Government policies during the COVID pandemic have made it excruciatingly clear that politicians are in no way averse to restricting individual liberties and freedoms that would in any other circumstance be unthinkable in a democratic country. All that is needed is to declare a “public emergency”. “On 30 January 2020 following the recommendations of the Emergency Committee, the WHO Director General declared that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).”
During the first few months of 2020, quarantines were instituted for two weeks to “flatten the curve”. It was common wisdom that the spread of a virus could not be stopped. We were told, though, that the lockdowns’ purpose was to slow the spread of the virus in order to reduce pressure on health care systems. That has since morphed into lockdowns to contain the virus and stamp it out. In some countries, like Australia, camps were built to remove the infected from society.
Then at the end of 2020, vaccines were introduced. Vaccines were supposed to eradicate the virus. However, it become quite clear that the vaccines were not effective. At most they gave a modicum of protection for a few months. They prevented neither transmission nor infection. Paradoxically, they are still being touted as our last best hope. In most countries various financial “incentives” (read, you’ll lose your job if you don’t do it) measures have been used to coerce citizens into getting jabbed.
Quarantines, firings for not getting the shot, prohibiting large or even small gatherings, and forcing people to wear masks, are among the measures that governments have forced upon their citizenry. In the United States, every one of these measures restrict liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
In addition to government overreach, there has been a concerted effort to control the narrative. A robust legacy media is essential to bring to light government excesses, to rein in government overreach. The media’s role is so important in this regard that it has been known as the fourth estate, meaning a fourth branch of government. The media for the most part have abrogated their role of government watchdogs and have instead become the propaganda arm of the government.
This has been further exacerbated by Big Tech. Nowadays, most people get their news and information from social media and search engines. If these avenues are neutral, people can decide for themselves what to believe based on all the information available. If, however, social media companies and search engines censor information they don’t like because it doesn’t fit their narrative, we do not get a balanced view.
The most highly credentialed and respected scientists in the world have had their Twitter and Facebook accounts canceled because they dared to speak their mind. Which mediocre analyst in some cubicle at Twitter takes it upon himself or herself to censor world renowned scientists discussing topics that are totally beyond them?
A robust democracy must facilitate the free transfer of information in every sphere.
In the United States, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and freedom of religion are foundational rights that are enshrined in the First Amendment. The United States as we know it, is simply unimaginable without them. These rights are an integral part of who we are. They define us as Americans. Yet, with the excuse of stemming the pandemic, government policies and by extension Big Tech’s policies have curtailed every one of these rights.
The most disturbing thing about this is that it was done with nary a whimper from the citizens. Not only did people not object, they welcomed this unprecedented attack on their liberties in the name of public health. People were so afraid of the virus that they vilified anyone who questioned the government’s narrative. We now know that governments encouraged fearmongering as a control tactic. And it worked.
Applying COVID control tactics to other “emergencies”
It worked so well for COVID that some want to apply the same model to other “international emergencies”. A peer reviewed paper, published in December 2021, in the prestigious American Political Science Review claims that climate change is just such an international emergency. According to the author, it is crucial that governments restrict our liberties to avert a global catastrophe of epic proportions.
The author claims, for example, that, “Free speech rights in many countries have made regulating harmful climate denial and disinformation campaigns virtually impossible.” There is one correct scientific view and anyone who says differently is peddling disinformation and must be silenced for the benefit of humanity.
If you think that this author is an academic who is not in touch with reality and that this could never happen, think again. According to Wesley J. Smith, chairman of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, “Prominent medical journals have called for declaring climate change a public health emergency so that COVID-type restrictions can be imposed.” Never mind that the science is not settled. The official narrative is all that matters. Anything that swerves from the official narrative is disinformation and must be censored.
Dr. Anthony Fauci audaciously declared that combating infectious disease requires the mindboggling task of “rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence.” According to Fauci, this requires “strengthening the United Nations and its agencies, particularly the World Health Organization.”
Fauci’s advocacy for establishing an international rule by experts’ technocracy appeared in the respected science journal Cell, a peer-reviewed publication in which scientists usually share discoveries in fields such as stem cell research, genetics, and immunology.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres also wants to get in on the power grab. In an 85-page report called, “Our Common Agenda”, it is clear that Guterres hopes to apply the same power techniques “temporarily” deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic to enact other agendas that globalists deem paramount.
Guterres writes, “… while the fundamental purposes and principles of the United Nations endure, the Organization must evolve in response to a changing world to become more networked, inclusive, and effective.” In other words, Guterres wants the UN to have more of say over national and international public policies.
Guterres wants to end the robust debate and the exchange of different viewpoints so critical for the advancement of science. “Now is the time to end the ‘infodemic’ plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science, and knowledge,” he wrote. “The ‘war on science’ must end. All policy and budget decisions should be backed by science and expertise, and I am calling for a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information.”
By accusing climatologists who are skeptical of the “official” climate change narrative as warring against science, Guterres has effectively shut them down and shut down debate.
But the technocrats who would decide for us what constitutes “facts, science and knowledge”, are human and fallible. Science and knowledge are dynamic, changing over time as more and better information becomes available. As Joe Rogan astutely pointed out in a video he posted discussing what constitutes misinformation, if you had said a year ago that vaccinated people can still spread the virus or that cloth masks aren’t much help, you were likely to have been censored by Facebook or Twitter; those statements are now widely accepted as true.
The academics mentioned above, progressive governments, Big Tech, Fauci and Guterres all have one thing in common. They are willing to sacrifice our personal liberties and the advancement of science to the god of technocracy. The technocrats know what is true and what is best for us and that’s the beginning and end of the conversation.