Sunday, 26 April 2020


by Andy Nowicki

Five years ago, I published Conspiracy, Compliance, Control, and Defiance.

In that extended essay, I put forward my observations regarding the psychology of those who set out to arrogate to themselves dominion over the rest of the population. I attempted to make distinctions between what is commonly known as the “sociopath”-- the sort of person bereft of conscience but also not typically possessed of excessive ambition—and the superficially similar type that I called the “reptilian,” whose absence of moral scruples is matched by a boundless desire for power and control over his fellow man.

In using the term “reptilian,” I sought simple metaphorical verisimilitude; I did not intend to propose that those belonging to what I called “the reptilian ruling class” actually possessed any non-human DNA. Instead, they were, like reptiles, “cold-blooded,” with no capacity for empathy, compassion, guilt, shame, or other traits generally regarded as redeemably “human.”

Though the “reptilian” comparison was metaphorical, it was by no means intended to be hyperbolic. I still find it thoroughly apt, though I regret that in some cases it lent itself to misunderstanding among many who took me as being literal, i.e., of claiming that these “reptilians” were actual reptiles, or so-called “lizard people.”

Nevertheless, I have little desire to scrutinize these truly appalling creatures-- be they literally reptilian, literally mammalian, or literally otherwise-- anymore. What I wrote of this murderous claque in 2015 is, I find, just as true of them in 2020. Still, in light of the extraordinary events that have befallen much of our world in March and April of the current year, with an utterly unprecedented and obscenely absurd imposition of a “lockdown” being imposed upon billions of human beings on the flimsiest of pretexts, I find that I must return to this subject again, in order to provide a sort of addendum to what was covered in that earlier essay.

It is my position that “#Lockdown2020” has been a largely contrived and fabricated event. I do not reach this conclusion lightly or frivolously, but upon careful and thoughtful consideration of the circumstances at hand. It is further my assertion that, like 9/11, Sandy Hook, and other heavily hyped, much discussed, and avidly sensationalized high-profile disasters and tragedies, the Corona-Covid19 pandemic is being shamelessly exploited by our “reptilian”rulers in order to achieve cold-bloodedly nefarious ends.

Reckoning with the panoply of motivations likely involved this operation is, however, beyond the scope of this treatise. Other inquiring minds possessed of independent, non-compliant spirits are already hard at work unearthing the infernal nature of the enterprise, which finally devolves, one gathers, into some naked power grab of mammoth proportions. What I aim to examine here is not the various dimensions of the why so much as the numerous iterations of the how. It is my thesis that, much like the notorious top-secret MK-ULTRA project, which sought to produce mind-slavery through the intentional imposition of trauma upon human beings (who in many cases never consented to being victims of such inhuman experimentation), so in a broader sense, humanity is now being intentionally subjected to trauma in order to create in them what could be called a state of mass compliance, through which they can be manipulated into accepting greater and greater outrages being perpetrated against their lives and liberties, all for the stated purpose of promoting their ostensible well-being.

A warning before proceeding further: If you are of the opinion that those who have almost uniformly imposed patently draconian restrictions upon much of the world’s population, in some cases essentially amounting to placing innocent people under indefinite house arrest, have enacted these measures out of genuine concern for public health and safety, then you will not find what I have to argue here to be at all palatable.

If however, you can at least conceive of the possibility that those supposedly appointed—or in many cases self-appointed-- to your guardianship may in fact have more interest in power and control than in providing earnest shepherdry to their appointed, or self-appointed, “flock,” then read on, while of course exercising appropriate discernment and careful consideration.

Finally, a disclaimer of sorts: I do not trumpet myself as one possessed of any sort of technical expertise, only as a careful observer of human behavior, a fierce hater of totalitarianism, a tireless chronicler of rhetorical flimflamery, and ceaseless combater of intellectual dishonesty. I claim these, and no academic degree or other mark of status, as my bone fides. To these ideals alone do I here aspire. The reader alone may judge the extent to which I may finally have succeeded or failed.


We must first admit that the perpetrators of this largely contrived crisis are, in a sense, beyond ideology. (In another sense, of course, they are anything but non-ideological, but I shall come to this seeming paradox presently.) That is to say, they hail from ideologies across the ostensible spectrum. The crisis has been cited as grounds for a “lockdown” by left-wing governments and right-wing governments alike, with total consent granted by democratic republics, parliamentary monarchies, military dictatorships, theocratic juntas, and every other conceivable form of rule.

The uniformity of this imposition across much of the globe, with only a few exceptions here or there, should give the thoughtful observer immediate pause. How often have we seen the controlling regimes of the various nations of the world marching in this type of lockstep in their shared push to impose a “lockdown” on their citizenry/subjects?

All regimes enforcing these conditions have acted ostensibly under the auspices of “emergency powers,” a phrase which contains within itself a multitude of rhetorical mischief. In nearly every case, the presumption of such powers is constitutionally dubious, if not outright prohibitive (at least among countries which observe, however nominally, a constitutional form of governance). Rights, after all, such as those famously codified in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, are not meant to be viewed as merely conditionally allowed, excepting the manifestation of some intervening “emergency.” Instead, such rights are fundamentally asserted as existing absolutely, regardless of changing conditions or circumstances, even circumstances designated as “emergencies.”

These disparately-oriented regimes have acted in collectively repressive lockstep. Their shared tyranny takes more severe form in certain places than in others, but in all cases amounts to the forceful closure of businesses deemed “unessential,” a term which introduces the slippery slope fallacy by the very arbitrariness of its undeniable connotative ramifications. For just what is “essential,” pray tell? I have observed some odd notions that can at the very least be called counterintuitive on this front, such as bookstores closing up shop while liquor stores remain open for business. (So.... booze is essential, but books aren’t?) And some states have even forbidden the selling of seeds enabling people to grow vegetables or fruits in their backyards. (Since when is the quest to become more self-sufficient during a time of crisis an “inessential” activity?)

In fact, such conditions now endure in certain places (God grant it not be much longer) that citizens/subjects are likewise demanded to refrain from “nonessential” activities. Again, though, what is “essential”? To live healthily, a person should be able to exercise. He should have access to nature and the outdoors. One would think it perfectly reasonable to claim such activities as “essential.” Yet in many places around the country and the world right now, such healthy behavior is either forbidden or severely curtailed by the ruling authorities. Instead, people are required to remain cooped up inside with only a few exemptions granted for absolutely necessary occasions. Wilderness areas, such as public parks, are now shut down in many regions. Basketball hoops and tennis nets have been removed to prevent unwanted indulgence in outdoor activities by irresponsible miscreants.

Meanwhile, in some locales, drones are even dispatched to harry and harass solitary journeyers on country paths. Hefty fines are dispatched to nefarious dog-walkers or incorrigible young parents with the temerity to take their kids out for a stroll or play “catch” with them in an open field.

Streets are empty due to the global "lockdown", even in Dubai, UAE
In all of these cases, both in the forced shuttering of thousands of “nonessential” businesses and in the sudden mass enforcement of house arrest of millions of law-abiding people, we see a certain cognitive dissonance being rendered manifest. Things have been determinedly and deliberately turned upside-down. Nonsense now parades about as common sense like a streetwalker gussied up in finery and expensive perfume. 

Not even language is safe. “Quarantine,” up until very recently, meant restricting the movement of the sick, in order to prevent a contagion from spreading. Now the term has been sinisterly repurposed to mean the act of isolating everyone from everyone else. In the “lockdown” paradigm, those “quarantined” are not the sick, but the well.

Why are the healthy being forced into isolation? We are told that the only way to protect everyone is, as one news reader was heard to put it, “to act like you already have the virus.” So the healthy are automatically treated as if they were "already" sick. If there is truly a contagious virus about, one is indeed well-advised to take prudent and reasonable precautions. However, in the contemporary “lockdown” paradigm, prudency and reason are translated into their opposites; namely, panic-promotion, fear-mongering, and trauma-inducement. 

Radical, unprecedented and utterly un-Constitutional mandates, such as those which prevail under the “lockdown” paradigm, are sold as moderate and soberly-conceived notions by experts who assure the population, in soothing tones, that they certainly know what is best for us.  

Our leaders, moreover, recite, parrot and promulgate ominous jargon like “social distancing,” somberly instructing us always to stand six feet apart from one another (Why six feet, exactly? Isn’t it enough to keep a wide berth and avoid contact when necessary?) all while giving press conferences in which they stand cheek by jowl with one another on a narrow stage. Meanwhile, vast construction projects for major corporate organizations continue to be pursued (look out your car window sometime and you will likely see them taking shape in your town.. a new Chase bank, another high-rise apartment complex,  an add-on to your local Walmart or McDonalds, etc.) with construction workers and builders standing in very close proximity to one another. Are these projects, invariably involving high-level corporations and influential and well-placed organizations, truly “essential”?

Such questions never seem to get asked. And the cognitive dissonance mounts. The wearing of masks is first discouraged, then encouraged, and finally in some places become mandatory, with no explanation given for the shift in policy.  And concerns about the economic well-being of those who live paycheck to paycheck (that is to say, most of the population) but who now must forgo receiving paychecks indefinitely, are haughtily dismissed as if they were a matter of no consequence. Lower-waged working people are sanctimoniously lectured to “Stay Home” and sit idle while their livelihoods dissipate, and if they complain about this perilous set of circumstances or protest for an end to the lockdown and a re-opening of the economy, they are attacked by the lapdog media as “virus deniers” or some such. News organs, ostensibly the “fourth estate,” who pride themselves on their supposed eagerness to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted,” never seem actually to deign to advocate for the well-being of those who actually struggle (such as the people, spoken of above, who desperately seek economic relief); instead, they grotesquely fawn over the powerful. Paunchy ‘Billy Sixpack” holding up a sign at an anti-lockdown rally gets mocked, derided, and impugned, while profit-minded vaccine peddler, unrepentant child-maimer, unscrupulous tycoon and pedophile-befriender Bill Gates receives unending praise, laud, and plaudits.

Epstein and Gates: best buds!
Thus, in a perverse inversion, are the afflicted further afflicted while the comfortable are granted even greater degrees of (supremely unearned) comfort.

Most appallingly, our would-be leaders and their media facilitators and enablers foment cognitive dissonance by telling boldfaced lies about the supposed source of the crisis: that is, the virus itself.

(to be continued)

Andy Nowicki, Affirmative Right "editor at large" is the author of eight books, including Under the NihilThe Columbine PilgrimConsidering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. He occasionally updates his blog when the spirit moves him to do so. Visit his Soundcloud page and his YouTube channel