Tuesday 12 May 2020

Social distancing PSYOPS

Social distancing (SD) has surely been the most effective deployment of PSYOPS in human history. In the space of a few months, this recent, controversial, empirically un-tested hypothetical model about how best to manage influenza epidemics; has been universally propagated and imposed by the governments of the world.

The two metre separation has redefined, and begun the annihilation of, all human social functions and interactions.

To varying degrees, in varying ways, the way we relate to other people has been transformed.

People now treat each other as potential threats; walking down your own street has become regarded (internally) as a high risk activity.

When we approach a stranger (if indeed we dare to venture outdoors or into a supermarket, and if there is anybody else outside at all - since many places now resemble towns of the dead: ghost towns, with human beings deleted from the scene), there is a new social evaluation and negotiation.

Some people are friendly, others (like me) apologetic - and only really concerned not to offend; others are looking-out to take personal offence, and engage in self-righteous indignation and condemnation, or signal their own virtue and concern.

Some people radiate terror, others glare with baleful hostility.

(I suspect that there are significant numbers of people who - from the way they avoid these activities - believe the birdemic plague can be caught by making eye-contact, or by saying 'hello'.)

My point is this: all over the world, billions of people have suddenly had their basic human relationships transformed for the worse by a theory!

This is a solid fact. It is necessary to grasp and consider it - without inserting more theories about 'why'. 

No doubt the legislation, surveillance and fines were a trigger; the unrepented and uncontextualised fear was a strong contributor; and the almost eager agreement and embrace of these restrictions by the masses has surely been a vital element.

But whatever the cause (and asserted necessity), thanks to this hypothetical epidemiological theory (presented as a known fact) the whole world is now a worse place.

If you could rewind the clock six months or a couple of years and point to a handful of obscure research articles modelling influenza outbreaks - arguing over whether SD made outbreaks better or worse; it would not have been possible to believe that this single idea could have been propagated to cover the world and change everything.

Yet it has happened.

Here we are.



Ingemar said...

Dr. Charlton,

Apropos of my previous comment regarding "beating" the System, (summary: You can't), I think now is the time for the Awake and Unafraid minority to engage in consequentially useless, but spiritually significant, acts of resistance.

For my part, I've resolved not to take any Cabal-mandated "cure" or vaccine. And if my employment was contingent upon taking such cures, or any other pinch of incense offers to Corona Caesar, I would cease my employment, take the fines, take the prison sentence, even die. My current employer is taking Establishment money and was recently involved in a virus testing scandal; this means that it will only be a matter of time before I'm forced to make a decision. (The rumors I've heard of Birdemic-inspired petty tyranny in the office are making the correct decision obvious).

The hardest part is trying to convince loved ones. Perhaps like Lot's wife, some people are just so enamored by the False Evil World that they will cling to it even if it destroys them.

I don't know if this is the final test of mortal life, but it doesn't hurt to regard all matters with one's soul and salvation as primary concern.

Adil said...

This public sanitation safety campaign has been going on for a long time but seems to have reached its apex. Having a mandatory seatbelt in the private space of your own car was already a claustrophobic signal for some of us that the adjustment bureau had the knife by our throats. A few years ago, we moved onto the seemingly innocent public smoking ban. It was a clear example of public micro-management, because who can allow a little cigarette smoke to pollute the holy safe space of two metres of every citizen. Oh, and remember the benevolent 'Me too' campaign? The one that made social distancing between men and women mandatory 'good ethics'? Well, there should be some warning signals here that something more sinister is going on here beneath the symbolic issues. Could it be that beneath the relativistic social quagmire of postmodernism, lies a complete objective submission to the machine?

Bruce Charlton said...

@Ingemar - The main thing is to know when we do sin - and repent it. Since not many people are saints, there will never be many people (martyrs, of various types) prepared to make serious personal sacrifices to disobey evil orders when there is an expedient way-out; but everyone can - in all times and places - know what they are doing when they sin, and repent it.

Eric - wrt 'me too-ish-ness' - It probably always was something of a delusion to suppose that mixed workplaces could function on the basis that men and women are functionally interchangeable. Up to the middle 20th century, chaperones were still the rule - primarily to protect men from false accusations, secondarily to make the women feel safer.

Certainly I used (insisted on using) chaperones in many private medical situations, e.g. when behind closed doors (as contrasted to being behind curtains on the open wards), in the early 1980s. This was not, however, the practice in psychiatry (when no body contact involved) but chaperones would then also probably be wise nowadays, medico-legally.

Jacob Gittes said...

The most annoying part is how people who are obviously smart IQ-wise (I am thinking of one colleague in my field in town in particular) simply accept the entire narrative, lock-stock-and-barrel. And this person, in a recent meeting about something else, expressed dismay at how many people here are notwearing a mask in public at the grocery store.

I could tell that he would absolutely go along with rules and enforcement of those rules against non-compliant people.

Even before this virus panic, I always saw a strange, demon-oppressed look in his eyes. His eyes scream "there is no meaning to this life. Life is just a trivial test, and we must comply with the system's rules and magical science in order to be good boys and girls in this absolutely meaningless activity we are engaging in here, for some unknown reason. Oh, and I'm really really really afraid to die."

Everyone's response seems idiosyncratic. Many rebel, either internally or publicly. There seems to be a simmering resentment here between the "sides." Keep in mind that I'm in a tiny town in a very unpopulated area. Just yesterday, I got a report that we supposedly had our THIRD case of COVID-19 here. And we've had zero fatalities.

Adil said...


It seems that the more freedom you grant women, the less freedom it means for men. Men need personal space, and women seek to convert that to public availability. But the freer the women, the tighter the rules and schedules. So the net effect is an overall loss of freedom. My intuition is that female cognitive output is radically different and more oriented towards prescription and symbol, while men are more ready to organize and work practically at hand. Society has naturally shifted from reality to symbol. So we are no longer able to respond adequately to threats and keep scapegoating symbols. But no one really notices the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Eric. That's part of it, but I think feminization is (or was) more of an effect than a cause. The materialist/ bureaucratic Establishment prefers women because they are on average more pliable, and fit The System; and They created and implemented feminism with that aim. Like women's cricket; feminization is a top down, subsidised imposition.

Adil said...


It's all in the Bible. There is a reason women are portrayed as being one step closer to Satan. He can bait them more easily by false promise and use them for purposes of temptation. This is also why girls tend to be the victims of possession. But who is going to exorcise the bureaucracy?

Bruce Charlton said...

@Eric No, I regard that as false. Women and men are complementary, as the Mormons first realised. Two parts of a dyad that makes the human "unit". Individually we are ultimately incomplete. Naturally we differ, and that is why we are complementary; further, just as each individual is unique, so is each couple.

But bureaucracy will go down with all the rest of human society, and soon.

Howard Ramsey Sutherland said...

This comment of Bruce's struck a chord:
"The materialist/ bureaucratic Establishment prefers women because they are on average more pliable, and fit The System; and They created and implemented feminism with that aim. Like women's cricket; feminization is a top down, subsidised imposition."
I'm an old military officer (U.S. Air Force fighter pilot). In the mid-1990s the Leftist push to open U.S. combat arms to women won when Bill and - more to the point - Hillary Clinton moved into the White House. That was indeed a top-down, subsidised imposition.
Also entirely unnecessary, as the United States had more than enough men willing to volunteer for combat service, and not wanted by the overwhelming majority of actual servicemen - including most of the relatively few women.
The Establishment who have imposed this revolution - Democratic politicians, faithless Republican politicians, feminist/lesbian academics and agitators, relentlessly pro-fem/homosexualist media - have no interest in military readiness (though They claimed opening the military entirely to women would enhance readiness, a self-evident lie). They despise the military and the sort of people who do volunteer. The token women "fighter pilots" - in quotes because "woman fighter pilot" is a non sequitur - and the rest of the fem vanguard are mere pawns to Them. Privileged children of the U.S. Establishment are more likely to serve in the Israel Defence Force than the U.S. armed forces, and precious few even do that.
Just as hardly anyone wants to watch women play cricket, men of the warrior breed will spurn a ladies-first military. No General Pattons allowed today: if George Patton were in today's U.S. Army, he'd be court-martialed for hate-speech and sent for psychiatric evaluation.
25 years later we see the results. The U.S. armed forces are far less competent than before - and they were flawed already. Everything about them is now calibrated to women's sensitivities (and those of Their preferred non-white groups and Their pets du jour, the sexually confused). The new military is far more pliable to every liberal whim, and senior officers are perfectly politicised poodles.
Exactly as They intend, no doubt!
Not sure how the United States would fare in a major war against a first-rate enemy, such as Communist China - or Russia, which America's idiot Establishment all detest for some reason. I pray we never find out.