385

Face Masks Have Put Us In A State

Iain Davis

Face masks must be worn in the UK on public transport (to begin with) by order of the State. We will explore the reasons why people might comply or resist this diktat. What reasons are there to wear a face mask, do they make sense and what does our compliance or resistance say about us?

The State Is A State Of Mind

The State is a belief system. It is a faith, rather like a religion. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with faith. It doesn’t necessarily mean the belief itself is “wrong.” Faith can be a powerful force for good. It all depend upon what the belief is.

If your faith dictates that you treat all with love, compassion and respect then your belief is “right.” If you live in accordance with your faith then you are living in the truth, regardless of which deity you follow.

However, if your faith teaches you that you are better than “non believers,” that yours in the only true way and that those who don’t follow your beliefs, or your deity, deserve to be punished, you are “wrong.” You are not living in harmony with the truth. 

People who believe in the State are called statists. Those who don’t, broadly come under the umbrella term anarchists. For statists, the anarchist is despised. Life without their State is unimaginable, therefore those who wish to live without it must be evil. The anarchist has long been reviled by statists as the dangerous subversive.

Despite the perpetual myth that “anarchy” is synonymous with “chaos,” that is not what anarchy means. Anarchy encompasses a broad range of political, economic and sociological perspectives with one commonality. The State is considered both harmful and unnecessary.

For statists an absence of the State must mean “chaos.” A free for all with no law, no social security, no healthcare, no infrastructure and mob rule. This is the opposite of anarchy. Anarchy is not society without rules. It is society without rulers.

All religions have their representatives. There are cardinals, bishops, imams and and rabbi’s etc. They are perhaps the leading voices, but they aren’t the only representatives. There are envoys, missionaries, TV evangelists, religious correspondents and so on.

The State is no different. We have politicians and governmental advisers, as the leading voices, but there are also NGO spokespersons, union officials, the academic & scientific orthodoxy, lords and ladies, multinational CEO’s, central bankers, business leaders and more. Of these, the most powerful, in terms of their ability to shape public opinion are the mainstream media (MSM.)

The core tenet of the statist’s faith is that a small group of people are best placed to tell all the other people what to do. This is a belief in absolute hierarchical authority.

There’s nothing wrong with hierarchical authority. It is difficult to see how we could ever organise anything more than a barbecue without it. It is over the issue of how we authorise it where the statists and the anarchists diverge.

When you need to see a doctor you temporarily cede your authority to them. You trust that they know more about medical science than you do, so you allow them to make decisions about your health and follow their advice.

However, outside of your healthcare, you don’t permanently give your authority away to your doctor. When you buy a car you don’t phone your GP to ask their permission.

Generally in life we cede our authority to others on a case by case basis. Our authority, in all other decisions, remains otherwise intact. We retain our individual sovereignty.

Most people understand this. We can become defensive, even aggressive, if we feel someone else is telling us what to do when we haven’t given them our specific authority to do so.

Yet for some reason, when it comes to the State, statists give this group of people absolute authority over every aspect of, not only their own, but everyone’s lives. Just as religion is often based upon a belief in supreme beings, who have power or influence over the devotee’s life, so statism accepts that special “selected” people have power and influence over the every aspect of the statist’s life.

In most religions you offer prayers to your deity, acknowledging your faith. Statists offer votes to cede their individual sovereignty and autonomy to the State. This isn’t a temporary arrangement. Whoever you vote for you get the permanent State.

The State’s authority comes entirely from the statist. Without their belief it would be nothing. Regardless of any other competing ideologies statists may follow, a trust in the legitimacy of absolute hierarchical authority is universal.

This trust is not shared by the anarchist. Power corrupts absolutely, in the anarchists view, and history demonstrates it. Much better to retain your own sovereignty and temporarily devolve authority, depending upon your needs at the time. Just as we do nearly every day.

Anarchy is already the way we order society in our day to day lives. We don’t need an overarching State to control who we meet, where we go, who we work for, trade with or take advice from. We can and do order our society despite interference from the State, not because of it.

The State takes money from us by force so that it can spend it on its priorities. If we need to build a road, the State uses our money to employ a private contractor to build it. Why do we need the middle men, ask the anarchists. So they can take their cut?

The State doesn’t just take our money to build roads and hospitals. Absolute hierarchical authority over everything leads to nothing but corruption, oppression and war. We know this, history teaches us this fact. Yet we still persist with the idea that if we just vote harder next time it won’t happen again.

It is beyond ironic that the statist will often chide the anarchist for, what they see as, their naive perception of human nature. Statists claim that it is inevitable that the corrupt, the violent and the unworthy will seek and exploit power. Precisely the point made by anarchists, who suggest that not freely giving away your authority to the power crazed might therefore be a good idea.

The British like to think their modern democratic society has evolved to produce some sort of egalitarian meritocracy. It hasn’t.

Relative inequality is as bad as it’s ever been while, at the same time, a tiny clique of carefully selected people rule us. We never escaped the rule of the aristocracy. It’s just that we now think we elect them. We don’t. We just elect their representatives.

Why Are You Really Wearing A Face Mask

And so we come to the State’s decree that we should all wear face masks on public transport (initially.) Ostensibly, both to protect others from our own transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to stop us catching the deadly virus. It is perhaps worth noting, according to official statistics, despite the UK Lockdown regime producing one of the worst infection and mortality rates in the world, we are talking about a disease that has supposedly affected 0.45% and led to the deaths of 0.06% of the UK population.

If there are health risks associated with wearing face masks, and there are, this notion of protection rapidly becomes a nonsense. However, people must have their reasons to wear a face mask. So what are they?

The first could be that you are a statist. You believe that the state representatives (government officials) know more about reality than you do. You trust them to tell you what to do. You accept their claim that they have special knowledge and have your best interests, and those of your fellow citizens, at heart.

You gave them your authority to control your life, and the lives of everyone else, when you participated in the ordination ritual. You did this by putting a cross on a piece of paper some time ago.

In all likelihood you didn’t actually vote for your nominal rulers. The 2019 UK general election turnout was 67.25% of the eligible vote. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives received 43.6% of that total. Just over 29.3% of the British electorate voted for their representative government. Nearly 71% didn’t.

Seventy percent of the British people do not want Boris Johnson or the Conservatives to force them to obey their rules. However, all conform because we think we live in a democracy. For statists this is how it should be.

It doesn’t matter that by using the supposed democratic system, less than a third of the population determine what more than two thirds can do and say. It’s the principle that matters. The principle appears to be mob rule.

The second reason, one shared by many statists and anarchists alike, is that you are forced to do as you are told. With a monopoly on the use of force, the State is the only body in society that can initiate force and get away with it.

While nearly everyone in the UK would say it is morally indefensible to use physical force to make someone do whatever you tell them, it is surprising how many think it’s OK for a tiny group of people in Westminster, Holyrood, The Senned and Stormont to use physical force, or the threat of it, to control millions. Cognitive dissonance exemplified.

Nonetheless, it is what it is. If you need to take the bus or the train to work you are now forced to wear a face mask. Not because you believe there’s any point to it, but because you won’t be able to get to work and feed your family otherwise.

So, if we are honest with ourselves, unless convinced by the science, we will wear a face mask on public transport for two reasons. We are either happy to accept that special people we’ve never met have sole authority to tell us what to do, as a slave owner would command a willing slave, or we are scared that they will use force to punish or harm us if we don’t comply. We call this a free and open democratic State.

The Science Behind Wearing A Face Mask

The final reason you might elect to wear a face mask is that you are convinced by the scientific evidence. You believe that donning a cheap or homemade face mask will protect you and others from a disease which you have a 0.45% chance of contracting  and a 99.94% chance of surviving.

Why you would imagine that the science shows that wearing a crappy face mask will stave off the minuscule threat of infection is difficult to say. For many, perhaps it is because that is what the mainstream media (an organ of the State) told them. However, the State has said other things at other times.

On the 4th March the State’s Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, said:

In terms of wearing a mask our advice is clear, that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection really reduces the risk almost not at all.”

On the 23rd April the State’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Patrick Vallance said:

The evidence on face masks has always been quite variable, quite weak.  It’s quite difficult to know exactly, there’s no real trials on it.”

On the 24th April the State’s Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, said:

The evidence around the use of masks by the general public, especially outdoors, is extremely weak.”

On the 28th April the State’s Ministry of Defence Chief Scientific Adviser, Dame Angela McLean, representing the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), said:

The recommendation from SAGE is completely clear, which is there is weak evidence of a small effect in which a face mask can prevent a source of infection going from somebody who is infected to the people around them.”

An unusually clear and consistent message from the State. On the 4th of June the UK State’s Secretary of Transport, Grant Shapps, told us that we did have to wear face-masks on public transport? Shapps said:

That doesn’t mean surgical masks, which we must keep for clinical settings. It means the kind of face covering you can easily make at home….wearing a face covering offers some – albeit limited – protection against the spread of the virus.”

Wearing a clinical N95 face mask is frowned upon by the State. Better to wrap a scalf around your head, a bandanna, old handkerchief or one of those paper face masks you used to be able to buy from the market before the State put all the stall holders out of business.

Begging the question, what new scientific breakthrough emerged between the 29th April and 4th June to convince the State that wearing a torn T shirt on your face will save you and others from COVID 19? Albeit limited.

Obviously N95 standard face masks are better suited to the task than a bit of rag. So what is the scientific evidence that N95 masks could protect you, or someone else, from a viral respiratory infection.

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) concluded:

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) found:

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H).”

bin-Reza et al. (2012) meta analysis discovered:

There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) undertook further meta analysis of the available studies on face masks. They stated:

We identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) undertook a study of healthcare workers to assess the relative effectiveness of face masks and respirators:

Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) looked at six randomised clinical trials (RCT’s) of face masks to ascertain if they protected either the wearer or others around them from any viral respiratory illness. They didn’t:

A total of six RCTs involving 9171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks….The 4 use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Face masks work well for surgeons who want to avoid dribbling or sneezing into their patients, but are useless when it comes to stopping viral infections. In terms of preventing the spread of COVID 19 there is no evidence that they achieve anything at all.

As far as anyone knows viruses spread through tiny long residence time aerosol particles. The virions – the spiky ball we are all now familiar with – are much, much, smaller than the weave in the fabric, even of N95 clinical face masks.

If your hope is to protect yourself against a viral respiratory infection, covering your face with with a face mask you bought online is about as useful as concrete lifebuoy. So how do the State justify their silly policy? It seems analysis released by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative on 4th May, convinced SAGE to change their advice.

There are no RCT studies anywhere in the analysis which show any protective benefit of face masks for stopping viral respiratory infections. This is because there aren’t any.

However, it does cite some MSM articles, a number of studies about water droplets spread when you exhale, which are obviously stopped when you cover your face, and some statements from the U.S. Center for Disease Control. None of which is relevant to demonstrating that face masks protect against viral respiratory infections.

It also cites some studies which again found no benefit from face masks.

Brainard et al. (2020) stated:

The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of face masks as a protective measure against COVID-19.”

The Royal DELVE also cite studies with no conclusions:

The lack of statistical power prevents us to draw formal conclusion regarding effectiveness of face masks in the context of a seasonal epidemic.”
Canini et al. (2010)

It is impossible to see how the Royal Society concluded from their analysis that face masks should be widely worn. Which is probably why they didn’t. Ultimately they offered no conclusion at all:

Face masks could offer an important tool for contributing to the management of community transmission of Covid19.”

They could, but they almost certainly don’t. Nor is there any reason to think they will.

Wearing A Face Mask Because Reasons

If you find yourself sat on a bus struggling to breath through your mum’s tea towel, please take a moment to rationalise why you are doing it. Are you doing it because you believe the State’s Transport Secretary has some special insight into ‘da science?’

Less than a third of your fellow citizens devolved their authority to him. Whether you were among that number or not, if you voted at all, you only have yourself to blame. By doing so you legitimised his power and now you are suffering the consequences.

Are you wearing it because you recognise that not doing so could result in a fine, non payment of which could potentially place you behind bars?

If so, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that you are doing it under duress. The threat of violence is clear and you have acquiesced. It’s an offer you can’t refuse because you need to go to work. They’ve got you, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Remember that next time they ask you to vote for your wannabe ruler.

Are you wearing it because you have been told that the policy is led by the science? The mainstream media said the science was settled and you believed it?

This would suggest that you mistakenly believe it will protect you from a disease that not only presents virtually no threat to you at all (if you are of working age) it is disappearing so quickly vaccine developers are running out of test subjects (not that they need any.)

From your perspective maybe you should accept that you are wearing a face mask because reasons. There really isn’t any more to it than that.

The State, on the other hand, has some very clear ambitions and ordering you to muzzle yourself is an important part of your operant conditioning. By wearing your face mask for no reason, you are demonstrating your obedience to the State. If you behave correctly some aspects of the lockdown may be lifted. If you don’t, well…

As the State forges ahead with the Great Reset, there is going to be significant economic disruption.

As usual, times are going to be tough for the majority but multinational corporations are going to do very well out of it. If you think about it, this might make you angry. Therefore, your blind faith in your representative leaders matters a great deal to the State.

As the situation deteriorates, through necessity, people are going to resist. Controlling the statist majority, through fear, is vital for the high priesthood of the State to maintain their illegitimate claims to the moral high ground.

Comically, the MSM propaganda machine insist all this devastation is due to the impact of coronavirus. Of course it isn’t. It is entirely a result of the State’s deliberate lockdown policy decisions.

These are intended to create the permanent, abnormal future State being sold to you as the new normal. Ripe for the Great Reset.

The deliberate destruction of the economy, the implosion of local communities, the removal of civil liberties, termination of small businesses, eradication of the high street and establishing deterrents to stop you socialising and interacting with others, would not have been possible had we not all been scared witless. Something which SAGE were clear about from the outset.

In their discussion on March 23rd, SAGE’s behavioural science sub-group SPI-B presented a paper which has clearly influenced the State’s lockdown policy agenda.

This appears to be the only policy aspect that has been led by the science.

But it isn’t virology or epidemiology, it’s behavioural science aimed at your behaviour modification. SPI-B stated.

A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened…The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent.”

Complacency, as far as the State is concerned, is not unquestioningly believing everything they tell you. If you don’t accept their narrative, if you reject their edicts and have no faith in their authority, then you are ‘complacent.’ The State’s way is the only way. This is not a tolerant religion.

Instilling fear in millions of people, to ensure they comply, requires a mass propaganda campaign. SAGE were clear on the MSM’s role. One they have dutifully fulfilled.

In Appendix B of the paper, SPI-B recommended the following:

Use media to increase sense of personal threat.”

Your sense of personal threat is key for the State to get you to accept the Great Reset. What better way to convince you than to cover everyone’s face?

Fearful of disease, mistrusting and confused, the State is showing you a glimpse of hell. Only total supplication will deliver your salvation in the form of a vaccine, immunity passports and universal basic income in a cashless society. Everything your are, everything you do and everything you believe controlled by the State.

Not everyone wants this, though it seems the majority do. So the next time you see someone refusing to wear a face mask, don’t assume that you are doing the right thing and they’re not, simply because you are the one wearing the mask.

If they resist the call to be afraid, if they refuse to social distance and reject the behaviour change that does not mean they don’t care about you or vulnerable people.

In all likelihood they care deeply. Perhaps you should ask them why they refuse to wear the State’s face mask.

You can read more of Iain Davis’ work at his blog In This Together

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

4.7 41 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
385 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
protofuturist
protofuturist
Jul 29, 2020 9:45 AM

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) found:

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H).”

I can’t find this quote anywhere in the summary or the full PDF….. Is this a mistake?

futrone
futrone
Jul 1, 2020 11:15 AM

If you don’t feel comfortable wearing a mask on public transport, simply don’t wear it and if challenged say that under Part 1 Section 4 (a) of The Health Protection (CV, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) you are exempt as they cause you severe anxiety.

Poppy
Poppy
Jun 30, 2020 4:35 PM

If facts are indeed sacred, then why do you repeatedly misrepresent several of the findings in the studies cited here? At least one is a pre-print (not yet peer reviewed so should you even be using it as ‘evidence’?). Alongside other omissions of a similar nature, you conveniently missed out the phrases from from Brainard et. al 2020:
 
“However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations. Further high quality trials are needed to assess when wearing a facemask in the community is most likely to be protective.”
 
Early on in this long article you cite Dr Russel Blaylock (Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy) as ‘evidence’ that face masks pose actual health risks. Would this be the same Dr Blaylock who has written such key science texts such as Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life (2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003). He’s clearly a total quack and I should have stopped reading at that point. 
Most people wear a mask to stop others catching it from them, not in some vain attempt to stop catching it as most people are not stupid enough to thing that a surgical mask is going to protect them from Covid. I personally wear one occasionally in places as I think it will make people feel better. For someone with diabetes or cancer patient or just an old, frail person who has to go to the shops and get near to people, these people are way more likely to suffer serious consequences from covid and if I can a) protect them in case I have it and dont know about it (I know it’s a tiny risk but still) or b) make them feel like they are protected then what the hell is the harm in that?
 
I don’t know why I bother reading this shite. Honestly.

Rob Landeros
Rob Landeros
Jul 12, 2020 9:32 PM
Reply to  Poppy

Humans have been spreading coronaviruses and other aerial borne pathogens among their fellows since the beginning of time. In past years, you have probably spread a virus to someone who in turn spread it to someone else and so on. Somewhere in the chain of infection, a susceptible, weakened individual probably became seriously ill or even died.
 
After this particular epidemic is declared over, given your concern for others, should you not continue to wear a mask in public from this day forward? Shouldn’t we all just avoid other people altogether from now on since to do otherwise is not just rude and inconsiderate but indisputably puts others at risk?

Frank Lee
Frank Lee
Jun 29, 2020 12:38 PM

This is a very interesting article! It brings up all those statements in the bible about who is really to rule and who is really in charge.
God said to Samuel – “It is not you they are rejecting but me” – when the Israelites demanded to have a king over them just like the pagan nations around them. Then Samuel proceeded to tell the Israelites what the consequence would be –
1 Samuel 8:11 If you have a king, this is how he will treat you. He will force your sons to join his army. Some of them will ride in his chariots, some will serve in the cavalry, and others will run ahead of his own chariot.[c12 Some of them will be officers in charge of a thousand soldiers, and others will be in charge of fifty. Still others will have to farm the king’s land and harvest his crops, or make weapons and parts for his chariots. 13 Your daughters will have to make perfume or do his cooking and baking.
14 The king will take your best fields, as well as your vineyards, and olive orchards and give them to his own officials. 15 He will also take a tenth of your grain and grapes and give it to his officers and officials.
16 The king will take your slaves and your best young men and your donkeys and make them do his work. 17 He will also take a tenth of your sheep and goats. You will become the king’s slaves, 18 and you will finally cry out for the Lord to save you from the king you wanted. But the Lord won’t answer your prayers.
 
People need to understand that the ONE who created us is God, Creator, King and Ruler. He is the ONE who has all authority and can do as He pleases.
So it pleases Him to put into charge anyone He pleases. In general this is what the bible goes on to say about governments:
Romans 13:
 
1Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
 
6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
 
 
Then lastly, in the end those who rebel against God – who is the real King, the real power and the real authority – will have the mark of the beast placed on their (right) hand or in the forehead thus forcing God’s people to not be able to buy or sell. They are the ones destined for the Lake of Fire.
 

masked
masked
Jun 29, 2020 3:41 AM

Anybody with half a brain would realize that any measure which stops the spread of highly contagious virus is a good idea. This article is just daft verbiage. Countries which have actually manged to contain COVID 19 effectively all have almost universal face mask (just face covering) wearing. It is only a factor but an important one. Theories about government interference are just way off the mark– unless you are a Trump supporter. The government is not trying to keep people locked down. They just did it much too late!

gypsy
gypsy
Jun 29, 2020 5:41 PM
Reply to  masked

4 conspiracy freaks downvoted your post. Cowards!

Finn McCool
Finn McCool
Jun 30, 2020 12:36 AM
Reply to  gypsy

Thalla a chluiche le do deideagan

Harvesta Strong
Harvesta Strong
Jun 30, 2020 6:04 PM
Reply to  gypsy

Personal attacks instead of on-topic rational discourse is also cowardly gypsy, better for fb crowds. Also you are replying in knee-jerk fashion without carefully reading the posts.

gypsy
gypsy
Jul 3, 2020 12:51 AM

The “personal attacks” were what my comment was about.

Nice hypocrisy going

Harvesta Strong
Harvesta Strong
Jun 30, 2020 6:01 PM
Reply to  masked

If you are going to comment, please provide useful evidence, new ideas, humor or something besides a very popular already widely known useless opinion on a page that openly rejects that popular opinion based on logical rational argument.
niophttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-thinking/201708/18-common-logical-fallacies-and-persuasion-techniques

Tris
Tris
Jul 14, 2020 6:21 PM
Reply to  masked

The first official covid outbreak occurred in Wuhan, China, a country well known for the wide adoption of masks, to the point of paranoia one might say. But unfortunately this seemed to have no effect on the spread. Fast forward to June/July, thousands upon thousands of people are protesting, many of whom are unmasked yet we still need to falsify stats to convince ‘asymptomatic’ carriers that they are gravely infected by a unisolated virus with a death rate of approximately 0.4%. I think “The Cult of Mask” deserves a little scrutiny. And the fact that you seem to think your government is beyond reproach despite the over whelming evidence to the contrary (poison food, water, air, education, health, policing, corruption, bailouts, etc) but now all of a sudden, they have forgone their psychopathic profit/power driven tendencies in favour of caring for the “useless eaters” is laughable if it wasn’t so sad. Based on your “logic” you should be first in line for the covid vaccine as soon as they make the announcement, after all… any measure which stops the spread of highly contagious virus is a good idea”.
 
 

Barovsky
Barovsky
Jun 27, 2020 9:49 PM

I know this isn’t the place but when I tried to email OG because trying to resubscribe didn’t work, may email to OG was denied. And the subscribe option on the site doesn’t work. What’s going on?

Harvesta Strong
Harvesta Strong
Jun 26, 2020 7:12 PM

Illogical pseudoscience and reprehensible propoganda…Study says nonfacemaskers may be “psychopaths.”
https://youtu.be/Udn1YTgBPws

gypsy
gypsy
Jun 29, 2020 5:42 PM

sure seems like it. Irrational group thinkers.

Harvesta Strong
Harvesta Strong
Jun 25, 2020 4:15 PM
Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin
Jun 25, 2020 8:19 AM

“Wearing a clinical N95 face mask is frowned upon by the State.”

Tony Gubba Grips
Tony Gubba Grips
Jun 25, 2020 6:54 AM

The government knows masks are useless. They were talking up their ineffectiveness so as to keep people locked down.
 
The BLM protests demonstrated the hypocrisy of the establishment in allowing and encouraging people to gather in their thousands at close quarters, while shaming the common scum for having house parties. Any supposed sudden revelation of the efficacy of masks provided a convenient but see-through excuse for that.
 
As another article on this site said, this nonsense has shown up the government and media as being two-faced liars (if we didn’t know already). They’ve lost all authority to inform and govern.

JudyJ
JudyJ
Jun 25, 2020 3:25 PM

Not only the BLM protests demonstrated the hypocrisy of the establishment. Did anyone else notice the blatant flouting of social distancing after the Reading murders? One of the three victims was a teacher and we saw MSM News footage of a couple of hundred school pupils and teachers congregated at the school gates hugging and consoling each other with barely a foot between any of them. Also footage of the large local LGBQT Group the men belonged to gathered outside the pub where they used to meet up, all hugging and consoling each other with barely a foot between any of them. The whole coronavirus thing is nonsense so I have no problem with any failure to comply with the rules. But all this without a squeak from the self-righteous MSM.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 26, 2020 11:31 AM
Reply to  JudyJ

The corporate media have conspired decided to suppress overlook the fact that the three men killed in Reading were homosexual gay in the interests of hiding Islamic homophobia community cohesion.
 
Whatever happened to reporting the facts and leaving the reader to make their own judgements?

Dungroanin
Dungroanin
Jun 24, 2020 3:46 PM

Mr Davis,

Why always with a dogs dinner?

Ok. Name one successful ‘Anarchist’ state? Name any?

Was Jesus a anarchist?

Here’s a great piece I recalled by Craig Murray last year. Pre CV.

“The state rests its power on a monopoly of violence. Indeed, in the final analysis a state is nothing but a monopoly of violence. Even when a state does good things, like tax to provide healthcare, it ultimately depends on its ability to employ violence to enforce the collection of the tax. Arrest and imprisonment is, absolutely, violence. We may not recognise it as violence, but if you try to resist arrest and imprisonment you will quickly see that it is violence. Whether or not blows are struck or arms twisted to get someone there, or they go quietly under threat, confining somebody behind concrete and steel is violence.
I use the case of tax evasion and healthcare to show that I am merely analysing that the state rests on violence
deliberately. I am not claiming that the violence of the state is a bad thing in itself. I just want you to recognise that the state rests on violence. Try not paying your taxes for a few years, and try refusing to be arrested and go to court. You will, ultimately, encounter real violence on your person.“
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/12/violence-and-the-state/

As for conflating with masks on public transport – never mind CV if it reduces people’s sneezes and snot travelling onto me and the fixtures – I’ll be happy. It may even stop them eating their smelly food!

The latest analysis of occupations that were infected and ended up ill is security guards and public transport workers – clearly indicative of Public transport as a prime vector. It also explains why there is a ‘ethnic’ element to susceptibility- most of these low paid workers are ethnic and they all travel on public transport.

What do you suggest Iain, to try and reduce the risk – even marginally?

Shout power to the people and a bit of anarchist graffiti and property damage? Isn’t that how the state has always used anarchist agent provocateurs always to extend the violence of the state?

jamie
jamie
Jun 24, 2020 6:06 PM
Reply to  Dungroanin

Oh dear…someone hasn’t had his afternoon nap.

snuffleupagus
snuffleupagus
Jun 25, 2020 10:06 AM
Reply to  Dungroanin

so, you’re a supporter of state violence. how civic-minded of you.

Mindy
Mindy
Jun 24, 2020 3:45 PM

“There’s nothing wrong with hierarchical authority. It is difficult to see how we could ever organise anything more than a barbecue without it.” That is not true. You need organizers who do a specific task who have been consulted by a group tasked w/ the job of undertaking a project and when the job is done the person tasked to oversee the job is done. The business of making decisions can be done via direct democracy when decisions are made you hire a manager for the job when the job is done the position is gone or you cycle different people in to do jobs.

Tris
Tris
Jul 14, 2020 6:32 PM
Reply to  Mindy

In a democracy, if 51 people vote yes, and 49 vote no, based on your logic, the rulers at the top have the right to force the decision on the 49 because 51 people agreed. That’s called tyranny enforced with violence, aka, “democracy”. You (and anyone else for that matter) do not have the moral authority to use force to bully others to obey because a majority happen to agree.

Smith David
Smith David
Jun 24, 2020 1:50 PM

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

R Anand
R Anand
Jun 24, 2020 5:42 AM

I suspect most of us will comply due to the fact that as Ian put it “we are scared that they will use force to punish or harm us if we don’t comply” and “you won’t otherwise be able to get to work and feed your family.”
Take away the force of the state and only slaves will be seen wearing masks.
Another thing that will happen will be even the people forced to comply will find ways to reduce the harmful effect from wearing masks. They will cut tiny round holes near the nostril area, or they will wear the thinnest cotton handkerchief cloth (which is what I do here in India when I am outside) as a face covering and not a commericially sold mask which comes up with mostly dense material, cotton or polyester.

Tim Drayton
Tim Drayton
Jun 24, 2020 1:44 PM
Reply to  R Anand

They have imposed a requirement to wear a facemask on buses here in Cyrpus where I live or face a 100 euro fine. I usually use the bus a couple of times a week and have been flouting the rule so far, although I am also cutting down my use of the buses, and I notice a few other people doing the same.

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 24, 2020 2:22 PM
Reply to  Tim Drayton

How are the tires on those buses? What you need is a support network.

R Anand
R Anand
Jun 24, 2020 3:56 PM
Reply to  Tim Drayton

I can understand. Faced with a similar situation, I would do the same — flout the rule as long as possible and when it gets troublesome cut down the use of the bus. And, also when still needed to use the bus I would cut tiny holes in the mask near the nostrils and then hop on to a bus. Further, I will also keep fiddling with the mask to stretch it away from the mouth/face to enable easy breathing.

Mark
Mark
Jun 24, 2020 7:30 PM
Reply to  R Anand

The only time I have had to wear a mask was to get a haircut, when a nearby barbershop opened up. I had been pondering getting a haircut just the day before they all shut down, so after a couple of desperate weeks of increasingly-uncomfortable shagginess, I got my mother-in-law to cut it. She has clippers and everything, but her technique is painfully simple – buzz off the whole thing to #2 length. That’s satisfactory for a considerable while, but when it grows out it’s all the same length and is even worse-looking than before.
 
The stylists all have to wear masks, and they’d be wearing them all day long. You have to go in – without a mask, they give you one – to put your name in the book, and then stand outside until they call you in. Then when it’s time to trim around your ears, they have you slip off the elastics and just hold it on your face with your hand. All, all simply going through the motions, pure hypocrisy. But it was worth it to have a professional haircut.
 
This is what scares me – that things we once thought ordinary will be such delights as relaxation comes that we will sob with gratitude at having a real menu in a restaurant again, instead of those one-page black-and-white laminated broadsheets that they can wipe off with an anti-viral wipe after you’ve used it. That we will forget, in our childlike pleasure, that these things were always ours, and that those who took them away had no right to do so.

R Anand
R Anand
Jun 24, 2020 11:37 PM
Reply to  Mark

Yep!
 
Those who take these things away from us will, sooner or later, lose all their ill-gotten gains.
 
Home haircut, in my case, was similar to yours. My spouse simply went chop chop and cut a big chunk from all sides. It was over in 3 minutes!
 
I quite liked the funny look I had for one week after that. My spouse, though, was disgusted with the outcome of her hard work! (she even prodded me to wear my hat whenever I had to go outside the home).

gypsy
gypsy
Jun 29, 2020 5:47 PM
Reply to  R Anand

… or you could … you know… wear a damned mask! See? That isn’t so hard

R Anand
R Anand
Jun 30, 2020 5:38 AM
Reply to  gypsy

Better still that you read the article above by Iain Davis fully and carefully. See? It’s really that easy.

S Cooper
S Cooper
Jun 24, 2020 2:20 PM
Reply to  R Anand

There are several ways of dealing with this scam. From compliance to partial compliance to refusal to bloody refusal. To each their own.
 
“This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
 
~ Frederick Douglas, 1857.

R Anand
R Anand
Jun 24, 2020 4:06 PM
Reply to  S Cooper

True, to each his own. There are no fixed formulas.
 
Tryants will vary from country to country, local authority to local authority, and local police to local police.
 
If I get a sense I can manage the consequences of non-compliance I will do so more boldy.
 
But if the tryant I face is brutal and if there is a real chance my family members will face consequences then I will prefer the quieter way of non-cooperation (Gandhi) or resistance (French Resistance during the Nazi occupation of France in the 1940s).
 
I also believe that resistance does not guarantee success. Sometimes, tryants fall apart on their own engulfed by their own evil. During WW2, Germany faced its first major loss from the hands of Russian forces, and not from from American-British joint forces or the French Resistance.
 
I don’t know where I am taking this now. So, I will just stop. 🙂

snuffleupagus
snuffleupagus
Jun 25, 2020 10:08 AM
Reply to  R Anand

Take away the force of the state and only slaves will be seen wearing masks.
 
no, you forgot about stupid people.

R Anand
R Anand
Jun 26, 2020 2:48 AM
Reply to  snuffleupagus

Yep!

Igor
Igor
Jun 24, 2020 4:36 AM

“There’s nothing wrong with hierarchical authority. It is difficult to see how we could ever organise anything more than a barbecue without it.”
 
I would prefer that humans were limited in their ability to organize anything more than a barbecue. No standing military. No world wars. No genocides. No Central Banks. No mega global corporations.

Ralph Reed
Ralph Reed
Jun 24, 2020 3:17 AM

In the event of a volcanic eruption, collision with an extraplanetary object, or nuclear war, covering your face with a t-shirt will mitigate the effects of silicates and particulate matter. It’s a civil defense protocol for nuclear war so the guy in Cheyenne Mountain who did some sabre rattling with Russia over the arctic circle followed by an announcement he was holing up with extra personnel for the Covid crisis to wait it out made me anticipate a “long hot summer” at the time. Now maybe they’re at a higher DEFCON than apparent.

Igor
Igor
Jun 24, 2020 4:39 AM
Reply to  Ralph Reed

“The only way to win is to not play the game.”
 
DEFCON is typical misdirection. It’s WARCON.

Calamity Jane
Calamity Jane
Jun 24, 2020 2:13 AM

Hey is this the same Ian Davies from British American Security Information Council?
Lets talk about the fact a disease called ” COVID ” does not exists at all.
(Except in media and believers minds).

Calamity Jane
Calamity Jane
Jun 24, 2020 2:15 AM
Reply to  Calamity Jane

Sorry I spelt it wrong I meant is it “Iain Davies from the British American Security Information Council”
Haha putting the I in CIA.
 

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jun 24, 2020 4:43 AM
Reply to  Calamity Jane

Iain Davies is a pretty common name in the UK. I think you’ll find the soulless Establishment apparatchik from BASIC is not the same Iain Davies who wrote this intelligent, thought provoking article.

Calamity Jane
Calamity Jane
Jun 25, 2020 3:43 AM
Reply to  Gezzah Potts

But Gezzah why are you answering for him as you do not know the answer for Iain Davies?
Why could it would it not be the same Rockefeller agent , narrative controlling spook, thats what his online bio says doesn’t it?

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jun 25, 2020 4:09 AM
Reply to  Calamity Jane

Yes I do actually. This Iain Davies here was interviewed on The Corbett Report a good 3 weeks ago, and he stated he worked in Aged Care for quite a long period. You can watch it yourself.
Secondly, with respect, Iain Davies is a pretty common name. Thirdly, again, with respect, do you really think OffGuardian would allow a known CIA spook to write an article here??
And lastly, did you even read the above article? Have a good day.

jess
jess
Jun 24, 2020 10:34 AM
Reply to  Calamity Jane

dr morse has video explaining how non of the allopaths “diseases” exist. for the most part they define covid as asymptomatic ie. normal. they are a delusional bunch unqualified in the subject of health.

Iain
Iain
Jun 27, 2020 2:21 PM
Reply to  Calamity Jane

No, I’m not him.

JayTe
JayTe
Jun 24, 2020 12:43 AM

One of the best points which highlights the level of stupidity and pseudo science of masks comes from the US. This is from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website plainly states that cloth face masks Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.” 
 
Now, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”
 
So you think that it would be clear that given what they have stated for cloth and surgical masks, they would just highlight the above statements in relation to wearing masks for covid-19. But check this out. Right below these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled by adding an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated,
OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work. Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.
Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for all people to wear cloth face coverings when in public and around other people, wearing cloth face coverings, if appropriate for the work environment and job tasks, conserves other types of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such equipment is needed most.
 
So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but it is supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you?!? You cannot make this up. OSHA is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls “source control” likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the source, it’s about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific rationale for anyone but the sick and medical workers to wear masks!

Costas Conn
Costas Conn
Jun 24, 2020 4:06 AM
Reply to  JayTe

I think the author has not read the text in many of the references he cites. Many of the trials cited, have serious limitations, as mentioned in the articles. Face masks reduce the amount of aerosols -fact. Therefore if all people wore them in public places, there would be less formites, hence less infections. Even the articles cited above state that there is a modest (20%) reduction in infections. That represent a simple cheap way to reduce transmission, inspite of morons treating it like it is an issue to do with freedom, FFS!

jess
jess
Jun 24, 2020 10:55 AM
Reply to  Costas Conn

employers could be held liable if someone faints due to mask wearing.

Epousedesacrecoeur
Epousedesacrecoeur
Jul 21, 2020 9:17 AM
Reply to  jess

And they should be.

Paul too
Paul too
Jun 24, 2020 11:15 AM
Reply to  Costas Conn

“Therefore if all people wore them in public places, there would be less formites, hence less infections.”
 
I’d ask you to provide references to back this up, but as I already know no such study exists, I won’t.

Costas Conn
Costas Conn
Jun 24, 2020 8:21 PM
Reply to  Paul too

Go to Google Scholar, type in “effectiveness of face masks 2020”. Viola!
or just read this & the cited references – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042720300117

jamie
jamie
Jun 24, 2020 6:11 PM
Reply to  Costas Conn

Wrong site, this is “off” …

LuckyLui
LuckyLui
Jun 24, 2020 11:09 PM
Reply to  Costas Conn

The real issue here is that masks, above all, appear to be a rhetorical device providing yet another layer of distraction for plebs to quibble about the technical aspects of thier efficacy. All while bypassing the presupposed mountain of anomilies, distortions and lies the whole covid “pandemic” rests on. By current logic we should of been wearing masks for the last thirty years. It’s a wonder those here are alive to discuss it at all.

whatever
whatever
Jun 23, 2020 11:14 PM

A beautifully developed article. Thank you.

Vasaire
Vasaire
Jun 23, 2020 10:59 PM

The links to inthistogether site used to support the authors view are terrific examples of obscurification of the monarchy. Probably should start calling a spade a spade… It’s no longer ‘government’ as we thought we understood it. It is now an barefaced tyranny system imposing full spectrum dominance over our lives and there’s much evidence as to the architects behind it (the usual suspects). The Govt logo is telling. Why not call it the ‘despotic monarchy no longer masquerading as a democracy’? May God save the … People! https://sites.google.com/site/vasaireclassic/maygodsavethepeople

Simon Bradbury
Simon Bradbury
Jun 24, 2020 5:51 PM
Reply to  Vasaire

Thank you for the link to your curated blogsite thingy.

Vasaire
Vasaire
Jun 25, 2020 5:07 AM
Reply to  Simon Bradbury

Thanks Simon, I wish I had time to make it a little better. Another author I’ve recently found highlighting the relevance of those who rule over us is: Matthew Ehret-Kump ( https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/matthew-ehret-kump ) – he has been doing some terrific dot connecting generally but in particular for my purposes around my favourite subject – who’s really pulling the strings of our social order.

Calamity Jane
Calamity Jane
Jun 23, 2020 10:56 PM

Our ignorance (about psyop ” COVID” )put us in a state.
 
 

Aldous Hexley
Aldous Hexley
Jun 23, 2020 9:13 PM

I have the idea from O-G that masks are optional in the UK? In Australia? Are there significant differences in “the rules” country to country? Of course Sweden, notoriously out of step.
 
In the US, mask rules are required more stringently in some states as with California. In Turlock (bay area) over the weekend, a man and children in a Walmart refused to wear masks. Police called, escorted out. I assume 1000 fine with this.
 
Previous: 1000$ fines for surfing before the beaches were opened; 1000 for taking a walk on the beach.
 
There were stories of angry people dragging those not wearing masks out of supermarkets–but not heard this sort of thing lately.
 
In Orange County sheriffs (south of L.A.) have said they will not intervene for failure to wear masks.
 
In Lincoln County, Oregon, persons of color are now exempted from wearing masks.
 
According to InfoWars a new mask protest movement has started:
 
https://www.infowars.com/new-movement-hijacks-i-cant-breathe-meme-to-protest-masks-in-public/
 
Today I noticed mask wearing rules relaxing where I live (northern Cal) so that even places posted with must wear mask people are not abiding by this, and not being stopped.
 
They enter and roam about gas stations and restaurants without wearing a mask.
 
Quite a number of employees are sort of half-wearing the masks.
 
(This is not the case in the corporate supermarkets where mask wearing = 100%.)
 
Large highway signs are taking on a pleading tone with “please, you really should be wearing your mask” sort of statement.
 
MSM news affiliates here point out any possible rise in stats and now include age groups–so less generalizing. According to today’s alarmism, the 27 – 47 age group is particularly at risk at this time here.
 
Second wave coming in September now frequently dangled in local news.
 
 
 
 

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 10:05 PM
Reply to  Aldous Hexley

Kinda sorta optional, but as the article about the Guardian the other day implied, there seems to be a feeling (among the true believers) that masks are going to become “a thing”.
 
As of 15 June, they became compulsory on public transport, and for visitors, outpatients and staff in hospitals.
 
I’ve seen a report today saying that Johnson has said they are thinking of relaxing the 2 metre rule to 1 metre, but only on condition people wear masks.
 
One problem about the UK is that the rules on lockdown have often been very unclear, and there is often a big grey area between “guidance”, “rules”, and actual law. Police in some areas seem to have enjoyed throwing their weight around, and assuming that “guidance” = “law”. I hope people have the balls to take them to court and sue their asses off.

JudyJ
JudyJ
Jun 23, 2020 10:58 PM

The more I see in the MSM the more I am convinced (and hope, but with little confidence) we are the victims of one big joke. There was a report on the BBC yesterday about the problems being faced by people with sight and hearing loss who are expected to comply with social distancing rules. It clearly is a serious problem for them that no one in government has even begun to think about.
 
But the report finished on the positive note that some manufacturer (presumably seeing an opportunity to make money) is working on a face mask which is made of clear plastic so deaf people can still lip read! The BBC didn’t explain how this would work i.e. is everybody going to be issued with such a mask as it isn’t the deaf people themselves who need them, and will the mask be sufficiently refined to allow the user to breathe! It also suggests a general acceptance that the need for masks is going to be indefinite.
 
I have reached the masochistic point where I look forward to whatever idiotic pronouncement is made each day. It’s the only way to stay sane.

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 11:50 PM
Reply to  JudyJ

But the report finished on the positive note that some manufacturer (presumably seeing an opportunity to make money) is working on a face mask which is made of clear plastic so deaf people can still lip read! The BBC didn’t explain how this would work i.e. is everybody going to be issued with such a mask as it isn’t the deaf people themselves who need them, and will the mask be sufficiently refined to allow the user to breathe! 

 
Excellent points! Logic does not seem to have been a necessary requirement within the Classics or PPE degrees taken by those to seek to rule us.
 

There was a report on the BBC yesterday about the problems being faced by people with sight and hearing loss

 
I had this problem myself today, faced with a masked doorkeeper whom I could not hear clearly, being a deaf-ish old geezer.
 

I have reached the masochistic point where I look forward to whatever idiotic pronouncement is made each day. It’s the only way to stay sane.

 
As I’m sure I’ve mentioned, I’m a Radio 4 Extra fan (apart from anything else, it helps to pass the time in the supermarket queues). Not all the old comedies still work, but some do. Hancock, for one (semi-surreal, ultra cynical, as befits our times, even more than his). I can’t quite laugh at “The Goons” as I once did, but it’s a lot more sane than what comes out of Downing Street or BBC Propaganda News.
 
 
 
 

Aldous Hexley
Aldous Hexley
Jun 24, 2020 1:10 AM
Reply to  JudyJ

Thanks Mike and JudyJ.
 
Reference to the clear plastic face mask–already here in the US and I’ve seen it referred to here at O-G as “the windshield mask.” I’ve mentioned it a few times. Really ridiculous. The plastic visor-shield type starts above the eyes and drops down, widening as it goes, to create a large space below nostrils, mouth, and jaw–as I said yesterday a “chasm” of free space. This would be similar, if you remember, to that video we saw with the young woman who had “improved her mask” by leaving her nose and mouth free, but flanked by mask otherwise. I mean, are we THAT stupid?
 

JudyJ
JudyJ
Jun 24, 2020 10:59 AM
Reply to  Aldous Hexley

Thanks AH,
 
I’ve got an idea. Perhaps we should all go round wearing a space helmet and an oxygen cylinder strapped to our backs! 😀

JudyJ
JudyJ
Jun 23, 2020 10:38 PM
Reply to  Aldous Hexley

Further to Mike E’s comments, different rules/guidance apply in different regions of the UK. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all laying down their own requirements which just serve to muddy what is already a very confusing raft of measures. It’s not even a case of England doing something and the others following a week or two weeks later. They are all proceeding at a very different pace and with very different priorities. I couldn’t even tell you without looking it up whether masks are supposed to be worn on public transport in Wales where I live.
 
It appears to me that the devolved administrations are actually hoping that any so-called relaxation (in truth, as Mike says, it’s a case of moving the goalposts rather than freeing us from the control measures) of the rules in England fails just to give them that all important one upmanship.

snuffleupagus
snuffleupagus
Jun 24, 2020 1:23 AM
Reply to  Aldous Hexley

In Lincoln County, Oregon, persons of color are now exempted from wearing masks.
 
that sounds like alt-right bullshit, unless you have a reference.

Aldous Hexley
Aldous Hexley
Jun 24, 2020 3:08 AM
Reply to  snuffleupagus

people of color excepted from mask wearing in Lincoln County, OR
 
https://www.infowars.com/oregon-county-imposes-race-based-face-mask-ordinance/
 
Coming from info-wars you could be right.

snuffleupagus
snuffleupagus
Jun 24, 2020 9:48 AM
Reply to  Aldous Hexley

well, colour me corrected. satire is dead.
 
comment image

Aldous Hexley
Aldous Hexley
Jun 24, 2020 2:38 PM
Reply to  snuffleupagus

Thanks.

Harvesta Strong
Harvesta Strong
Jun 23, 2020 6:04 PM

“It is beyond ironic that the statist will often chide the anarchist for, what they see as, their naive perception of human nature. Statists claim that it is inevitable that the corrupt, the violent and the unworthy will seek and exploit power. Precisely the point made by anarchists, who suggest that not freely giving away your authority to the power crazed might therefore be a good idea.”

It has been nearly impossible to get statists to even consider other points of view. They won’t read articles. They shut down critical thinking if they detect any hint of dissent. People whom I’ve respected, highly intellegent contacts, have either not been able to see or vehemently defend the obvious step by step manipulations by leaders, the red flags of ambiguity and backtracking of statements guiding global policy, that real science is actually *not* guiding these policy decisions, and most alarmingly the fact that they are *not concerned* over their freedoms being eroded, rapid IOT infrastructure changes, curfews or surveillance being implemented is a akin to a Stepford Wife Body Snatcher scenario for the rest of us relating to them.

Robert Duchin once explained that resisters of propagandist rhetoric fall into four categories of people: radicals (anarchists) who do not trust the state to protect them and must be censored or isolated, idealists who must be shown that any opposition they might have actually causes some harm and cannot be ethically justified, pragmatic realists who can be negotiated with and shown that they can live with the trade-offs and work within the system, and opportunists who can be given status, followers, power, employment and a voice in the final policy solution.

In other words isolate anarchists, educate idealists into realists, coopt realists and opportunists into the system with carrot and stick, then allow radical credibility to be reduced by the majority.

We must reverse engineer this process starting with our friends who are fellow idealists who hold the key to this divide and conquer strategy. Realists and opportunists bend with the majority. In short, in order to turn this statist mentality around, it is the idealists who must come to believe that if they stand against wearing face masks, it will do no harm.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 7:32 PM

the statists evidently forgot big brother was watching them. they did not realise there would come a day when the rain would come down on them and the north wind would howl. all of a sudden realising that they didnt do their homework and the teacher is furious.

Yarkob
Yarkob
Jun 23, 2020 3:52 PM

excellent thanks.

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jun 23, 2020 3:25 PM

Just… thank you for your eloquence Iain.
What you lay out here is appreciated.
A recent survey in Australia found 69% of people will be happy to get jabbed when the vaccine becomes available. They have obviously fallen for the bullshit from the sewer known as MSM. 69% in a country of 25 million.
I havn’t worn a face mask once since this panicdemic began. And I’m not a quivering sheep, blindly and obediently accepting what the Govt and the MSM are pumping out on a daily basis.
Otherwise known as Fear Porn.
And then there is the question of coercion and threats for those who dissent from this ‘new normal’, this mass pysops. We need to stand up and say No. All those who see thru the lies. Because there is no compromise in complying with Fascism.
Rosa Parks, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, even Mandela (before he became President of SA) are examples to follow and be inspired by.
Even the Giles Jaunes in France. They have been out in the streets opposing the wickedness of Neoliberalism.

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 10:22 PM
Reply to  Gezzah Potts

I sent off for and have been reading a short book by Vernon Coleman titled “AnyoneWho Tells You Vaccines Are Safe and Effective is Lying”. (his qualifications are: MB, ChB, DSc, FRSA).
 
Written in fairly robust language. 🙂 From 2014, but I doubt if his views have changed, or if they have, only to become stronger I should think.
 
As he says, if what he said could be proved wrong, he would have been struck off, but he hasn’t been. Instead, he’s been censored and suppressed (from the MSM). He’s on YT, but I think some of his videos have been censored.

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jun 23, 2020 11:00 PM

The censorship is just at East German Stasi levels now Mike. Since this panicdemic began, have discovered quite a number of new sites, blogs and people exposing this confected, coordinated pysops.
And Vernon Coleman has been one of those people. He’s really good, and has a way in demolishing the ‘official narrative’.
A newer one that started up recently is called The Mirror Project on YouTube, series of short hard hitting videos, but with them, there’s already a warning about their content!

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 11:34 PM
Reply to  Gezzah Potts

Thanks Gezzah. I will check them out. A warning is a badge of honour!
 
As I’ve hinted from time to time, I’ve been conducting a mini guerrilla “war of stickers” around my little town. Most get torn down, but some stay up. And I’ve noticed I’m not the only one. And recently, I found one that gave a generic email address, which I will contact. Wish I’d thought of this, and may do the same. 🙂
 
(And many of my stickers link to O-G btw 🙂 )
 
 

Howard
Howard
Jun 23, 2020 3:12 PM

I can’t speak for anyone else, but to me, at the time, it was sensible and necessary – and because it was, and because the threat was overwhelming, I willingly complied. I did exactly as I was told. How could I in good conscience have done otherwise?
 
Oh, I should have said I wasn’t referring to wearing a face mask. Sorry, I’m not thinking clearly. What I was talking about was when I was a kid in Parochial school, about the 4th grade. That was when we had periodic drills, where the whole class would get under their desks and shelter in place until the all clear was given. Those were scary times, what with the ever present threat of nuclear attack. Thank God at least there was something we could do to protect ourselves: we could get under our desks at school – and pray our moms would have time to get under the kitchen table.

I DENY YOUR BS
I DENY YOUR BS
Jun 23, 2020 4:29 PM
Reply to  Howard

Duck & Cover!
 
Shelter In Place!

Dr NG Maroudas
Dr NG Maroudas
Jun 23, 2020 5:00 PM
Reply to  Howard

Funny thing, Howard, your mentioning the Desk Drill. The same image of school children going through that “existential theatre of the absurd” routine popped into my mind last night. Con19 may be a brand new “existential threat” but it has brought out the deliberate drilling of absurd protective measures into impressionable minds. Obviously a faith inducing exercise: psychological conditioning to induce a mental state of deep faith in some inscrutable Power which repeatedly assures us that we shall receive Its protection against this Horrible, Horrible, Hef… er, Terrible, Terrible Existential Threat.
 
Credo quia absurdum est.

invitado
invitado
Jun 23, 2020 2:33 PM

When believers in, defenders of, Order (divine initial capital required) tell us that outside it there’s chaos they are making a very basic, fundamental, however common, common-sense mistake. Outside Order we do not know what there might be, how could we. We cannot truly speak about it, Order being constituted by language (specifically by that part of language made of words with real meaning), when we define what’s outside It, we are automatically enclosing it inside. Just a moment of reflection will show anybody that chaos, the only chaos we know (and we are very familiar with it), is precisely inside -or even caused by- Order. Examples abund: traffic chaos, burocratic chaos, economic chaos, etc.
 
So the usual threat by the believers or defenders of any current regime -“it’s Order -meaning this Order- or chaos! (or hunger, or death, or…)”- involves faith. But I’d like to define faith very precisely as “believing that you know”, short: knowing. Those believers know that without the laws, the armies, the priests, the mandarines, it’s chaos around the corner, it’s cold, it’s hunger, it’s violence, it’s the law of the jungle. They know it, despite it being an impossible subject of knowledge.
 
The opposite attitude one can call trust (just to make things clearer; one can also choose to keep the word faith for this other thing as well, but it doesn’t help clarify the inmense difference between both attitudes). Trust on the unknown: “well, if there are no laws dictated from above, no armies, no State, we will along the way build a different, true order from below”; “if I don’t wear a mask and kiss my cousin, if I let the children play with eachother like they need to, it might well be that there won’t be an invisible ultra dangerous (except when it’s harmless) micro-entity ready to kill me or my 90 year-old grandmother”.
 
One can know God, have faith in my idea of God (or Science, or Progress, or Justice or…). That’s bound to be quite dangerous for the rest of the people and things. One can, on the other hand, trust the unknown (and call it God; some people still do that, and that deserves respect), and that can’t possibly be harmful for the surrounding creatures.
 
Behind any crime, there’s faith. The bigger (ie, the higher the origin of) the idea supporting that faith, the bigger the crime.
 

ame
ame
Jun 23, 2020 5:55 PM
Reply to  invitado

that why they need people to vote = evoke
faith believe with intent in the system it feeds on that = energy

John Ervin
John Ervin
Jun 27, 2020 12:50 AM
Reply to  invitado

“On the highway to Trust, fear is the wrong exit.”

Arby
Arby
Jun 23, 2020 2:12 PM

“Not everyone wants this, though it seems the majority do.”
 
I’d be lying if I said that I did not find that reality terrifying.
 
https://youtu.be/DvmH_N8xF1U
 

Arby
Arby
Jun 23, 2020 1:51 PM

“It seems analysis released by the Royal Society DELVE Initiative on 4th May, convinced SAGE to change their advice.” I never heard that. Interesting. I did hear from the UKC presenters that SAGE members were caution to keep their personal opinions about face masks to themselves.
 
See “Keep quiet on two-metre rule, SAGE experts told” by Katherine Rushton (The Telegraph) / https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/14/keep-quiet-two-metre-rule-sage-experts-told/
 
Del Bigtree warned us that they’d come after asymptomatics, making the claim that we healthy people, including children, are spreading the covid 19 virus around. James Corbett correctly noted that the idea of repeated waves was baked into the hoax. And I see there that DELVE is not beyond lying. Here’s their number 1. point: “Asymptomatic (including presymptomatic) infected individuals are infectious.” When in actuality: “Coronavirus spread by asymptomatic people ‘appears to be rare,’ WHO official says” by Jaqueline Howard (CNN) / https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/08/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread-who-bn/index.html?__twitter_impression=true 
Del looks at Maria Van Kerkhove’s later, transparent, efforts to walk back her statement. Ahh, Isn’t integrity beautiful!
 
 

invitado
invitado
Jun 23, 2020 2:53 PM
Reply to  Arby

The whole microbial theory of infectious diseases is rotten. It’s fruits (paranoia, war mentality and self hatred) bear witness of that rottenness.

I DENY YOUR BS
I DENY YOUR BS
Jun 23, 2020 4:43 PM
Reply to  invitado

The problem is with viruses. There is no doubt living microorganisms like certain bacteria, amoebas and protozoa can cause some nasty diseases.

Arby
Arby
Jun 23, 2020 4:55 PM
Reply to  I DENY YOUR BS

That may be correct. For sure, the problem is the scam that is Rockefeller health care. But that scam probably includes much that is not scam. My verdict: Flush Rockefeller health care and big evil pharma and we’ll figure out health care on our own. Bring back homepathy. (Then again, that’s for ‘this’ system of things. I am a Christian and I’m looking forward to a new world in which worrying about a health care system won’t be necessary.)

invitado
invitado
Jun 23, 2020 4:56 PM
Reply to  I DENY YOUR BS

There is no doubt living microorganisms are linked to nasty diseases. That they cause them, that’s a horse of a whole different colour.
 
Cause (guilt) is such a theological subject. What happens when the Cause gets degraded to being a humble coadyuvant factor? The concept of Cause itself seems to come apart in my hands.
 
There is no doubt, too, that living microorganisms are linked to the possibility of life. I can’t digest food without them, but it might be unsound and risky to put bacterias that belong in the large intestine inside my eye.
 
The paradigm needs to change. And no matter the amount of money the current paradigm moves, I trust it’s going to end up changing.

Arby
Arby
Jun 23, 2020 1:47 PM

“If your hope is to protect yourself against a viral respiratory infection, covering your face with with a face mask you bought online is about as useful as concrete lifebuoy.” That was quite good.

breweriana
breweriana
Jun 23, 2020 2:30 PM
Reply to  Arby

Or even about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 1:46 PM

the only reason to wear a maskis if it assists in collecting evidence on those ‘above’. otherwise it is aiding and abetting in the crime of genocide. this destructive cult is going to face trial so the best is to obtain whistleblower status by coming out with evidence. act quick coz soon it will be too late and the whole thing will implode ontop of you.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 5:13 PM
Reply to  jess

the security services have been watching. confess and you might get blessed. you know how those ‘ above’ will try to blame you if you dont collect evidence against them. you will have no excuse and get blamed whilst they slide away into the long grass. best to come out with evidence before it is too late. you can feel the sense of doom setting in cant you?

Arby
Arby
Jun 23, 2020 1:40 PM

“Relative inequality is as bad as it’s ever been while, at the same time, a tiny clique of carefully selected people rule us. We never escaped the rule of the aristocracy. It’s just that we now think we elect them. We don’t. We just elect their representatives.”
 
“The technocrat of today knows something. But his means of processing uses neither morality nor common sense. The differences between the imagined modern man of reason and the real thing can be found in his very name – technocrat.
 
“Technology is a relatively new word, combining the Greek techne (skill, métier) with logos (knowledge). The skill of knowledge. But the noun technocrat has a very different meaning. Techne is, in this case, attached to kratos (strength, power). The technocrat’s skill lies in his exercise of power. The skill of power. His is an abstract profession involving only narrow bands of knowledge. He hires himself out as a mercenary to organizations that control wider bands of knowledge and create, server or sell. In other words he hires himself out in order to assume other people’s power.” pages 109 & 110 of “Voltaire’s Bastards – The Dictatorship Of Reason In The West” by John Ralston Saul
 
When I just re-read Saul’s above words, I immediately thought of Boris Johnson. I’ve been watching and blogging about UK Column News shows and the presenters have come to the firm conclusion that the UK government is one of occupation (by traitorous, technocratic ‘leaders’ who take their marching orders from invisible puppet-masters). Lord Sumption may think that he’s simply witnessing incompetence, but, as the UKC presenters make clear, that’s not the case. The chaos and destruction issuing from that government (and others, like the Canadian government that I’m suffering under) is not merely the result of incompetence, although, in this technocratic society in which people are specialized into stupidity and literacy (in the full sense) is missing in action, that is also there in spades.
 

Arby
Arby
Jun 23, 2020 1:18 PM

There’s a problem with English. It stems from our freedom to be careless with it. Over time, it has become horribly mangled. And we need language in order to communicate and run society (although today I find myself running from society).
 
Ryan Cristian used the term anarchy the same way as Iain is using it. I’m not saying that either person is wrong. (And let me state straight away that I am absolutely not a Statist.) Here’s the thing, the word ‘anarchy’ connotes, to me, chaos. The word ‘anarchism’ does not. Don’t most people receive the word ‘anarchy’ that way?
 
Perhaps if enough of us try to resist the mangling of the word, we can push back against the huge current going in the opposite direction. But I doubt it. Now and then I resist what I consider a wayward direction in language but I probably merely annoy people – including those who, broadly speaking, are of my tribe. I don’t like ‘visited’ and prefer ‘visitted’. I don’t like a million other words that (inconsistently) also dropped a consonant that, at one time, in English, signalled (signaled) that the vowel preceding it is short, or not long, rather than long. And who came up with ‘centre’? I think the British did, so the mangling of English didn’t just happen when the English became Americans, Canadians etc.. But when you have a sentence like “Financial Giants are the the centre of covid 1984,” should that be centre or center? (I just read something, on page 111, from John Ralston Saul’s “Voltaire’s Bastards” in which he uses centre that way. Are we going to get rid of center altogether the way we’ve gotten rid of the perfectly serviceable ‘disconcerting’ and replaced it, ridiculously, with ‘concerning’? And while I think that a lot of the mangling of English has been through carelessness and laziness, some of the short-cut-taking has actually been reasonable, probably accidentally.
 

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 1:40 PM
Reply to  Arby

“I probably merely annoy people – including those who, broadly speaking, are of my tribe”
 
Maybe, but not necessarily, but you don’t actually say what your tribe is.
 
As for your first sentence. That’s your subjective opinion, not objective reality. So I can disagree with you on that.
 
These days I don’t go in for perfection in writing. Being understood is more important than getting your spelling and grammar right. (And admittedly I do sometimes fail on both counts).
 

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 1:45 PM
Reply to  Arby

I do know what you mean. I get confused with “center” and “centre.” I’m British, so for me its “centre” but then if talking about the CDC it has to be “center.”
 
With regard to “anarchy” I consider it to be the noun for a society that is in a state of anarchism.
 
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anarchy
 
The problem is it has been pejoratively loaded since Proudhon first announced he was an “anarchist.” Various definitions describe it differently depending on their political, rather than etymological perspective it seems.
 
The point always stressed is that no “government,” which is itself incorrectly attributed to be synonymous with “the State,” as seen from an anarchist perspective, is always a bad thing.
 
I think we face many struggles, one among them is to take appropriate possession of the misused language. That is part of the argument I have tried to make in the article.
 

Arby
Arby
Jun 23, 2020 3:27 PM
Reply to  Iain

Acknowledged.

Watt
Watt
Jun 23, 2020 1:56 PM
Reply to  Arby

‘anarchos’ originally described a state without government. Over time, via the OEU and other dictionaries of even lesser repute, this meaning has slipped to the end of a burgeoning list of others i.e. lawless or chaotic etc. Subversion of the English language in ‘high places’! ‘pagan’ is yet another such word.

Bayard
Bayard
Jun 23, 2020 1:16 PM

Anarchy is the best possible system of authority in a society where it is always possible to get swift agreement on all major matters. This blog demonstrates how easy that is.

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 1:36 PM
Reply to  Bayard

Anarchy is the absence of order, the absence of any system of authority.

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 2:49 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

What makes you think that?

Bayard
Bayard
Jun 23, 2020 3:36 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

Not authority in the sense of “being able to get things done that involve more than one person”, the authority of co-operation. Without that, almost nothing would get done.

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 5:56 PM
Reply to  Bayard

Anarchy doesn’t reject authority or devolving your authority to another. I devolve my authority to a mechanic, allowing them to make changes to my property, in exchange for money. But I then take back my authority when the transaction (contract) is complete. Anarchism has no issue with this. (mostly – there are lots of different forms of anarchism)
 
However the State has total authority over my property (vehicle license – my vehicle is only licensed to me the State can seize it whenever they like if I don’t obey their rules. I pay for it but I don’t own it.)
 
Anarchism is merely the rejection of absolute or supreme authority over all. No State.

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 1:02 PM

Crumbs, this is a bit long.

I got so far. I quote:

“Anarchy is already the way we order society in our day to day lives.”

Well speak for yourself pal. We have laws in the UK. We have had since long before I was born.

The principle is (or used to be) that you are innocent before the law until proven guilty. That even lets the likes of Jimmy Savile off the hook, since apparently even as a geriatric he was too scary to investigate while he was alive.

I digress.

My take on “the state” is this. The state is neutral. It is benign.

What is not benign is the government. They make the decisions.

The state has not decreed anything. All the covid19 “decrees” have come from Boris Johnson and his cabal in the Palace of Westminster.

But you carry on, keep blaming “the British state” for everything. I’m sure Scots nationalists will love you for it. But I prefer to hold real people accountable. People like Boris Johnson and his counterpart in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon.

Anyone who blames “the state” is letting Johnson and Sturgeon off the hook.

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 1:18 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

You know what I hate. It’s when people give these childish downvotes, but fail to engage in discussion with me.

They are like spoiled children stomping their feet or throwing their rattles out of their prams.

They’ve not got the brains to offer a rational argument, but they’re triggered.

lundiel
lundiel
Jun 23, 2020 2:43 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

I don’t blame them at all. It’s the fault of the idiot who asked for them to be included. What you have now is a bubble of like minded who can hide behind downvotes……as if they made any difference to anything. I regard mine as a sign of sanity in the asylum.

breweriana
breweriana
Jun 23, 2020 2:46 PM
Reply to  lundiel

Get a room, you two!

breweriana
breweriana
Jun 23, 2020 1:22 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

The state is neutral. It is benign.”
Mincing words again.
 
Clausewitz said, ‘war is a continuation of state policy by other means.’
He was a general 1st and a statesman 2nd, so probably knew what he was talking about.
 
To you and I regarding how state policy now affects us, it means:
“Get in line pal, or get arrested.”
 
Or worse.

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 1:34 PM
Reply to  breweriana

Thanks.
 
What do you mean by the phrase “mincing words”. That makes no sense to me at all.
 
I’ve never heard of “Clausewitz” and I certainly don’t have to agree with him or her just because you like what he or she says!
 
It’s not the state that makes the decisions. It is the government.
 
How about trying learning a bit about British history before signing up to this “blame the state” paranoia. You could start with the Bill of Rights of 1689 or Magna Carta.
 
If you think Boris Johnson is great and should be given a free pass carry on. I’m sure he would love it if you investigate the toothless state rather than his incompetent government for this shitshow.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 1:55 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

According to the Bill of Rights 1689, it is illegal to impose fines on a person who has not been convicted. The British state violates that law daily, routinely, systematically.

I DENY YOUR BS
I DENY YOUR BS
Jun 23, 2020 4:52 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

You don’t actually have to pay the fines without a court case… of course if you take it to court and lose you have to pay more… because justice is blind you see.
 

breweriana
breweriana
Jun 23, 2020 5:51 PM
Reply to  I DENY YOUR BS

Exactly.
As my old Granddad used to say:
“The more you say, the more you pay.”

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 7:11 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

It’s not the fucking state. It’s the government!
 
Are you a Scottish nationalist Steve? Because it’s religion for you people. I can’t have rational debate with people like that.

breweriana
breweriana
Jun 23, 2020 2:17 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

You confuse the ‘elected representative’ (Boris is the one you blame presently) as the temporary government is known by, with the actual source of power – the state – modern thinkers sometimes call it ‘the deep state’, ‘the establishment’ etc.
 
The ‘sock puppets’ of the government of the day, are subject to the power of the state which has been there since at least 1815 in its present form. It reached its zenith about 1865, then began its decline in 1905 with the Dreadnought arms race. All the terrible (for ordinary folk) decisions from then on were made by long dead, self-interested parties, who were certainly not part of any ‘government’.
 
We are currently in the final decline and fall of that state.
 
Governments, from any standpoint, and no matter how you vote, cannot change that decline because they do not, and never have, had that power. Once the state fails, then ‘governments’ are no longer needed, nor is voting. This is where we are now in the UK – the population must be ‘managed’ ready for the inevitable fall.
 
If it was only “his (Boris’s) incompetent government” to blame, the thing would only be in the UK, but it is all over the West. The ‘2nd wave’ (of control) will be made ready for late December (cancelling another religious festival to boot) – this one will be a doozy.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 2:53 PM
Reply to  breweriana

the collapse is imminent. the only second wave will be the wave of trials of internet trolls who forgot big brother was watching.

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 7:16 PM
Reply to  breweriana

You confuse the ‘elected representative’ (Boris is the one you blame presently) as the temporary government is known by, with the actual source of power – the state
 
No. I don’t think so. The Bill of Rights confers PARLIAMENTARY sovereignty.
 
It is Boris Johnson and his executive who hold the reins of power.
 
“The state” is a meaningless term – it’s the country.
 
This is not the United States, which has an entirely different form of governance and where a deep state narrative may be more relevant.
 
You let the Tories off the hook time and time and time again with this paranoid nonsense about the state.

breweriana
breweriana
Jun 23, 2020 8:15 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

“The state” is a meaningless term.”
The Monarchy is ‘Head of State’; the Defence (sic) Forces are the military wing of the state, the Intelligence services, etc. These things remain, even if there is NO government.
 
You do not understand that Boris, et al, are there for exactly what you want – to ‘put them on the hook’ when Joe Public has had enough. Meanwhile, the statists remain well behind the scenes, the bankers, munitions manufacturers, and so on, safe from the public gaze.
Your understanding of ‘government’ is seriously naive.
 
I never mentioned any ‘Bill of Rights’ or the US, either. You seem to be casting straw men rather than answering my comment.
 
Tories, ‘labour’, it’s all the same to the state.
 
To quote Karl Marx:
“The British Parliament represents no more than a wordy battle over who shall run capitalism best.”
Capitalism, of course, being the mercenary wing of the state.

Arby
Arby
Jun 23, 2020 3:30 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

Your understanding of ‘government’ is seriously limited.

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 1:58 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

With respect you appear to have missed the central point and have succumbed to the widely believed but inaccurate definition of “anarchy.” (or “anarchism” see comment from Arby above)
 
Anarchy is not a society without rules (or Law.) It is a society without rulers (no one has “absolute” hierarchical authority.)
 
Anarchy does not advocate the removal or absence of Law. However, it does advocate a change in the way laws are created. We already have a system of Common law in the UK which, until relatively recently, was created by the people in the form of randomly selected juries.
 
Over that last couple of centuries State representatives (Judges), have seized more and more power and now, thanks to COVID 19 of course, many are advocating the further erosion and removal of jury authority.
 
There’s a relevant post here if you are interested.
 
https://in-this-together.com/the-british-constitution-deception-part-1/

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 3:17 PM
Reply to  Iain

We already have a system of Common law in the UK which, until relatively recently, was created by the people in the form of randomly selected juries.

This claim is just wrong. Common law is not (and never was) created by juries. It is the creation of judicial decisions. Judges have made, and continue to make, common law by precedent.

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 5:43 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

No. That is incorrect. Common Law is the legem terrae (the Law of the Land) and it is the custom and tradition of the people. Judges were intended to be convenors whose role was to merely to administrate the decision of the jury who are the sole arbiters of justice with the power to annul any and all parliamentary legislation.
 
This was proven beyond “legal” doubt by precedent – Penn & Mead (Bushel) vs the State. It is also part of the coronation oath and the political oath of office. The Head of State swears to it.
 
The people, not Parliament or the judiciary, are sovereign in every matter, especially the Rule of Law where they should be represented by a random selected jury of equal citizens.
 
I fully accept that most people believe precedent is set by the judiciary but every such precedent is unlawful. The problem is we have been consistently deceived for more than 800 years. If you are interested to know more please take a look here.
 
https://in-this-together.com/the-british-constitution-deception-part-1/

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 10:32 PM
Reply to  Iain

Do you have legal qualifications to back this up? I’m not being funny; I’m genuinely interested. I’ve always found the concept of common law interesting, but have never fully understood it. I’ve never studied law (life is too short), but I respect the people who have the patience to do so.

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 11:50 PM

No Mike I don’t, and if you suggested this to the legal profession they would absolutely deny it and call you crazy. However, I do know some legal and constitutional experts (who are qualified) who share my perspective. I have also been interested in the Common Law (and Natural Law) for many years. So I hope you read the post cited in the previous comment with an open mind, follow the links, do your own research and then decide if the constitutional argument presented stacks up.

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 24, 2020 12:43 AM
Reply to  Iain

Thanks Iain. I have now read that posting, and also part 2. Very interesting. It will take me a while to get my head around it.
 
What do you mean by “common law courts”?

Iain
Iain
Jun 24, 2020 9:19 AM

People are already setting them up. The point being to create a parallel arbitration system (initially) using Common Law. Rather like Sharia Courts they have no standing in our……er…..”legal system” and the judiciary will be resistant. But if we take our disputes to them in increasing numbers, and abide by the rulings, a tipping point may be achieved.

https://www.commonlawcourt.com/

lundiel
lundiel
Jun 23, 2020 2:57 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

The state is neither neutral nor benign. I don’t think you could ever accuse the treasury, foreign office, MOD or security services of being either.

invitado
invitado
Jun 23, 2020 3:09 PM
Reply to  lundiel

‘Means’ have ‘ends’ inscribed in them!
 
Tools can’t be neutral. Specially when they have been developed high-up and are very powerful.

Philippe
Philippe
Jun 23, 2020 3:12 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

“I got so far. I quote:
 
“Anarchy is already the way we order society in our day to day lives.”
 
Well speak for yourself pal. We have laws in the UK. We have had since long before I was born.”
 
Hi John,
 
I may be mistaken, but I think the point being made was that in any number of daily transactions, we do not rely on, nor need, State (or indeed Govt) input.
 
Yes, we have laws, but we don’t have laws that tell you which car to buy, which dentist to use, where to shop etc. In that sense, such transactions are anarchic.
 
So, although we live in (and are forced to conform to) a State on the macro level, at the micro level, we are all anarchists. Given that our daily, anarchic, lives are not generally a maelstrom of chaos, perhaps some consideration should be given to expanding this situation to include (or, more accurately, exclude) government and the state.
 
That is my take on what the author meant.

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 6:01 PM
Reply to  Philippe

Spot on. That is what I meant.

Howard
Howard
Jun 23, 2020 4:21 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

I upvoted you, though I do have a point of contention with what you’ve been saying. I think the equivalence of state with government parallels the equivalence of anarchy with chaos. This is especially true where anarchy is viewed as chaos; and this, simply because the incorrect definition of chaos is being used.
 
Rather than disorder, mayhem and the like, chaos as it relates to anarchy should be viewed in its original religious definition of formless matter existing before creation. Anarchy is more nearly a formless condition of society than a disordered condition. As such, anarchy would more closely resemble the makeup of society prior to the advent of “civilization.”

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 6:06 PM
Reply to  Howard

Anarchy does not relate to chaos, disorder or mayhem etc. Neither is it the absence of civilisation.
 
Anarchy is order, not chaos. What we have now (State rule) looks more like chaos to me. (depends where you live of course, and who you are.)
 
We organise the world without absolute rulers. Nations states coexist peacefully (on the whole) yet there is no one ruling them (theoretically).
 
Nations have disputes and they are aggressive but they generally exercise restraint and maintain diplomacy because it is in their best interests to do so.
 
This is a state of anarchy at a global level. And it works (more or less).
 

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 24, 2020 1:44 PM
Reply to  Iain

Actually, there is a great deal of institutionalised political authority globally, eg, international law, the United Nations, treaties, World Trade Organisation, etc.

richard
richard
Jun 23, 2020 5:36 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

Yeah, I was trying to think of a reply to the notion of anarchy as an improvement over what we have. Your explanation fits the bill well enough.
Excellent.

Norbertrand
Norbertrand
Jun 23, 2020 12:12 PM

Rules – yes. Rulers – no. That’s my sort of society. Brilliant article Iain. Many thanks.

aspnaz
aspnaz
Jun 23, 2020 12:05 PM

I have been told that custard is back in my local M+S here in HK. Expats will know how difficult custard can be to get hold of – yes, some make their own, me, I’m helpless in the kitchen.

M+S are permanently on my banned list, along with Prets and all other British stores, the reason being that they are the strictest stores for masks: I’m not talking legal requirements but corporate policy. Starbucks, Eric Kaiser and others will serve me coffee without a mask, but not Prets or M+S cafe. They chose to not support me during the faux pandemic, so f**k em.

Like all disruption, it has it’s up side, my wife and I have been forced to find alternatives which have included some very excellent shops, some really good breakfast shops.

But custard had been a problem until I learned a few days ago that Marketplace now stocks Birds custard.

So my last requirement is pork pies (I can get hand made pies, scotch eggs etc, but not pork pies) but you know what, a friend has just had a load of pork pies delivered from the uk direct.

Looks like the Covid faux hysteria has done me a favour: I don’t need British high street stores any more and I won’t miss their junkie-like addiction to rules.

I DENY YOUR BS
I DENY YOUR BS
Jun 23, 2020 4:56 PM
Reply to  aspnaz

There is always cans of spam, biltong, pork scratchings…

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 12:03 PM

All the stuff around statists and anarchists is unnecessary and actually irrelevant. The Coronavirus Act 2020 and its associated regulations completely changed the situation. The Act instituted fascism. It violated our rights and liberties to an unprecedented degree. Here is a brief list:
 
the suspension of juries,
the cancellation of elections,
the suppression of the right to freedom of expression,
the denial of the right to assembly,
the suspension of the right to protest,
the limitation of the right to engage in legitimate economic transactions,
the removal of the right to receive or refuse medical attention,
the limitation of the right to freedom of movement within the country,
the limitation of the right to practise religion,
the suspension of the right to an education,
the violation of the right to family life,
the denial of the right to a livelihood,
the institution of a police state by giving the police and others the right to detain indefinitely on mere suspicion,
the removal of the right to privacy,
the undermining of the rule of law.
 
It is clear that the legislation is in fact unlawful: https://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2020/05/coronavirus-legislation-is-unlawful.html
 

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 1:03 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

I agree.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 1:27 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

people wearing masks are aiding and abetting a terror group. they should be jailed.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 1:50 PM
Reply to  jess

The whole of the elite have intentionally sought to terrorise the population. This was done (is being done) as a deliberate act of state policy, utilising all the expertise of behavioural scientists (a sub-committee of the SAGE). Once people are fearful, they find it difficult to think rationally, and are easily led by authority figures who claim to be able to protect them. Jess, you are blaming the victims of a terror campaign for being terrorised, cowed, manipulated, exploited.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 3:24 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

no i am blaming them for being recruited and supporting terror. did they finance the iraq war aswell without so much as a days strike? the terrain theory shows us it is the terrain that must be fixed not the “elite” germ dujour.

Carey
Carey
Jun 23, 2020 10:50 PM
Reply to  jess

Could you possibly be bothered to capitalize, punctuate, and properly spell
in your nearly-unreadable comments? Thank you!

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 2:14 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

I fully agree with your observation about the Coronavirus Act’s utter destruction of our civil liberties and the legal intent to refuse to observe our inalienable rights. I accept it is the most salient point with regard to what has been done to us under the smokescreen of COVID 19. I have also written about this.
 
https://in-this-together.com/coronavirus-giving-your-freedom-away/
 
However, I disagree that discussing anarchism is irrelevant. I believe it is appropriate to start thinking about solutions. For me, the problem is State rule and I would argue that has been mankind’s problem for thousands of years.
 
We are currently experiencing rampant State rule, replete with all the travesties you have highlighted. So this article was written with the intent of highlighting a possible alternative, which I feel, at this juncture, is appropriate and relevant.
 
 

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 2:30 PM
Reply to  Iain

The problem with anarchism is that it is based on a failure to appreciate that the state is simply institutionalised political authority, and that institutionalised political authority is an essential and unavoidable social fact of any society. The anarchist aim of abolishing the state is simply not feasible. It is a beautiful dream, but one can live as one dreams.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 3:13 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

Correction, final clause should read: but one cannot live as one dreams.

Howard
Howard
Jun 23, 2020 4:35 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

The reason “abolishing the state is simply not feasible” is that those who profit from its continued existence at the cost of everyone else will fight to the death to preserve it. Not only that, they will conscript everyone they can to fight against..well, against themselves and their own interests in order to preserve the free for all of the ruling class.
 
At the end of the day, it isn’t so much that the state is a necessary evil as it is that the state is evil.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 4:52 PM
Reply to  Howard

No Howard. The reason the abolition of the state is not feasible is because the state is simply institutionalised political authority, and all known societies are characterised by institutionalised authority: there is not one exception. This universality reflects the social fact that the institutionalisation of political authority is essential for the continuance of any society.

Iain
Iain
Jun 23, 2020 5:17 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

The problem with statism is that it believes the State is simply institutionalised political authority and that this is, for some inexplicable reason, unavoidable.
 
The State is an amalgam of invested commercial, financial, geostrategic and geopolitical interests whose public face is so called political authority. This authority comes from one source. The people.
 
If we withdraw it, that will not end the usury and oppression but the true nature of what the State actually is will be evident to all. At which point it is entirely feasible it’s days will be numbered.
 
Political authority only exists because the people either believe in it (in the case of western democracies) or are under the impression they have no choice but to accept it in other regimes (China for example – though once again the original source of their authority came from the people.)
 
Political authority is an idea not a tangible reality. I suggest to you that ideas can change and be forgotten very easily. So perhaps a stateless society is unthinkable for you and many others but that doesn’t mean it is unfeasible.
 
If we can perceive it in our minds it is no more or less tangible than so called “political authority” which is entirely a construct of the mind.
 
Why is political authority essential? Hierarchical authority, devolved on a temporary basis, as required, is arguably essential (the doctor example given) but why do we need to be ruled on a permanent basis by someone, or a group of people, who aren’t experts in any particular field?
 
What is the purpose of political authority other than centralised control of us? Are we free thinking sovereign human beings or not? If you accept that you cannot live without “political authority” guiding you, then you are not.
 
What do the political class do that is so “essential?”
 
They’re not lawyers, giving legal advice, they’re not doctors, giving health advice or even accountants giving tax advice, they’re just politicians whose only purpose is to control what the rest of us do and say.
 
They are afforded this power for one reason. We allow them to wield it. If we stop doing so the illusion evaporates in an instant. They have no power. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
 
Slavery was an unavoidable social fact not so long ago. Regardless of the fact that slavery is still a global industry, it has become “unthinkable” in the minds of many. Social facts can and do change, often rapidly.
 
We carry out the majority of our social and economic interactions without any recourse to the State. It has no meaning at all in nearly everything we do.
 
So anarchy is the norm, which I suggest is another “social fact.”
 
 

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 24, 2020 8:35 AM
Reply to  Iain

I invite you to cite one example of a society without institutionalised political authority.

Iain
Iain
Jun 24, 2020 9:49 AM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

I hope you appreciate that the State built upon “political authority” is extremely resistant to any attempt move away from their authority. Self preservation is King.
 
Nonetheless, many have tried with varying degrees of success. Surprisingly Wikipedia have quite an extensive list. (linked below) they also note the numerous indigenous cultures around the world that don’t operate “political authority.”
 
It is also worth noting that the Peace of Westphalia was only 370 yrs ago. So the “political authority” of the Nation State isn’t that old either.
 
Many of these anarchist communities have been attacked by their statist neighbours and I am certainly not suggesting that establishing large scale societies without “political authority” would be easy. But it certainly can and has been done.
 
The Hellenic Athenian Constitution was arguably anarchic (equal rights for all free men using government by trial by jury) but in modern terms we are talking about a political philosophy that is only 170 years old.
 
In 1851 the first “self declared” anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon wrote:
 
 

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolised, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

 
Here are a list of some of the anarchist societies that have sprung up since then:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
 

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 24, 2020 10:04 AM
Reply to  Iain

Ancient Athens, and the societies cited in the Wikipedia list, all had institutionalised political authority.

Iain
Iain
Jun 24, 2020 10:06 AM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

OK

Mensch59
Mensch59
Jun 24, 2020 1:12 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

Isn’t “institutionalised political authority” simply a phrase that means “power”?
Power can be concentrated & consolidated hierarchically OR power can be diffused horizontally. The dominant hierarchical model could cause human extinction, i.e. it’s suicidal to consent to it.
(1) You seem to be consenting.
(2) Is your consent manufactured or voluntary & volitional?

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 24, 2020 1:31 PM
Reply to  Mensch59

Isn’t “institutionalised political authority” simply a phrase that means “power”?

No.

Mensch59
Mensch59
Jun 24, 2020 1:02 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

…institutionalised political authority is an essential and unavoidable social fact of any society.

The same argument was made about chattel slavery. Institutionalized political authority creates hierarchical power relationships which create the lord-serf, the master-servant, the ruler-ruled, master-slave bonds. You’re essentially stating as an undeniable fact — whether you realize it or not — that slavery is a social norm.

It’s arrogance to say that a slave struggling for freedom is living in a dream world. It’s apologetics for statism.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 24, 2020 1:27 PM
Reply to  Mensch59

I have no idea why you think that institutionalised political authority inevitably creates hierarchical relations. The institutionalisation of political authority simply ensures that there are known, understood, taken-for-granted ways of exercising governance, resolving disputes and generally managing the collective affairs of a society. Historically, these institutional arrangements have been hierarchal but with high levels of variation. Theoretically, it would be possible to create a institutionalised political authority which would be highly egalitarian (save for young children).

Mensch59
Mensch59
Jun 24, 2020 1:47 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

I have no idea why you think that institutionalised political authority inevitably creates hierarchical relations.

Because dominance hierarchies are observed in nature studying animal behaviour (ethology).

The institutionalisation of political authority simply ensures that there are known, understood, taken-for-granted ways of exercising governance, resolving disputes and generally managing the collective affairs of a society.

All of which have miserably failed, unless one is turning a blind eye to ecocide and the ascent of overt totalitarian social control implements.

BOTH statism AND capitalism must be abolished.
From the Charles Hugh Smith essay (headline) “Global Crisis: the Convergence of Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley” and (lede) “The global crisis is not merely economic; it is the result of profound financial, sociological and political trends described by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley”

This is where Orwell enters the convergence, for the State masks its stripmining and power grab with deliciously Orwellian misdirections such as “the People’s Party,” “democratic socialism,” and so on.
Orwell understood the State’s ontological imperative is expansion, to the point where it controls every level of community, markets and society. Once the State escapes the control of the citizenry, it is free to exploit them in a parasitic predation that is the mirror-image of Monopoly capital. For what is the State but a monopoly of force, coercion, data manipulation and the regulation of private monopolies?
What is the EU bureaucracy in Brussels but the perfection of a stateless State?
As Kafka divined, centralized bureaucracy has the capacity for both Orwellian obfuscation (anyone read those 1,300-page Congressional bills other than those gaming the system for their private benefit?) and systemic avarice and injustice.
The convergence boils down to this: it would be impossible to loot this much wealth if the State didn’t exist to enforce the “rules” of parasitic predation.
Aldous Huxley foresaw a Central State that persuaded its people to “love their servitude” via propaganda, drugs, entertainment and information-overload. In his view, the energy required to force compliance exceeded the “cost” of persuasion, and thus the Powers That Be would opt for the power of suggestion.
He outlined this in a letter to George Orwell:
“My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.
Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.”
As prescient as he was, Huxley could not have foreseen the power of mobile telephony, gaming and social media hypnosis/addiction as a conditioning mechanism for passivity and self-absorption. We are only beginning to understand the immense addictive/conditioning powers of 24/7 mobile telephony / social media.
What would we say about a drug that caused people to forego sex to check their Facebook page? What would we say about a drug that caused young men to stay glued to a computer for 40+ hours straight, an obsession so acute that some actually die? We would declare that drug to be far too powerful and dangerous to be widely available, yet mobile telephony, gaming and social media is now ubiquitous.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 24, 2020 1:58 PM
Reply to  Mensch59

I can see that you think this a a refutation of my claim that institutionalised political authority is a necessary and inevitable aspect of any society. However, I cannot see why you think so, as your post does not even address my assertion.
 
Here is a concrete example of institutionalised political authority: the queue. Are you opposed to queues?

Mensch59
Mensch59
Jun 24, 2020 2:51 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

As long as we’re in disagreement with “institutionalised political authority” simply being a phrase that means “power”, I don’t see how addressing the social practice of queuing is relevant.
Thanks for the chat, Steve.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 24, 2020 3:02 PM
Reply to  Mensch59

If you think “institutionalised political authority” is another way of saying “power” I can see why this conversation is pointless.

Mensch59
Mensch59
Jun 24, 2020 3:27 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

Tschüss

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 24, 2020 3:38 PM
Reply to  Mensch59

Am I to take it that your first language is German?

Mensch59
Mensch59
Jun 24, 2020 3:59 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

No

Thom
Thom
Jun 23, 2020 11:49 AM

These face masks certainly have the advantage of marking out the fools, hypochondriacs and OCD sufferers among us.
The danger for the rulers is that saying “OK, joke’s over” probably will not be enough to induce these individuals to act normally again – with all the implications for the economy and public services. Meanwhile, the parallel danger for the government is that a large proportion of population think the whole thing was a hoax, which undermines state credibility on the other side.
Maybe, adding in the economic problems heading our way, anarchy won’t be so far off the end result – hopefully the ordered variety discussed.

Howard
Howard
Jun 23, 2020 4:54 PM
Reply to  Thom

I’m not being impertinent in asking where you live. But if you lived where I do – in Maryland in the US – then your statement that a “large proportion of population think the whole thing was a hoax” simply falls flat. Maybe it’s because Maryland is heavily populated by government workers; but whatever the reason, an awful lot of Marylanders freaked out when they re-opened Ocean City: “It might be too soon” was on almost everyone’s lips.
 
Anyway, I want to come live where you do – but only if it has a winter. I hate the summer.

Brian Sides
Brian Sides
Jun 23, 2020 11:01 AM

My brother in law was taking the mick that I had a handkerchief. He thought it very old fashion he didn’t now anyone else that carries a handkerchief. I always have carried a handkerchief. My mum would make sure I had one before going to school.
I remember Tony Hancock in the blood donor singing the medical notice. “coughs and sneezes spread diseases trap your germs in a handkerchief” while doing an imitation of a Nazi walk and salute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmBivUlPXE
 
But it makes better common sense to use a handkerchief when needed. Than telling people to wear a mask. If you feel a sneeze or cough you take out your handkerchief. Many of the government dictum’s make no sense. Closing parks telling people not to go out in fresh air or to the beach. As even the government figures show a decline in cases they are introducing more controls as they lesson others.
They want to introduce track and trace even threatening to make that mandatory if required. Plus the threat of vaccines.
Once pubs open will people be divided into those who ware a mask and those who do not.
Hopefully more people will resist. I have always made a point of taking the mick out of the silly rules.
I now wear a ghostbusters badge
“I ain’t afraid of no ghost”

I DENY YOUR BS
I DENY YOUR BS
Jun 23, 2020 5:20 PM
Reply to  Brian Sides

I think everyone should be equipped with agricultural pressure sprayers filled with bleach water, so they can sterilise the air around them and anything/anyone who comes close.
 
Hey, maybe hydrogen peroxide can work instead of bleach!

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 10:35 PM
Reply to  Brian Sides

How will people sup their pint with a mask on I wonder?

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 23, 2020 10:42 AM

A pity about the lengthy ramble around the subject of the state in terms of a dualistic view of political philosophy, because the meat is at the end of this article.
 
There is a wide range of people that need to be united behind a refusal to be subjected to a mask fiat. It’s this latter part that might form the unifying solid core of demonstrating what a nonsense it is.
 
I was heartened yesterday during a two car journeys of about 45 minutes to see almost no-one (apart from a few workers who had probably been instructed) wearing a mask. This potential refusal needs to be built upon – and it won’t be done by political philosophy concerning ‘statism’ v. ‘anarchy’ : which is a pretty recondite simplification.
 
Shortly, I will be engaged in discussions re. a large-ish group of which I am a member. The subject will be how to get back to some realistic normal functioning in playing music.
 
I know, from experience near the start of the truth emerging about this fiasco, that I could be as popular as the proverbial fart at the dinner table in trying to argue generally against the psy-ops induced fear. Readers here will have no doubt about the general acceptance of the scary narrative. I guess there will be millions of social situations where the same conflict emerges – so a ramble around vague theory isn’t the point : finding ways of communicating the evidence, and building on the level of current non-compliance *is*.
 
So – lets take a lesson from the propagandists book and keep it simple and keep repeating the ‘meat’ wherever and whenever possible :
 

  1. The virus affects a small percentage of the population in the first place
  2. It seriously afflicts a miniscule percentage of from that sub-group
  3. The current level of the incidence of the virus shrinks risk to even lower levels.
  4. Rattling on about ‘The Science’ means accepting the principle that, absent a convincing probability to the contrary, the null hypothesis stands when assessing evidence.In terms of masks there is no such evidence to support use.
  5. Masks are uncomfortable to wear – at best. At worst, they are detrimental to health. Enforcing use without clear justification is contrary to the basic principles of medicine.
  6. Prior statements by government clearly contradict any subsequent edict to enforce their use.

 

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 2:09 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

do you have evidence there is a virus killing people because that lie underpins the whole crime even if you believe you are opposed to the crime you may still be involved? stefan lanka has video explaining there is no such thing. seize and desist.

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 23, 2020 2:39 PM
Reply to  jess

do you have evidence there is a virus killing people”
 
Yes – although, as said, many fewer, and mostly much more sick, than the establishment narrative would portray . Apart from anything else the evidence of all-cause cumulative mortality is consistent with the normal range of strong infectious epidemics, and also with the symptoms experienced by individuals I know.
 
I – like others – have spent much time and effort seeking out the true picture.
 
The only argument is about the wildly exaggerated threat that has been manufactured But kooky ‘there’s *no* virus’ nonsense is just as unbelievable as the ‘Panic!’ narrative.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 3:39 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

The “there is no virus” narrative simply serves the interests of the propagators of the hysterical fear-mongering narrative. Instead of having to address the serious criticisms of their narrative, they can simply dismiss any criticism as dangerous misinformation

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 4:22 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

that doesnt sound at all like an attempt to prove your claims a pathogenic virus exists. stefan lanka won the case in the high court in germany and you have nothing to say but persist in pretending to oppose the atrocities.

Steve Hayes
Steve Hayes
Jun 23, 2020 4:46 PM
Reply to  jess

Stefan Lanks won his appeal, not on the substantive issue, but on the administrative point that Lanka was the arbiter of whether or not his promised award (of e100,000) should be given. In the lower court, where the issue of the existence of the virus was the focus, Lanka had lost.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 7:48 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

that sounds awefully like what one might expect an industry insider would claim. needless to say it is not any sort of evidence to support your contention that there is a deadly virus called covid19. the 100,000 is stil up for grabs and none of the players are interested.

Howard
Howard
Jun 23, 2020 5:09 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

In case you’ve been on hiatus, the media addresses ALL criticisms of the official narrative as “dangerous misinformation.”
 
Beyond that, however, there are apparently quite a number of people who follow Pasteur’s nemesis Beauchamp in concluding that what we call pathogens simply do not exist – at least not as infectious or disease causing agents. So it is not appropriate to dismiss that view as unworthy of presentation.

I DENY YOUR BS
I DENY YOUR BS
Jun 23, 2020 5:28 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

Is there any real proof that this is a “novel” coronavirus and that this or any other coronavirus are the causes of this pulmonary disease we are being shown? I looked at “teh science” in The Lancet and found WHO funded papers that fail the most basic scientifc scrutiny. (No references to back up assumptions presented as givens, or references pointingto magazines and news items…. They didn’t even try very hard to fake it…. I could not find any study that isolated and purified this virus and then infected a test subject which then became ill with the “covid” symptoms… this would be the only proof that can be called scientific.
 
“There is no pathogenic virus” is the better phrasing. If such things existed we wouldn’t be around to discuss this- they would have mutated enough to kill everyone long before microscopes were invented.
 

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 10:46 PM
Reply to  Steve Hayes

The “there is no virus” narrative simply serves the interests of the propagators of the hysterical fear-mongering narrative. Instead of having to address the serious criticisms of their narrative, they can simply dismiss any criticism as dangerous misinformation

 
I disagree. If they are so sure that there is a killer virus, then the onus is on them to show proof that it has been purified, and then that it causes the disease in question, and that this disease can be passed from person to person, and that it can then be isolated, purified, and identified in the person(s) that it was allegedly passed on to. If “the science” is so self-evidently true, then it should be easy to demonstrate and prove, shouldn’t it?
 
You can still go on to make the “serious criticisms of their narrative”.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 4:09 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

you know people who had symptoms and that is supposed to be evidence a virus caused them? sounds like you are promoting pseudoscientific quackery to instigate genocide. the scientific method requires you prove it was a virus and not the accompanying measures that caused mortality increases. referring to previous campaigns is circular reasoning. a virus was not proven in those either.

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 23, 2020 5:24 PM
Reply to  jess

What a barmy response. I said – quite simply – that all the evidence is consistent with a typical viral spike in mortality (as happens periodically with other viruses). No more, no less. I also said that the people I know of had symptoms consistent with a viral infection. These are *actual* new symptoms, not by-products of the neglect of prior conditions caused by the exaggerated narrative.
 
If you can’t get your head around *actual* evidence and the role of inflated narratives, I suggest you just go away to a quiet corner and educate yourself instead of just erecting equally fantastic narratives to suit your preconceptions.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 9:38 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

as pointed out the other spikes you say are viral spikes have not been proven to be caused by a virus. you are using circular reasoning. there might be unusual symptoms. that in no way indicates the allopaths are doing a good job or proves there is a virus to blame. it offers no solution and was arrived at before any investigation based on claims made in a far flung land. absolutely no consideration was made of any other hypothesis. can you explain how you believe such genetic material could cause unusual symptoms? a mechanism of activity beyond merely claiming it jumps in the mouth and then shit happens?

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 24, 2020 12:59 AM
Reply to  jess

OK. What is more likely to have been related to the current rise in mortality? The viral explanation is simply the most likely hypothesis – it does what viruses do. Any time; anywhere.
 
The link isn’t necessarily direct : in some cases, the virus triggers respiratory failure. It’s really not rocket science.

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 10:51 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

I agree with Jess: you are using circular reasoning.
 
I think it is your preconceptions that are showing, although you are trying to convince us that it is your superior education.
 
(Are you a medical practitioner, by the way?)

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 24, 2020 1:07 AM

No, I’m not a ‘medical practitioner’. I simply prefer data to fairy stories dreamed up on the back of an envelope. That’s not about ‘superior education’ – just normal intelligent rationality based in the use of evidence.
 
Don’t play the ‘poor me/superior you’ card when you run out of argument; it’s a sign of having nothing of substance to say, and it’s therefore self-defeating.
 
 

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 4:44 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

why are you sounding more and more like a vaxx cult member using words like kooky when challenged? am i spreading a wild conspiracy theory that vaxx cult might want to defend the virus myth in more awakened circles?

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 23, 2020 5:33 PM
Reply to  jess

Your name should be ‘Alice’ – since you’ve disappeared through the looking glass into the world of Humpty Dumpty.
 
am i spreading a wild conspiracy theory… ?”
 
In a word – yes. Arguments about vaccines as a reason for the hyperbole are quite separate from the *actual* evidence of an *actual* infection spike from a virus-like agent.
 
You entirely miss the point – which is that the actuality of viral infection is entirely supported by good evidence. The narrative that has been placed over this actuality of a *generally mild* infection is a different matter.
 
Sorry if you can’t get your head around the difference and the essential arguments. Just try harder.
 
 

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 8:11 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

there is not evidence of an infection spike but a diagnosis spike. where there has been testing the test was useful enough to detect the virus in a papaya fruit. if we look at another one of these frauds the statastician dr greenberg testified before congress that statistics had been used inappropriately and the efficacy of the polio injection was merely due to changes in diagnostic criteria and the injections had actually caused harm.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 8:35 PM
Reply to  jess

that is to say they labelled any paralysis of short duration polio. created lots of fear and then upon introduction of the injection changed polio to a much longer duration of paralysis eventualy renaming it all together. this is the basis of many doctors belief in injections. a graph generated by shifting the goal posts intentionally to profit off of the harm caused by ddt and tonsilectomies aswell as further frauds.

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 24, 2020 12:34 AM
Reply to  jess

You’re not looking. Not listening. The reiteration of preconceptions and obsessions isn’t insight.
 
There was a notable spike in mortality in April. Fact. This wasn’t about diagnosis – death is easy to diagnose. Increased mortality from viral infections is an historical fact of life. It has nothing to do with the issue of vaccines, and whether or not they affect that mortality.

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 10:53 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

You entirely miss the point – which is that the actuality of viral infection is entirely supported by good evidence. 

 
Please show or point to some of this “good evidence”.

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 24, 2020 12:38 AM

Easy. Look at ONS ‘all cause’ mortality. Classic viral curve, rising in April, with a peak of deaths on the 8th, inicating an earlier peak of infection.
 
If it wasn’t a virus, what was it? Show evidence for your alternative.

Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Mike Ellwood (Oxon, UK)
Jun 23, 2020 10:39 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

“do you have evidence there is a virus killing people”
 

Yes – although, as said, many fewer, and mostly much more sick, than the establishment narrative would portray . Apart from anything else the evidence of all-cause cumulative mortality is consistent with the normal range of strong infectious epidemics, and also with the symptoms experienced by individuals I know.

 
Yes, but where is your actual evidence of a virus killing people?
 
The question was: ” do you have evidence there is a virus killing people”
And your answer was “yes”, but you didn’t give any actual evidence.
 
The all-cause mortality stuff is all well and good, but it isn’t actual evidence of a killer virus.
 
 

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 24, 2020 12:47 AM

Oh FFS. Here’s the ABC : The lethality of the virus was grossly exaggerated, but it clearly was related to deaths in the older, more vulnerable population; not in the healthy popultion <65.
 
There may have been other viruses in operation. We don’t know. But it did raise mortality – or if it didn’t, was Jack the Ripper on the prowl? And if it wasn’rt a virus, why did infection mimic the course of a virus?
 
All cause mortality is the *only* reliable metric, and although it doesn’t pin down the role of a particular agent, it does show the course of disease as it impacts on death rates. This season was one of higher viral infection.

I DENY YOUR BS
I DENY YOUR BS
Jun 23, 2020 5:21 PM
Reply to  R Hayward

I suggest you focus on the incoming push for mandatory/ coercive vaccinations, which is what this whole scam is about.

R Hayward
R Hayward
Jun 24, 2020 12:53 AM
Reply to  I DENY YOUR BS

You are totally confused about the salience of two separate issues : a presence of a mild virus and what drives the exaggerated narrative related to it.
 
Dancing around and shouting incoherently does nothing to clarify.

Node
Node
Jun 23, 2020 10:38 AM

The law here says that you have to wear a face mask when you shop at a supermarket. It is so ridiculous that I will buy a hazmat suit now just for that purpose. As soon as the shopping is done, I will return home and go out to the park without it.

John Pretty
John Pretty
Jun 23, 2020 1:21 PM
Reply to  Node

“The law here says that you have to wear a face mask when you shop at a supermarket”

Which country is that? No face mask mandate in shops in the UK as yet.

Node
Node
Jun 23, 2020 4:51 PM
Reply to  John Pretty

Portugal. And if I cannot circumvent masks in supermarkets (they even refused a medical certificate stating reasons why I cannot wear a mask) I might as well go full hazmat. Atleast have some fun in this masquerade ball since it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere

gordon
gordon
Jun 23, 2020 10:32 AM

the face mask is the knee
kneel goy
 
only evil doers do not take the knee
do not mask face
 
compliance to the will
 
this heist this coup a triumph
 
100s of years in the making
 
the followers of zvi and jacob frank
the self identifried ashkanazim khazars that call themselves yahoo
the pirates run the laws of the sea on the terra firma
 
 
i do not like owls or crows ravens or thieving magpies
 
 
jerusalem is being builded here
 
 
slaves of satan
show your colours
mask up
take the knee
 
be a club inmate
 
 
 
churches are still locked the vicars priest still quiet
 
in compliance
no martyrs
no men of god
standing up
 
just men in costume looking after the churches property portfolio
the priest as estate agent
 
no mask for me i take no orders from chabad pirate
from khazar money changer tax collector
 
 
fear i laugh in your twisted weak faces

Nixon Scraypes
Nixon Scraypes
Jun 23, 2020 1:29 PM
Reply to  gordon

Methinks he doth protest too much.

gordon
gordon
Jun 23, 2020 3:53 PM
Reply to  Nixon Scraypes

eye upticked you my son
 
you are awful but i like you ; }

Nixon Scraypes
Nixon Scraypes
Jun 23, 2020 8:55 PM
Reply to  gordon

You’re not so bad yourself. I don’t know about the son bit, having embarked on my eigth decade, I might be your dad!

Tack
Tack
Jun 23, 2020 10:09 AM

Clever use of the English language … Iain quotes the Royal Society
“Face masks could offer an important tool for contributing to the management of community transmission of Covid19.”
Nowhere does that quote state that ‘management’ = reduction
That devious little word ‘could’ does not mean ‘will’

As the weave will allow particles to pass through, these masks WILL contribute to the management of conmmunity transmission ……. it WILL spread …. which is what they want.

… all being said, you have to believe the virus exists first.

Nixon Scraypes
Nixon Scraypes
Jun 23, 2020 1:33 PM
Reply to  Tack

I misread~ management of comedy transmission of covid ! I must be Freudian.

Tom Sessions
Tom Sessions
Jun 23, 2020 10:16 PM
Reply to  Tack

And “management” could equally refer to “assisting in maintaining a sense of personal threat and thus making it easier to get people follow any guidelines (not just those related to masks)” rather than anything directly or physically related to supposed “transmission”.

Having everyone wear face masks “contributes to the management” and does not contribute to the health of anyone, “could” or otherwise.

jess
jess
Jun 23, 2020 9:30 AM

if someone coughs in your face and you get sick it is not proof of a virus. it could be proof of the effect of belief in infection theory. you tripped your body into a detox. another time your terrain was in a better state so when someone coughed you didnt have symptoms n forgot it happened. the virus theory is bogus and extremely dangerous since it allows the terrain to deteriorate to a state where a pandemic can be claimed.

Marilyn Shepherd
Marilyn Shepherd
Jun 23, 2020 8:58 AM

I am so glad I found this site for my daily injection of sanity, try reading the ignorant alarmist pap called Australian media, even the indie media have lost their damn minds.
 
Nothing at all will convince them here that coronaviruses have always been around and this one is long known to be no worse than flu strain coronas even when eminent medical people tell them, IT’S A COLD VIRUS MUTATION as they did on day 1 of the mess we have created.
 
They then all blather about PANDEMIC doing things but are too lazy and stupid to look up the word in the Oxford dictionary, they are all convinced the word is doing things to us, forcing us to sack half the work force, ignore 1.1 million foreign students and workers left to beg for free food, keep refugees locked up in oppressive prisons, fine people for having a walk, it’s all PANDEMICS fault the morons cry out.

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jun 24, 2020 2:19 AM

Nice you’ve found OffG Marilyn! Welcome.
Ironically I was a regular commenter at New Matilda, but got entangled with a couple of nasty zionist trolls there, and got really tired of hitting my head against a brick wall… discovered OffGuardian at least 20 months ago, and havn’t left.
A whole myriad of extremely well written articles and videos here going back months regards the panicdemic.
I’m in Melbourne, tho lived in Adelaide for 13 years, and still have a couple friends there, but almost everyone I know fully swallows the MSM bullshit, and are literally gagging for a vaccine.
Or someone to save them. Like Bill Gates.
Only one person I know refused to download the tracing app (Big Brother reasons) tho he seems to believe there is a pandemic. Everyone else is too far gone. If the Media told them to jump off a cliff to ‘save themselves’ from the virus…. they almost certainly would.
What happened to Australia? Is it over 37 years of Neoliberalism and all the attendant baggage that goes with that? The narcissism and hedonism and binge consumerism. And my god, the media: Morally and Ethically Bankrupt.
I’m actually a New Zealand citizen, been out of work for 12.5 weeks now, with no income.
And not entitled to the dole, like any Kiwi who came here after 2001. I know that many Kiwi’s and overseas students are all in the same boat and some will now be on the streets.
The inhumanity of all this….
Am due to start selling the mag again (Big Issue) this Monday, but things in Melbourne are heating up again in last few days.

Marilyn Shepherd
Marilyn Shepherd
Jun 24, 2020 5:46 AM
Reply to  Gezzah Potts

Australia is a pretty shitty place for anyone not white or sick, or refugees and Kiwis, it’s a place that bores me to tears with the little whiney minds, particularly whiney middle class men.

IANA
IANA
Jun 23, 2020 8:42 AM

Face masks have become the de rigueur accessory for the virtue signaler.
 
This gives the wearer an opportunity to demonstrate their worthiness to their fellow citizens while affording the opportunity to ‘look down’ upon those not wearing them while feeling morally superior. It is a hierarchy of morality.
 
It the fashion equivalent of the experian credit score where people of like minded willingness obey all and everything they are told by the MSM. They can then feel they ‘belong’ and are part of the message to shield, isolate and flatten the curve. They get to feel they are a part of the great new norm and get to feel virtuous as a result.
 
The reality is they are brainwashed sheep who have outsourced their critical thinking skills to the whims of bureaucrats with the reward they get to still believe in ‘democracy’ and ‘society’ because in reality they believe in nothing at all. Their ‘faith’ in the state is evidence of their faith in nothing at all.
 
They are the gauleiters of the brave new world.

Nixon Scraypes
Nixon Scraypes
Jun 23, 2020 1:38 PM
Reply to  IANA

My sentiments exactly. They want the “crisis” to go on forever, it’s such an opportunity to shine.

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Jun 23, 2020 3:36 PM
Reply to  IANA

Thank you! Your last 2 paragraphs beginning with ‘the reality is…’ is bang on. A lot of these people will be queueing up at their trendy (too pose) cafes and giving out all their personal details at the door. Willingly complying with this New Order aka Fascism.

lundiel
lundiel
Jun 23, 2020 8:07 AM

Wearing the mask was never about protection, it was all about getting people to use public transport again. Did you see the response on TV last night when they announced the proposed date to end sheltering for the vulnerable? The media might have chosen the people they asked to comment about it but they were terrified; they’ve become agoraphobics, or should I say agora/peoplephobics. Like someone said: it’s easy to institute lockdown but really hard to get out of it.
While I like the first part of this article, the rest smacks of paranoia. Yes there will be a reset of sorts but it wasn’t planned, the government aren’t any cleverer than the rest of us…and sometimes a mask is just a mask.

lundiel
lundiel
Jun 23, 2020 8:48 AM
Reply to  lundiel

PS. I wear a chiffon scarf on public transport, it’s my little joke. Also, masks won’t be obligatory for long, they impede security surveillance. A few robberies down the line they will revert to being a means of hiding your face in the public psyche.