Deprogramming Covidian mass psychosis (Part III)
The task is therefore to detach others from mass psychosis.
In the previous parts of this argument (part I can be read here, part II here) we saw the way crowds differ from individuals and can be manipulated. We saw the way Covidianism conforms to some characteristics of a mass movement noted by Eric Hoffer, which he identified in 1951. In this final part, we will look at some practical steps to help detach others from the mass psychosis propagated by authorities and mass media.
“Detach others”? Why not detach me, your reader? If you have read the previous two parts and found anything much in them that rings true, you are already detached from mass psychosis. Even if you have doubts about the full dissident position – that is, actively resisting, disrupting, sabotaging, defying the common narrative, showing no fear, refusing to admit the moral stances of the elite, refusing to submit to the will of the masses, recognising the agents of manipulation when you encounter them – you will never honestly return to wholly believing the BBC, newspapers, government press briefings and NHS-funded advertisements of dying people in hospital beds. The task is therefore to detach others from mass psychosis.
The hold of mass psychosis on individuals in a crowd is not through logic or private incentives but through an emotional narrative. Therefore, it is through undermining that unifying narrative in the eyes of an individual that one loosens the bond between individual and group. It can be done through mockery or by persuading an individual to consume less (or no) mass-media messaging. The less propaganda is consumed, the easier one builds distinct communities and follows personal goals. The values of the crowd are often barbaric and contrary to those of individuals who join it; by encouraging the individual to return to acting as a moral agent, the individual will come to distinguish himself from the mass. However hackneyed and largely unexamined an individual’s personal ethics, they are at least different from those of the masses. Differentiation is done by making the individual aware of conflict between his/her morality and what the mass believes. It is possible to point out exceptions, especially relating to close relatives or friends or even inconsistencies in his/her own actions.
Here are some angles of persuasion that will help deprogramme the Covidian. Often, success rests on reminding people of their core values. Those mantras held up to March 2020 may have been unexamined and faulty but they were not worthless and their old shapes remain in the psyches of those currently under the sway of mass psychosis. Appeal to a person’s core values rather than presenting statistics, unless statistics are used to back up a moral argument.
Hypocrisy: This aspect is under the heading of hypocrisy although that is not strictly correct. I wrote in a previous article that there is no hypocrisy when the elites are not expected to have the same norms of the non-elite. However, in broad manner, you can speak to acquaintances about the hypocrisy of the elites breaking lockdown guidance, partying and removing masks when the non-elite were observing these rules. Speak about the common topics of politicians and scientists breaking rules they imposed on others. This was unfair but it also displayed that they did not fear catching COVID or at least they did not fear the impact COVID could have upon them and their families.
Injustice: Speak about the injustice of dying men and women deprived of contact with loved ones in their final hours. Speak of children separated from peers and friends, taken from school, driven to depression, self-harm and suicide by guidelines that protected no-one. Note the cruelty of forcing children and the disabled to wear masks against their will and understanding (and yes, they have been forced to do so by overzealous parents and carers). Point out the inhumanity of preventing a man from comforting his mother at a funeral. When you raise these matters of common compassion and decency, with examples, and point out that none of the authoritarian measures are proven to prevent transmission, you will force them to examine their values.
Cost/harm: The huge burden of the debt imposed upon future generations will distort lives for decades to come. Point out the massive waste of the cost of the Nightingale hospitals. Doesn’t that suggest a wild overreaction to a low-mortality virus? Doesn’t that suggest a lack of proportion? At the very least, the obvious suffering caused by health services becoming COVID-only systems and thereby failing to treat serious degenerative conditions is (at least now) an injustice to even those who previously thought COVID was a major threat.
Lies: The mass media has presented everything served up to it by officials, uncritically and compliantly. Suggest to the Covidian that government money has defanged journalists and prevented the public from hearing dissent and allowing it to make up its own mind. On statistics, mention that the difference between dying with COVID and dying of COVID is vital but often misleadingly presented. Even Covidians will admit the media has not been entirely clear about these figures. If you can also persuade the Covidian that governments have a vested interest in exaggerating figures in order to maintain their extraordinary powers, you can sow a seed of doubt.
Corruption: The charges of corruption are ones that everyone can understand. The links between officials/politicians and the mass media and big pharmaceutical companies are comprehensible as financial connections, social solidarity and upholding the elite’s common sense of entitlement. These self-serving and secret connections seem patently immoral.
Jabs: You might appeal to the former standard of people giving informed consent and withholding consent. Why should this standard be erased for a virus that is now (in its most widespread variant) hardly worse than a heavy cold for most people? Does this seem an unwise precedent to set? What happens if this situation is used again by the authorities to control our lives? Remind them of how those suggesting mandatory jabs and “vaccine passports” were dismissed by authorities and mass media before being proved correct. Also mention that these virtuous “vaxxed” face the prospect of slipping into the category of the shunned “unvaccinated” by simply missing their next booster appointment. Are they ready to jump through the hoop of the booster every six or four months for the rest of their lives?
Many of you – especially dissenters – will object that these points are banal and do not address the core issues of authority, morality, credentialism, the nexus of control or the identity and nature of the elite and supra-elite. Absolutely correct. The deprogramming arguments are facile, trite, clumsy and not hard to counter. However, and this is the essential point, the mass is directed by simple emotional narratives which can be undercut by simple emotional counter-narratives. In your persuasion, you never once have to mention ‘the Great Reset’, the World Economic Forum or any specific connections or anything that could be dismissed as “conspiracy theory”. If you can get an individual to see how Covidianism serves the authoritarian ends of these aligned elites, you can suggest why authorities might be keen to overreact.
Talk in terms of common sense, appeal to logic and moderation, stick to the morality of fairness, decency, privacy and so on. If you appeal to people on the basis of shared values, not through outright opposition but by sowing seeds of doubt, you can prick their consciences about the impact of lockdown to win ground. Better still, set an example by being reasonable not confrontational, acting with kindness and politeness, and never wearing a mask or paying attention to social guidance. Follow the line that (a) jabs should be a matter of conscience and personal health, (b) that you cannot be held responsible for the health of others, (c) no person should be coerced by family or employer to be jabbed and that (d) jabs are a private issue. My personal view is that the best approach is not talking about jabs and infertility, microchips or such like, whatever you believe. Simply say the jab does not seem fully effective and that the virus is not worth the potential cost of jabs. Say that lockdowns do not work. Say that it is no business of the state to know where you are, who you are with or how you handle family matters. Deny the authority of the narrative; reassert the old values. State that you see no reason to be alarmed and that you will continue to act normally.
Ultimately, more than your words, it is your conduct – and especially your evident happiness and confidence – that is the greatest incentive to encourage the fearful to leave the paranoid craven mass psychosis of Covidianism.
