• disclosure

Crash Test Dummies in the Post-COVID Era

Updated: Nov 19



In the moments leading up to the good ship hitting the iceberg, SAGE, the government's advisory committee, advised against the use of coercive powers. Cautioning, “Citizens should be treated as rational actors, capable of taking decisions for themselves and managing personal risk.”


The Johnson regime ignored this advice and adopted the policies of a country notorious for its intrusive surveillance, arbitrary detention and forced indoctrination. Despite a history of hostile foreign policy towards China, western democracies buried the hatchet, exonerated their existential threat and jockeyed for second place on the emerging world stage of totalitarianism.


China was crowned the global pacemaker for a new phenomena known as ‘lockdown.’ An experimental emergency protocol (with no basis in science or disease management) that subjected half the world's population to confinement, as if we were crash test dummies, and not the rational actors prescribed by SAGE.


Sweden on the other hand pursued the accepted and historic protocols of pandemic response. With a sense of proportion they venerated the legal responsibility, personal agency and proprietorship of citizens to act conscientiously. The very measures which SAGE had advised the British government to adopt.


Nevertheless, Britain followed China’s monument to fascism and now stands on the brink of democratic collapse. Governed by Ministerial preference or a conspiracy of silence. Single syllables have replaced democratic debate. Our fate wrested in the hands of scientific modelling that is three weeks late and one pound short.


The Great Democratic Swindle


Giving up our freedoms is never a good idea. The cautionary tale from history would suggest nothing is more jeopardous to a free society. If this government paper is anything to go by, the legality of lockdown is being marshalled for mandatory vaccinations. The verdict of Simon Dolan's court case against the Secretary of State sets an alarming legal precedent which lawyers on a Parliamentary Committee are using to pronounce mandatory vaccinations lawful. Despite the human rights violations and contravention of the Nuremberg code.


The misuse and abuse of legislation to enforce ministerial caprice, has caused Johnson's government to veer dangerously off course from the protector of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to a regulator of the most prosaic aspects of our civic lives. Extraordinary acts of overreach that seize jurisdiction where there should be none.


The mandating of face coverings is another injunction over our bodies that could be used to gain proprietary over our immune systems. Anticipating rushed-through vaccinations, from criminal pharmaceutical companies, standing to make record gains from the politicised cash-cow.


Muzzling the Population


As a preventative to the transmission of the disease, not long ago the government's message was resolute. Multiple studies have shown the ineffectiveness of face masks. Even Fauci declared the muzzle an act of compliance at a time when toppling statues and bending the knee was fashionable.


Newsnight reported the WHO Committee ruled against face coverings, but u-turned following political lobbying. So there you have it, masks are a political virtue signal, and not an evidenced based preventative to infectious contamination.


Irrespective of this, masks are now compulsory. The contagion of fear has given rise to unquestioning obedience, regulated by the gatekeepers of the economy, and endemic of a state ruling by proxy, coercion or bribery.


Meanwhile, the last defence against tyranny, the refuseniks, rapidly approaches endangered species status. Exiled along supermarket aisles and according to many, the scourge of society, guilty of a capital offence.


Arriving at a place of codified consensus on the basis of contentious science or speculative policies is perilous to a free society. It compromises our trust in the rule of law and the legitimacy of science itself.


Most are unquestioning of these grovelling acts of submission, where blind faith in authority and our ability to adapt makes us sitting ducks. All systems of control depend on irrationalities such as the mask. We know our compliance to be deeply flawed, yet carry on regardless, self-effacing and wittingly duped. Vindicating ourselves by replacing logic with even more compliance.


Viruses have been with us since our ancestors, ancestors first crawled or swam out of water. Mammals harbour at least 320,000 undiscovered viruses. Even with 75-years of vaccine innovation, influenza kills up to 650,000 each year. If herd immunity was apocryphal (as claimed by the pendulum of scientific consensus), our species would have ceased to exist long ago. Yet we falsely assume that a rag manufactured in a Vietnamese sweatshop will succeed where the best scientific minds have failed.


These false-assumptions are putrified with institutional insanity and solicit a rapid decline in herd-intelligence. We defy common reason and submit to the irrational until conformity over critical thinking becomes the fundamental expression of our citizenship. Trumping all other obligations to the social contract.


Serendipitous for those administering the new normal, because as we progress along this journey, the injurious nature of state interference will intensify. This machine has one gear, and it's forward only, therefore the sooner we complete the puppy training, the quicker authoritarianism will embolden its vision.


Johnson the Closet Refusenik


Political leaders should lead by example, enacting laws that apply to all citizens, and not just a majority. Notwithstanding Parliament’s exemption from face coverings, when these hideous things are mandated across all social interfaces of the economy. If an air hostess or driving instructor is obliged to wear face coverings, so too should parliamentarians.


Still, I can’t imagine Johnson milling around the Dispatch Box, addressing an empty house, thrown into a sneezing schism and electing to sneeze directly into the mask and not his handkerchief or sneezing elbow. What is the etiquette or indeed the legislation on this? Should the Prime Minister remove the muzzle or sneeze into it? Both seem counterintuitive. Surely his hardwiring would reflexively yank the damn thing from his face prior to sneezing (defeating the purpose entirely). Yet I am unable to think of another reason why he would wear a mask in the first place. What other projectile could be more arsenic in these abysmal times?


Parliamentary exemption from face coverings would suggest Johnson is himself a closet refusenik, who dons the mask specifically for the paparazzi.



Here he is finally behind bars, virtue signalling with the muzzle half-on. The schnozzle protruding like a dangerous trip hazard. Other than self flagellation for the cameras, what's the point? Half way down is a bit like having sex with a broken condom.


The Johnson regime may have convinced the mob and customary second wavers at the BBC, Independent and Guardian. But there is a growing tide of malcontents. A consensus of reputable and legitimate voices pushing back and denouncing the government under the lightest of scrutiny. At Guantanamo Bay, Manchester it was just another day in democracy, until the prisoners lit the Powder Keg. This government could soon be undone, by using the same bum-steer policies, fireside tales of the apocalypse, and wide of the mark data models, that persuaded us into lockdown 1.0, to cajole us into lockdown 2.0. Johnson is flying dangerously close to the sun, the wheels are coming off and his downfall is within sniffing distance.