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.


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.