by Andy Nowicki

Every tyrannical regime aims to encourage a conviction of passivity among those it aims to exploit and oppress. Yet such psychological campaigns are typically most effective when dressed up in rhetorical stealth.

To declare definitively "We own you, you are our slaves, you must do as we say, because you have no real choice in the matter," would be giving the game away; it would in fact run the risk of waking people up to the raw deal they've been sold, instead of persuading them to acquiesce to it.

Lately, there has been a concerted effort among corporate advertisers and establishment PR apparatchiks to induce a sense of helplessness in the viewer/consumer/citizen. As with coined slogans like the now notorious "New Normal," the purpose of these PSA-type spots concocted by such immensely well-funded and sophisticated entities is to reinforce the ostensible normalcy of dysfunction, despondency, and demoralization.

Take the HBO-sponsored spot, "It's OK to not feel OK (sic)," in which one celebrity after another speaks of facing debilitating mental problems coping with the effects of the announced "pandemic" and the consequent  "lockdown."

Once the grim 90 second montage of futility is over, the viewer has been cruelly drained of any sense of hope of rising above his depression, which (as he has been subtly instructed) has been inflicted upon him by powerful forces that he can neither reckon with nor control; under the guise of phony compassion, he has basically been instructed to be miserable; still more, to know that misery is surely his destiny in this new, developing dispensation, this "brave new normal," and that he should forget any plans to avoid or circumnavigate it.

Indeed, he must endure misery because he has been conditioned to panic and be fearful, and has been solemnly scolded never to be so arrogant as to question the veracity of his conditioning. The virus, he is told, has the potential to wreak enormous havoc unless we all adhere unquestioningly to certain radical measures: staying at home as much as possible, always wearing masks, and remaining an arbitrary distance-- six feet-' from one another at all times.


The panic-stricken and misery-conditioned are, however, given a means of venting the bile that has been built up in their collective spleen by regularly indulging in rages-- "Two Minutes Hate"-style-- against those miscreants who have the gall to leave their homes, go maskless, and question the efficacy of the "six foot" social distancing rule. For such scofflaws as these, the orchestrators of the panic-demic have invented a novel means of shaming and reproach, whereby the disobedient and non-compliant are called to task for alleged recklessness bordering on the homicidal; it is alleged that, by their refusal to remain on house arrest, their disregard for masking, and their lack of respect for effectuality of social distancing, they are in fact not just putting themselves at risk, but are moreover guilty of spreading the disease to those most vulnerable to die from it. 

Because of their naughty refusal to live as ones imprisoned, or wear garments that have been regarded as generally ineffective at disease-prevention-- is a cloth mask not a permeable fabric?-- the non-compliant are now, incredibly, vilified as virtual murderers.

Those promoting such absurd regulation talking points must be challenged, and challenged aggressively, concerning these dubious and highly irresponsible claims. it is well worth noting that mankind has lived for centuries through epidemics far deadlier than the current one (which isn't raising the bar that high, since, as noted, the current epidemic is not terribly deadly). In fact, as stated previously, each year "flu season" proves fatal for tens of thousands of people, sometimes more. Yet at no time previously, even during the spread of far worse contagious diseases, were the healthy held responsible for the vulnerable getting sick (or what has often become known as the "You're killing grandma through your non-compliance!!!" line of argument).

Instead, throughout the history of health care, during epidemics, including flu seasons whose casualty numbers match or exceed the number of Covid-19 deaths it was the vulnerable who were urged to take precautions during such circumstances. The healhy weren't castigated for visiting crowded areas, but those with frail constitutions-- the so-called "grandmas"-- were warned against putting themselves at risk of contracting a virus which might prove fatal.

The current effort, then, to cast guilt and shame upon healthy people who resist draconian lockdowns which absurdly limit the movement of the well rather than quarantining the sick, must be recognized as an entirely unprecedented and utterly unreasonable mindset, with its root in truly poisonous propaganda designed to stigmatize, even pathologize, dissenting behavior.

In fact, no person who makes use of his inalienable right to go where he pleases, when he pleases (while of course respecting private property and national borders) can or should ever be assessed as guilty of indulging in untenable, much less homicidal behavior, provided of course that he refrain from doing obviously reckless things, such as coughing, sneezing, or breathing on "grandma," or otherwise behaving in a manner which might be held reasonably to be injurious.

Note: Links to our site are banned on Facebook, so if you wish to share this article there please use the identical version available at this site.

Andy NowickiAffirmative 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