanity and to promote genetic engineering when it comes to vaccination. The next part of the story will take up the issue of nanotechnology and its relation to the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’.

Boris Johnson’s ‘Roadmap’ and Covid 19 Psychological Warfare

22nd February was the day that everybody in the UK was waiting for. It was the date of the long-awaited Boris Johnson announcement that is supposed to be the ‘Roadmap out of Lockdown’. This announcement, however, is just the next step in the psychological warfare that has been conducted against the British public since the beginning of the ‘Covid 19 Pandemic’.

The Covid Cult and Parasite Stress Theory

One of the best articles written about the Covid 19 Narrative is ‘The Covidian Cult’ by C.J. Hopkins. The article begins by saying that:

One of the hallmarks of totalitarianism is mass conformity to a psychotic official narrative. Not a regular official narrative, like the “Cold War” or the “War on Terror” narratives. A totally delusional official narrative that has little or no connection to reality and that is contradicted by a preponderance of facts.

The Covid-19 Narrative, as outlined in Hopkins’ article, fits this description perfectly. The narrative is subject to both massive internal contradictions and contradicts reality. It also has that ‘We have always been at war with Eastasia’ quality, where adherents must change what they believe along with the whiplash in the official narrative.

A few examples:

Internal contradictions: a notable example involves the vaccine. On the one hand, narrative adherents believe that the vaccine is safe and effective. On the other hand, they believe we need to remain under lockdown despite the fact that vulnerable people have had the vaccine. This of course, implies that the vaccine does not work since if it did work and hospitalisations are reduced why the need for continued lockdown?

Contradicted by evidence: The effectiveness of masks is contradicted by a multitude of peer reviewed studies that show they do not stop the spread of viruses, and the idea that masks are safe is contradicted by the evidence that they cause headaches and reduce oxygen level, as well as causing bacterial pneumonia. The effectiveness of lockdowns is contradicted by the evidence from countries that didn’t lock down being no worse off than other countries.

Narrative Whiplash: Endless. One significant example is the government changing its position from doing lockdown to ‘flatten the curve’ for 3 weeks (i.e. not to actually prevent severe cases but just stagger them out over a longer period of time) to lockdowns being used to allegedly actually prevent death. This was so long ago that people have forgotten the narrative shift.

People’s minds have been completely debased by this official narrative, and they have short circuited. They believe in the narrative with a fanatical passion, arguing in nonsensical contortions to maintain their belief. This is because the Official Covid Narrative is more akin to a cult narrative than a political disagreement – it is designed to control its adherents.

A ‘pandemic’ narrative is an extremely effective way to control a population. This is known as ‘Parasite Stress Theory’ which has been outlined in this article by Derrick Broze:

What they discovered was that when the threat of infectious disease was prominent the population expressed “greater liking for people with conformist traits and exhibited higher levels of behavioral conformity.” However, there was no comparable increase in conformist attitudes as a result of a temporary threats that were not related to disease.

Disturbingly, the study found that an individual’s perception of vulnerability to infection does not necessarily need to be rooted in reality to produce a profound psychological effect. If an individual perceives they are vulnerable to infection they tend to prefer conformity and accept authoritarian measures, even if they are not actually under threat. “Our experimental manipulation focused on perception, not reality,” the researchers note.

Johnson’s War on The Public

These two concepts – the cult narrative and parasite stress theory – explain very well why people have been duped by the government’s relentless propaganda. The parasite stress theory explains why populations are particularly vulnerable to a ‘deadly disease’ narrative, whereas perceiving the narrative as that of a cult explains why believers are impervious to reason or evidence.

How has Boris Johnson employed this manipulation in practice? James Lindsay, in an article for New Discourses, talks about the creation of parareality, or an alternative matrix of ideas that is not based in reality that initiates its adherents into an alternative world that can only sustain itself through avoiding contact with reality due to the inherent contradictions and the nonsensical nature of the ideology. Johnson and the mainstream media have constructed a Covid 19 parareality and ensnared their victims.

In order to successfully maintain the parareality – and this is a parareality inflicted on an entire society, not just in a small cult setting – the creators of the reality (Johnson, Hancock, mainstream media pundits like Piers Morgan, ‘scientists’ like Neil Ferguson) must successfully get around 35% of the population to uncritically believe the cult narrative. This – combined with compliance from those who do not want to rock the boat or who sit between cult adherents and dissidents from the official narrative – will give the impression of complete submission to those islands of people who reject the cult reality.

The first step is to initiate as many people into the cult as possible.

The media was used to whip up a massive amount of fear. The idea of a new deadly disease that we were all going to die from, of course, had a profound effect on the public. Our leaders are aware of the studies on things like parasite stress theory, meaning that they knew a virus narrative would be particularly likely to inculcate submissive behaviour. The idea of the virus being from China – a foreign country with a very different culture to Britain and an ‘enemy’ country – likely enhanced the effect, due to the historic associations between foreigners and disease that have often been used by opportunistic leaders.

Having defined the ‘enemy’ – the invisible virus that has come to kill us all – the cult must then define the ‘saviour’. Of course, in charismatic cults, this is generally the leader of the cult who is often considered a spokesperson for the divine. Boris Johnson, however, was intelligent enough to realise that he could not set up the Covid Cult by appealing to himself due to the fact that he is a polarising leader. Many liberals and left leaning people despise Boris Johnson because they are passionate EU supporters and disagree with Johnson’s Brexit deal. The left generally thinks Johnson is a homophobic and racist buffoon. (Johnson played the fool and pretended not to want a lockdown in order to get these people to support lockdowns.)

Instead, Boris Johnson turned the NHS from a healthcare institution designed to treat sick people into ‘Our NHS’, a quasi-divine institution that must be ‘protected’ from having to provide healthcare to non-Covid patients. Doctors and nurses have been turned into the saints of the new Covid Cult, and constant stories of their self-sacrifice were put forward in the media. And then of course there was ‘Clap for the NHS’. The NHS is a convenient prop for a cult due to many people appreciating the NHS from all sides of the political spectrum. This allows the widest possible group of people to be initiated into the cult.

Having initiated a certain part of the population into the cult, the government must now give the impression to dissenters that they are completely and utterly outnumbered. This is why the mandatory mask is so important. Even if people are only wearing the mask out of avoidance of getting fined or confronted, it creates an impression of cult conformism. Members of a cult often have certain dress codes and the mask serves this role perfectly. Of course, covering one’s face has other aspects which induce herd mentality. Covering someone’s mouth generally means they have been silenced (hence, for example, the Free Assange movement using imagery that shows Assange with his mouth covered by a US flag indicating his gagging by US authorities). Masks make everyone look similar and also single out those who refuse to genuflect to the cult demands. It would have been much more difficult for the government to maintain the fear without the mask as it invokes the idea of disease and hospital wards by its very nature.

Those that do not believe in the invented parareality of Johnson and Hancock are psychologically demotivated by mass compliance to the narrative. But Johnson also seeks to psychologically destroy dissenters through his demonstrations of control – and that is where the ‘Roadmap out of Lockdown’ comes in.

The point of announcements like the ‘Roadmap out of Lockdown’ is to inspire hope in the public that soon things will be ‘back to normal’. This is aimed to reduce expressions of direct dissent (we are ‘going back to normal’ soon so why kick up a fuss?) but also to psychologically damage the population through inculcating hope and then deliberately taking it away, through refusing to lift restrictions or through announcing another lockdown. They have done this already with the Christmas manipulation – when they claimed we needed a November lockdown to ‘save Christmas’ and then cancelled Christmas anyway.

Every single person in Britain is now aware that the government can destroy their life at any time. They only have to utter a few magic words. “New Variant” or “R Number” or “Imperial College Model” for example. This inculcates a constant sense of anxiety in the public, and helps to blackmail compliance (‘if you don’t wear your mask we will do another lockdown’). Of course, this very same compliance leads to more restrictions because the government knows that they can get away with it.

Conclusion

Boris Johnson’s ‘Roadmap out of Lockdown’ is merely another manipulation tactic in the psychological warfare that he is inflicting on the British public. The aim of this psychological warfare is the creation of a biosecurity state, with mandatory vaccinations and vaccine passports. Reject the false hope dangled by Johnson, and ignore everything he says. Compliance with a biosecurity state agenda will never set you free. Instead, tell Johnson he can stick his vaccine passport where the sun doesn’t shine.

The Modern Left is Out Of Touch With Reality: Part 1 – The Covid Narrative

The modern left is completely out of touch with reality. I say that as someone who has always been sympathetic to left wing politics.

What is the modern left?

In my opinion, the modern left consists of people with certain political beliefs, but it also includes a particular aesthetic. Both these factors separate the modern left from traditional left wing ideologies such as Marxism and soft left ideologies such as social democracy. Of course, there are differentiations even within this group and there is not a complete unity of views across all individuals.

I shall begin with the aesthetic aspect. In order for someone to qualify as a member of the modern left, they must first present themselves in a particular way. The first indication of a modern left proponent is that they set themselves up as an ‘alternative’ view that is different from the mainstream media – and in fact often criticise the mainstream media as being largely propaganda. This sets them apart from mainstream liberals, who generally only focus criticism on right-wing media while uncritically imbibing The Guardian. The individuals concerned can work for the mainstream media or for independent media, the key is that they present themselves in this manner.

The beliefs of this particular group include support for various left wing positions on the economy and generally support for Palestine and criticism of establishment warmongering. They are also often supporters of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and other similar MPs such as Rebecca Long-Bailey, Zarah Sultana, and Diane Abbott. What sets the modern left apart from other left wing ideologies, however, is not economics, nor positions on foreign policy, but the heavy focus on identity politics that often in their work (implicitly or explicitly) overrides class analysis, or in general, analysis rooted in material reality.

Identity politics in itself is a tricky term to define, and is not just advocated by the modern left. Liberals often advocate a form of identity politics that basically believes that a woman or a black man is power is good regardless of policy. Modern left identity politics is a bit more complicated because they are not quite this simplistic in their analysis. I think the important thing to bear in mind is that they (even if implicitly) override class and the material to focus on identity. The best example of the modern left carrying out this kind of analysis relates to gender identity: a man who says he is a woman (identity) is more oppressed than a woman (material reality). Identity politics also generally involves, implicitly or explicitly, putting the site of oppression on people’s opinions rather than structural factors. This explains ‘cancel culture’, where people are vilified for expressing a slightly different view as if some random person on Twitter is the source of all that is bad in the world.

The focus on identity politics draws a clear distinction between Marxists (focused on material reality) and the modern left. My examples of the modern left would include: independent media outlets Novara Media (edited by Ash Sarkar) and the Canary (edited by Kerry Anne Mendoza), Guardian writers Owen Jones, Paul Mason, and to a lesser extent George Monbiot. There are also multiple random Twitter accounts that fall into this bracket. Left wingers who would not qualify as the modern left would include Paul Embery, George Galloway and Gordon Dimmack, as they lack the identity politics focus.

My point is not to say that the Modern Left is always wrong. Of course not. Nor am I saying that people like Paul Embery are always right. On the issue of Israeli apartheid for example, I agree with the Modern Left while I feel Embery is too dismissive of the harms inflicted on the Palestinian people. But what I am saying is that I believe that the Modern Left has serious – indeed fatal – problems.

In order to analyse this problem, I will start with the most recent problem first and try to work backwards. My aim with this series is not to call anybody ‘controlled opposition’, not because that does not exist, but because it is a counter productive way to analyse the problem. Even if the individuals involved are controlled opposition (possibly true of some of them), many people who are genuine and well intentioned read the works of the people involved. They believe in these individuals as representatives of them that are doing good work. This is why it is important to criticise them from the standpoint of ideology and narrative construction; an accusation of controlled opposition can be much more easily dismissed than an evidence based rational critique.

The year is 2021. The Modern Left has succeeded in destroying itself. The last, fatal blow to this group is their uncritical and fanatical belief in the Official Covid Narrative.

What is the Official Covid Narrative?

The Official Covid Narrative can be defined as the idea that Covid-19 is an extraordinarily dangerous disease that originated in China near the end of 2019, and that the only way to save lives from this disease is to do lockdowns, mandate masks and practise social distancing. If these things were not done then there will be mass death from the virus. Implicitly, this narrative believes that Covid-19 is the most important thing in the world, and everything else needs to be ‘sacrificed’ in order to stop the spread.

On this paradigm, the answer to any problems with the spread of Covid-19 is more lockdowns, harder lockdowns and longer lockdowns. No other method is considered, and any harms caused by lockdowns are dismissed as unimportant and irrelevant, even if implicitly. Covid is more important.

Another important part of the narrative is that anyone who disagrees with it is a terrible human being who doesn’t care about other people and mass death. There is zero tolerance for different opinions, even for people who take a middle ground position on lockdowns or believe that other things need to be taken into account. People who do not wear masks are vilified and hated, even people with genuine medical exemptions. People who genuinely believe that lockdowns and masks do not work are ‘granny killing monsters’. No rational arguments, including peer reviewed studies (there are several showing that masks do not work for instance), penetrate the bubble of the fanatical lockdown supporter.

I was sceptical of the Official Covid Narrative from the start. When the media started their fearmongering about the virus at the beginning of 2020, I thought that ‘The media said we were all going to die of Swine Flu, and it never happened’. When the idea of lockdowns started to be mentioned, I immediately saw that as a power grab, particularly when I examined the contents of the Coronavirus Act 2020. This virus narrative was clearly being used to increase the power of the state and to shut down protests as well as massively increasing police powers. I expected at least some people on the left would have sympathy with my position. Instead, in March 2020 when the government announced the first lockdown, I found myself in almost complete isolation with my view except for a few anonymous Twitter accounts and some individuals on the Right. Basically no leftists were criticising the government decision to lock down.

The Left and the Covid Narrative

So how did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where the Left is fanatically cheering on the authoritarianism of a Tory government, despite their insistence in 2019 that Boris Johnson was a ‘fascist’?

In fact, the left now thinks that the authoritarian Tory government isn’t authoritarian enough.

Kerry Anne Mendoza, the editor of the Canary, is typical in her obsession with worse and worse lockdowns. She tweeted out on Jan 8: “We’re still not in a proper lockdown. Too many kids forced into school because they’re too poor for home schooling, or their parents have been forced to work. Ports & airports are still open without screening/quarantine.”

So, in other words, they want to give the government (a Tory government they purport to hate) more control over people’s lives and more draconian police powers (as that is the only way that this could possibly be enforced).

As a left winger I look at this and see complete and utter ridiculousness. They openly believe that the Tory government is racist and hates the poor. But they want the government they believe that of to have more power to pursue racist policies and impoverish people.

The first key to understanding this nonsense position is given by one of the best writers on the ‘pandemic’, Neil Clark, in his article ‘Covid-19 reverse psychology: Did Johnson play the left by ‘pretending’ he didn’t want a lockdown so it could get public support?’:

The dominant narrative is that Bojo, the hapless ‘clown’ and his Keystone Cops Cabinet were pushed into lockdown. Pushed by public opinion. Pushed by the ‘experts’. Pushed by the Premier League. Pushed by the ‘Left’. Pushed by Piers Morgan. Pushed by ‘Professor Doom’ Neil Ferguson and his ludicrous ‘modelling’.

But if they had already arranged a £119m lockdown advertising campaign [3 weeks before lockdown was announced], which referenced emergency economic measures in its communication strategy, it would mean the decision to lockdown had already been taken many weeks earlier. At the same time, the government was giving every impression that they weren’t going to lockdown.

Why did they do this? Well, put yourself in the shoes of Johnson and his top aide Dominic Cummings. If a Conservative government, and one which has already been denounced as by the liberal-left for being pro-Brexit, and anti-free movement, had said openly in February that they were planning to lock Britain down there would have been an outcry. The big question for the government was: how can we lock the country down, without stirring the liberal-left still further and provoking mass public opposition. What if the answer then was: pretend that we don’t want a lockdown? Then the binary, groupthink ‘culture warriors’ would be sure to press for one!

As we can see, the left were taken in hook, line and sinker by this strategy. However, there are two further questions that we can ask about this: 1) Why was the Left so vulnerable to manipulation on this issue by Johnson? 2) why has the left continued to support lockdowns given the obvious harms to groups that they claim to support (e.g. working class people and disabled people?) And why do they refuse to listen to e.g. disabled people talking about the harms of mandatory mask wearing despite the fact one of their key narratives is ‘listen to people from X oppressed group’?

Why was the Left so Vulnerable to Johnson’s Manipulation?

When considering this question, I have come up with a few factors that I believe have relevance. Clark has already hinted at the first of these: that those who dislike Johnson will have a visceral reaction to him implying that he would pursue herd immunity and knee jerk take the opposite position because they hate Johnson so much. I agree with this point, it is absolutely true. I think we can go into more depth on the question, however.

Clark states that the liberal left types generally hate Johnson because of Brexit. It is true that that correlation seems to exist – pro-EU with pro-lockdown (but obviously, not always). However, the generally middle class Remainer types who support lockdowns are a different group from the modern left because these middle class types are much less likely to have been Corbyn supporters and care about issues such as Israeli apartheid.

So aside from Johnson Derangement Syndrome, what else has affected the left’s vulnerability to manipulation by Boris Johnson?

a) The Conceit of Compassion

The Left generally likes to think of itself as a compassionate group of people, caring about the rights of minorities and the working class, as compared to conservatives, who are apparently racist and homophobic. The idea that ‘lockdown is the compassionate position to save lives’ made the left buy into it, especially as Johnson made it appear as if he was ‘uncompassionate’ (for example, stating that some people would lose loved ones to the virus – assuming the virus exists, a simple statement of fact) which made the left get up in arms about how he wanted to ‘kill people’. Of course, the paradox here is that both the Tory government and the modern left support the idea that if you oppose lockdowns you support killing grandma.

b) Loss of contact with material reality

This is an even more fundamental issue with the modern left. Traditional Marxism was based upon materialist analysis, focusing on the working class and their relationship to the means of production. I would not necessarily agree with traditional Marxism in all its particulars, but because it was a materialist theory it had an objective relationship to reality.

Modern leftism has lost touch with this relationship with reality. This is of course in part because the people in this modern left group are not generally working class. The clearest example of this break with reality is again transgender ideology, where if a male says he is female, he is, despite the fact that female is a biological sex objectively grounded in developmental, hormonal, etc. reality.

Although it is less obvious this issue also applies to lockdowns. When the modern left screech for more harder and longer lockdowns, they implicitly act as if lockdowns are consequence-free. They themselves are sheltered from any bad consequences of lockdowns – they aren’t going to be missing a meal or be at risk of losing their homes. It is bizarre that many of these people claim that austerity kills but if you suggest that lockdowns that crash the economy kill people you are a covidiot conspiracy theorist.

These left wingers are out of touch with how an economy actually works – acting like you can just put it ‘on hold’ when in fact that will lead to the destruction of many jobs. They also act like there is infinite amounts of free money for furlough, probably because they have bought into the problematic theory of MMT, which says governments can print money indefinitely. The modern left also don’t acknowledge the fact that the Tories now have the mechanism for the biggest austerity plan of all time and that they are enabling it: the Tories will say “Well we have to do austerity because we spent all that money on furlough and Covid measures”. Strong opposition to lockdowns hypothetically could have prevented all that money being wasted on furlough.

The comfortable middle class nature of these individuals also prevents them from questioning the fact that we are in lockdown, despite the fact that ‘the wealthy want us all back at work’ (according to their narrative). This of course, completely ignores the evidence that the billionaires are making a fortune out of lockdowns. It also ignores that fact that the Conservative Party is a party designed to represent the rich capitalists and their interests. The idea that this party would do something as large as lockdowns against the interests of the billionaire and millionaire capitalists is inherently extremely implausible, but the modern Left swallows this contradiction without blinking.

Why Does the Left Refuse to Question?

You would think that, after nearly a year, maybe some of the left wing lockdown fanatics would start questioning the narrative that they have been pushing. The thing is, I could understand someone initially getting caught up in the fear and supporting a lockdown because they are scared. But you’d think that might wear off after a bit and that reason would be allowed back into the room.

Apparently not. The left wing lockdown fanatics simply cannot see through the maze they have created: the idea that Tories ‘don’t want a lockdown’ (even though they’ve done three of them) and that the left needs to fanatically advocate for more and harsher lockdowns. Lockdown leftists are stuck in a loop where they have to say that the Tory government doing lockdowns and mandatory masks magically don’t want the things that they are doing.

People generally don’t like admitting that they are wrong, and this is relevant here. If they admitted that the ruinous policy position that they have been promoting for a year is wrong – well,that’s going to make them lose a lot of credibility. It goes beyond that though. In order to concede that the lockdown policies were wrong, they would have to concede that the groups that they care about (or say they do) – the working class, children, disabled people – have been devastated by lockdowns and that would cause them psychological injury. The idea that they are a compassionate and caring person who defends the weak – a key part of their psychological self conception – would be wrecked if they conceded the lockdown damaged and destroyed the weak.

The modern left like to use the slogan: ‘listen to people from X minority group’ (which is in itself reasonable – we should listen to people from different backgrounds). But the modern left must block out the voices of the disabled people who get discriminated against because of masks, block out the voices of the working class people who have lost their jobs, block out the voices of women who have been locked in with a violent abuser, block out the screams of children who have been told they are banned from social interaction. Or else concede – at the risk of their integrity and self image – that they have enabled the absolute worst of Tory monsters to destroy the weak.

Mandatory Masks are Disability Discrimination

Mandatory masks have been introduced in indoor spaces and public transport in the UK for the alleged reason of ‘fighting the Covid-19 pandemic’. Many people have been critical of the mask mandates on various grounds, including civil liberties and the poor evidence base that they stop the transmission of viruses. This article will discuss an underacknowledged aspect of the mask mandate: that it amounts to discrimination against those who cannot wear masks because of disabilities.

The obvious objection to this position is that the law does state that there are exemptions on disability grounds. The ‘Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020‘ states that:

For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where—
(a)P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—
(i)because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)), or
(ii)without severe distress;
(b)P is travelling with, or providing assistance to, another person (“B”) and B relies on lip reading to communicate with P.

The argument would follow, that because the law recognises exemptions, it is not discrimination. However, in practice this is not the case. In reality the law forces disabled people to make unfair choices, all of which can be plausibly argued to amount to discrimination. As a disabled person (autism) I have tried all of these choices and all of them make me feel like a second class citizen.

Choice 1: Don’t wear a mask

The media and the government have worked up the public into a lather about the alleged ‘pandemic’, all but claiming that if you walk past someone not wearing a mask in a supermarket that you are going to drop dead. The government has also done everything in its power to promote the idea that mask wearers are virtuous and good people and that by implication people who don’t wear masks are horrible and selfish. The British police chief, Cressida Dick, even stated that people who aren’t wearing masks in shops should be shamed:

My hope is that the vast majority of people will comply, and that people who are not complying will be shamed into complying or shamed to leave the store by the store keepers or by other members of the public.

All of this opens up disabled people for abuse and police harrassment. There have been cases where this has happened. Even if abuse does not take place, disabled people are forced to worry about the possibility every time they do in a shop.

Choice 2: Wear a Sunflower Lanyard

The next suggestion would be to wear a ‘Sunflower Lanyard’, which is a card designed for people with hidden disabilities to signal that they have a disability. There are versions that can be bought which say ‘Face Covering Exempt’.

Putting disabled people in a position where they feel pressured to reveal a hidden disability to everyone through the use of a lanyard or else risk abuse cannot be considered a solution. Most people don’t want to go around declaring they have health conditions to random members of the public and that also applies to people with hidden disabilities. It makes many people feel embarrassed, ashamed, awkward and self-conscious. That’s because health data is generally considered to be private information that we only feel comfortable revealing to a doctor (and sometimes not even then!).

Choice 3: Avoid Public Spaces

The mandating of masks can become a barrier to the participation of disabled people in society. I have heard many individuals say something along the lines of ‘If you can’t wear a mask in a shop, you should stay at home’. This is arguing for the exclusion of disabled people from society.

Many disabled people are already avoiding shops over masks. I have avoided going into shops when I otherwise would have because of the mask mandates and not wanting to deal with questions, dirty looks or abuse.

Choice 4: Wear a mask

The option of trying to wear a mask anyway in order to avoid the three scenarios outlined above is also discriminatory. Someone with asthma for example, may struggle to breathe through a mask and put themselves at a higher risk of an attack. Sensory issues can mean people with autism suffer from significant anxiety from wearing a mask. Masks can have a negative effect on a number of different medical conditions so pressure on disabled people to wear them regardless – putting people in a position where they are forced to possibly harm their health to avoid confrontation – is discriminatory.

Whichever option you want to choose, then, you are faced with discrimination.

But maybe you want to object that we are ‘in the middle of a deadly pandemic’ and disabled people should just suck it up. If you want to do make this argument, at least be honest about what you are arguing for.

Trans Rights Activists Vs. Branch Covidians

The thesis of this article is that there are significant similarities in beliefs between Trans Rights Activists (TRAs) and what have been jokingly called Branch Covidians (BCs).

What is a TRA?

A Trans Rights Activist (TRA) is someone that has specific certain beliefs. The core belief among TRAs is that every human being has an innate ‘gender identity’. This gender identity is considered to define whether one is a man or a woman (or non-binary or any other possible ‘identity’) rather than biological sex. This leads to the assertions that ‘Trans Women are Women, Trans Men are Men, Non-Binary people are Non-Binary’. It follows from this that laws should be changed to get rid of biological sex and replace it with gender identity and that all women’s toilets, changing rooms etc. should be open to ‘trans women’ under all circumstances. Any evidence raised by women that this policy harms them is dismissed, and the women are called ‘transphobic’ ‘TERF’ etc.

What is a BC?

A Branch Covidian (BC) is someone who fully and uncritically supports the Official Covid Narrative. This narrative states that Covid 19 is an extraordinarily deadly virus and the only way to deal with it is endless lockdowns, masks, and social distancing. The efficacy of lockdowns, masks, and social distancing is assumed as a matter of fact, and anyone who raises evidence, even from official sources, that these measures do not work is dismissed as a ‘crank’, ‘conspiracy theorist’, and ‘granny killer’. As a note, I did not coin the term ‘Branch Covidian’ I simply stole it from someone on Twitter.

1. Science Denial – While Claiming Science Supports Them

Both TRAs and BCs endlessly invoke ‘scientific evidence’ for their position.
The TRA generally tries to undermine the concept and relevance of human sexual dimorphism i.e. the blatantly obvious statement that there are two biological sexes in the human species, male and female. They do this by attempting to invoke flawed biological arguments relating to intersex conditions. A small number of people have medical conditions which mean that their biological sex is not obvious at birth. TRAs use this point in order to try to argue that therefore biological sex is a spectrum and not binary. In reality this is not the case and intersex people are either male or female.

BCs are also fond of faux scientific arguments for their position. This applies to lockdowns but it’s most obvious in the realm of mask wearing. In terms of lockdowns, they argue that lockdowns ‘control the virus’ and thus prevent deaths. In reality this is not the case. As I argued at Off Guardian, Belarus had fewer excess deaths than England and Wales during Apr-Jun 2020, despite the fact that Belarus did not have a lockdown. This is hardly the only evidence against lockdowns: The American Institute for Economic Research compiled a list of studies about lockdowns showing that they do not work.

Masks deserve their own separate analysis. The BCs like to post memes about how masks work, claiming that masks significantly reduce the risk of infection. In reality, pretty much every study prior to 2020, when the issue became politicised, showed the ineffectiveness of masks. Independent journalist Ryan Cristian has complied a list of mask studies – many from bodies such as the American National Institute of Health – showing the lack of efficacy of masks in preventing viral infection and the harmful effects of wearing them. Going through these studies (I have looked at some of them) it is clear that the evidence for masks is extremely weak at best. I can only cite a couple of examples for length. This study on pregnant healthcare workers states:

Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use.

This is from a study that looked at another 14 studies, from the available abstract:

Compared to no masks there was no reduction of influenza-like illness (ILI) cases (Risk Ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.05) or influenza (Risk Ratio 0.84, 95%CI 0.61-1.17) for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers (Risk Ratio 0.37, 95%CI 0.05 to 2.50). There was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators: for ILI (Risk Ratio 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.08), for influenza (Risk Ratio 1.02, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.43).

This scientific evidence is ignored.

2. Endless Mantras and Virtue Signalling

Both these groups have mantras that one is supposed to repeat and intone endlessly. For the TRAs, the main mantra is ‘Trans Women are Women’. ‘Trans Men are Men’ and ‘Non Binary people are who they say they are’ also score as important mantras, but not as highly as TWAW does (because trans activism is about the feelings of men). This is stated by politicians, journalists, and trans activist lobby groups endlessly. The main mantra used by the BCs is ‘Stay Safe’, duly placed at the end of every email and tweet. There are of course endless government approved mantras, which the likes of Johnson and Hancock promote and that appear on every piece of government advertising.

Both of these groups are also very fond of virtue signalling. Virtue Signalling can be defined as when one states a position purely because of the pats on the back one gets on social media. This is generally done instead of actually doing something to help people. This is rampant among both TRAs and BCs. A significant virtue signal is the ‘pronouns in bio’, where a ‘cisgender’ person puts ‘their pronouns’ (i.e. how anyone looking at them would probably refer to them) in their bio in order to ‘be inclusive of trans and non binary people’. The BC equivalent is the ‘mask selfie’: using a profile picture of oneself wearing a mask. There is absolutely no rational need to use a profile picture with a mask on. The only reason is to pat oneself on the back for how great one is for wearing a mask.

3. Male Entitlement Vs. Furlough Entitlement

One of the key similarities between these two groups is that they both ignore the harms inflicted by their ideological belief because they do not belong to the groups that are harmed. Obviously, this section involves generalisation.

Women are the group that are most harmed by gender identity ideology, due to men ‘identifying’ as women invading women’s spaces, such as changing rooms and sports. Women in prison are physically put at risk by males who claim to be women in their prisons (in some cases these males commit rape.) Lesbians are particularly harmed due to the pressure on them to include trans-identified males in their sex life. Girls, who are often lesbian and/or autistic, are the primary target for puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgery at a young age. Gay men are also harmed due to being pressured to sexually include trans-identified females in their sex life and also at gender clinics as many effeminate boys grow up to be gay if left unmedicalised.

Women who object to this do not get a voice or opinion and are shouted down as bigots and TERFs. The shouting down of women (and it is generally women – men who disagree with gender identity ideology generally get less hassle) is an example of male entitlement. In transgender ideology, males can demand that they belong in women’s spaces, women’s sports, rape crisis & domestic violence shelters and if they are excluded the women in question are bigots. The people calling for the laws to be changed to admit males are not the ones being harmed by the ideology.

The working class are the group that are most harmed by lockdowns. Workers in industries like hospitality, who were generally already on low wages, have seen their livelihoods decimated. Job losses caused by lockdowns will affect these people the most. For the working class it is also a major problem that they may be stuck in small council flats/houses with children who are not allowed to go to school. Self-employed people and small business owners are also heavily affected by lockdowns, due to the closing of businesses and loss of work. Children are also harmed by lockdowns by having their education destroyed and this affects working class children and disabled children the most as specialist services have been cancelled. NHS care being cancelled also mostly affects the working class because private care is unaffordable. Disabled people are harmed by mask mandates and worrying every time they go in a shop they will be subject to abuse for being exempt.

Working class people and disabled people who have been harmed by lockdowns do not get an opinion. They are shouted down by BCs. Anyone who even raises any questions whatsoever about lockdowns is called a ‘Covid denier’ (even if they believe the virus exists, which the majority of lockdown sceptics do in my experience). Disabled people and rape survivors who cannot wear a mask due to trauma are told endlessly they shouldn’t be allowed in shops without a mask, even by people who claim to be horrified by discrimination.

I have called this endless call for more and harsher lockdowns ‘Furlough Entitlement’. Middle class people on furlough seem to be the demographic group most supportive of lockdowns, presumably because they do not have to work but the 80% they get from the government is still enough to be comfortable. We can add the professional class in our media to that list, the likes of Piers Morgan, who isn’t going to miss a meal because of lockdown. Though I’ve called it Furlough Entitlement it also applies to those who are in no danger of losing their jobs because of lockdowns. Expecting working class people to lose their jobs and have their finances decimated because you are afraid of a virus is extremely entitled.

Both of these groups also promote the idea that they are not the establishment, despite the fact that this claim is fraudulent. One of the most interesting cases of this is Stonewall, gender identity ideologues extraordinaire, claiming that the likes of Keira Bell and Maya Forstater are ‘bullying’ trans people by scraping together money for legal cases. Of course Stonewall has far more money and influence than any gender critical or radical feminist organisation but that part gets left out of the narrative.

The same applies to BCs. They claim that ‘Boris Johnson didn’t want lockdowns, the establishment want us all back at work, Johnson wants to murder us with herd immunity’. The claim that Johnson never wanted lockdowns has been expertly demolished by Neil Clark. Quoting Clark:

The ‘liberal-left’ narrative that the UK Tory government wanted to pursue Covid-19 ‘herd immunity’ instead of a lockdown has been shattered by official filings which appears to show the opposite was the case.

The phrase ‘smoking gun’ is oft-overused, but it is surely appropriate in relation to the report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper that the UK government struck a deal worth £119m with an American advertising company, OMD Group, urging people to ‘Stay Home, Stay Safe’ a full three weeks before Boris Johnson ordered a lockdown.

Think about what this means. It’s safe to assume that if this big money deal was struck on 2nd March, the preparations began a lot earlier – in February, or more likely, even earlier than that. You don’t just set up an advertising campaign with a major US agency in a couple of hours.

Another point worthy of note is that the wealth of billionaires has soared during the ‘pandemic’. This contradicts the narrative that the billionaires want us working but again, this point gets ignored by BCs.

4. Disembodiment Vs Death Denial

Both of these groups (implicitly or explicitly) are engaged in reality denial. The TRAs deny the second most fundamental fact of human existence, which is that you can’t change sex, while the BCs deny the most fundamental fact of human existence, which is that all human beings die.

Both of them perversely obsess over the body while denying it. TRAs reject the human sexed body while obsessing over looking like the other sex, constantly trying to achieve ‘passing’ (at least, for those TRAs that ‘transition’). BCs obsess over ‘health’ (redefined as ‘avoiding Covid’) and death statistics while implicitly denying death: as if a genuinely vulnerable 90 year old in weak health magically would not die if we just locked down hard enough.

Both these groups also glorify big pharma. TRAs call taking the wrong hormones for your body empowerment, while BCs implicitly dismiss natural based solutions to increasing immunity (such as Vit D) and glorify vaccines as the only answer. The worship of doctors and nurses by BCs is also prominent. ‘The NHS’ (the same NHS that refuses to do cancer screenings and treatment) is practically deified as a glorious institution that we should all ‘protect’ by sacrificing our mental wellbeing by staying at home.

5. ‘Literally Killing People’ & Wanting to Censor All Disagreement, No Moderation

Another key similarity is that both TRAs and BCs think that you should not ever express an opinion different from theirs, and not only that, if you do so you are ‘literally killing people’.

TRAs state that ‘trans people will kill themselves’ if they encounter any criticism of gender identity ideology and call disagreement ‘bullying’. This applies double to ‘trans kids’: gender identity ideologues insist that if ‘trans kids’ aren’t immediately given the puberty blockers they will kill themselves. BCs, on the other hand, claim that any ‘breaking of lockdown rules’ will kill people. A good example is ‘wear a mask in a shop or you are going to kill people!’

Both of these claims of course are false. The ‘puberty blockers or death’ narrative promoted by the likes of Mermaids has been debunked by studies on puberty blockers (including from the UK Gender Identity clinic Tavistock) that show the puberty blockers do not reduce mental distress. The ‘affirmation or suicide’ narrative more generally has been shown to be false by the reliance on flawed studies and even Tavistock has stated that ‘trans kids’ are at no more risk than any other child with mental health issues. The BC narrative only requires a touch of common sense to be applied to it to fall apart. Walking past an unmasked face in a shop – a 1 second ‘interaction’ – has a zero percent chance of killing you. That’s without taking account the rarity to non existence of asymptomatic transmission (someone in a supermarket is unlikely to have symptoms because most people would apply common sense and stay at home if they actually had such symptoms if at all possible).

Both TRAs and BCs want to censor everyone who disagrees with their opinion. TRAs claim women who disagree with them are ‘TERFs’ and should be banned from social media. Lockdown supporters argue for the view that ‘careless talk costs lives’ – literally stated by George Monbiot as a reason why anyone who questions the Covid narrative should be censored.

Another quality both these groups share is the way they see anyone who opposes their position in the same light, regardless of their actual views. Anyone who thinks that, for example, transition is a positive thing for some people but that we need to be careful when applying this to children, is called a TERF in exactly the same way as someone who thinks transition has no benefit and isn’t evidence based. In the same way, someone who believes that we need to balance different health interests more and pay more attention to cancer, like Prof. Karol Sikora, is dismissed in the same way as someone who believes that there is no virus at all as a ‘granny killing murderer’. The lack of understanding and willingness to separate out views and engage critically dependent on the individual perspective means that they are incapable of debate [as a note, I do not mean to imply that the ‘more extreme’ position listed is necessarily invalid. FWIW I tend to support the position that transition is not proven science and my anti-lockdown views are ‘more extreme’ than Sikora’s].

What’s different?

The main difference between the two groups is that TRAs are genuinely more aggressive and are more likely to issue death threats and the like. BCs generally don’t, although occassionally they might say that they hope you die of Covid. Otherwise though, arguing with either of them is an exercise in utter ridiculous frustration.

Douma Primer Part 3: Establishment Denial

The mainstream media, which promoted the narrative of ‘Assad gassing his own people’ early on, has refused to acknowledge the facts and evidence which point to a false flag at Douma. Instead, they either ignore the evidence or double down on the false ‘gas attack’ narrative.

As far as I am aware, the only reporters in the UK mainstream media to raise any questions about the OPCW scandal are the late Robert Fisk in the Independent and Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday. In the US, the only reporter I am aware of who has questioned the narrative is Fox News host Tucker Carlson. This is despite the fact that political corruption at the OPCW should be a massive scandal.

The Douma case is a clear example of the fact that our media serves the establishment and not the people, and that they are complicit in covering up for establishment crimes.

In this article I am going to tackle the case of George Monbiot, an alleged anti-establishment journalist who follows the establishment line on Douma.

The Case of George Monbiot

Before I get into Monbiot’s opinion on Douma, I’d like to examine an article Monbiot wrote several years ago called ‘Choose Life‘.

I used to be rather a fan of Monbiot around 12 or so years ago. I even own a few of his books and used to regularly read the Guardian. That’s how I originally found that article. I want to talk about it because it gives an interesting insight into how Monbiot sees himself.

The article is about giving careers advice to young people looking to get into journalism. In it, Monbiot is very keen to promote anti-establishment ideas, and prioritise speaking the truth over money. He encourages young people to get out there and cover what they actually want to talk about rather than using conventional means to work their way up the journalism ladder. He talks about holding on to your dreams and learning to live off the smallest amount of money that you possibly can in order to become less reliant on the system. He ends the article by saying that the editor of the Times may have more wealth than you do, but that he is just a cog in the system who has far less freedom than yourself (if you follow Monbiot’s sage advice).

Now you might think, well how does he reconcile that with working for The Guardian? After all, The Guardian is part of the British establishment. Well, he says that there might be niches in the corporate world for you to fulfill your dreams so long as you are careful and always make sure these opportunities aren’t leading you away from where you want to be.

Of course, what I find interesting is that he proves his own argument in the strongest possible terms: if you work for the establishment then you will end up being bent to what the establishment wants you to say. They may allow dissent on minor issues in some cases or the occasional decent article to make them look more credible (though even the space for this seems to be decreasing). But on the big issues – war and imperialism being one of those – dissent is very rare.

Monbiot has been promoting the establishment line on Syria for several years now. Monbiot will claim – when he is called out for repeating deep state talking points – that he opposes Western intervention in Syria and thus he is not supporting the establishment position. This argument ignores the fact that by repeating the deep state lies about Syria, he is manufacturing consent for war regardless. A weak ‘but I don’t support war’ tacked on at the end does nothing to change that.

Not only that, Monbiot seems to have a lot of time to argue with people online about Syria. If you search ‘Syria’ from tweets from his account, you end up with quite a few of them. There is a whole list of tweets attacking the ‘Assad apologists’ who criticise his position. Some of them are ridiculous strawmen such as claiming that sceptics of official narratives on Syria are “keen to believe that Bashar al-Assad’s government is purer than the driven snow”, a claim no one has made. Narrative sceptics are “Russian bots, outright fascists and leftist tankies” rather than people who think the evidence just doesn’t stack up. People who question the White Helmets are, of course, “conspiracy theorists”.

One of his arguments is to smear those who focus on Douma as, you guessed it, ‘Assad apologists’.

“Say, for the sake of argument, there wasn’t a CW attack at Douma (unlikely to be true, in view of the evidence). It would be one great crime Assad had not committed, against tens of thousands he has. Yet this is the issue you obsess about. Why? Because you’re apologists.”

Of course, this argument is completely wrong. Monbiot (deliberately in my opinion) fails to make the connection between the Douma narrative and the push for war by the West. The Douma narrative was directly used to justify bombing Syria. This means that it is crucially important whether or not the claim is a lie. If the US & UK were using some other claim as an excuse to bomb Syria, then that claim would be the one coming under the most scrutiny. (Of course if we examined some other imperialist argument, Monbiot would be sitting here making the same case about that claim instead.) This arguments is the equivalent of saying ‘Why are you all obsessing over WMDs in Iraq, even if Hussein doesn’t have them, he did all these other crimes!’. There are other important aspects to this issue as well, notably whether or not the OPCW is politically compromised. This is vitally important as if the institution is compromised then we have to re-examine all chemical weapons claims in the light of this political bias. None of it is about ‘obsessing’ over Douma because we are ‘apologists’.

Why talk about Douma now?

The final point I would like to make in this series is that it is still important that people know the truth about Douma. The British, French and American governments bombed Syria on the basis of a fraudulent claim that Assad did a gas attack in Douma. Accountability for government lies is important.

The Douma case is also a good example of how the media covers up for those lies by refusing to report upon the claims of credible whistleblowers such as Ian Henderson. Alleged left wingers such as Monbiot are further recruited in order to put forward the ‘left wing’ case for establishment lies.

Julian Assange Activism: What Now?

Baraitser cartoon

A post discussing Baraitser’s decisions in a little more detail as well as the message that I believe is most important to convey to the public at this moment.

Hosted at Shaziety.