Who we are, and where we’re going: Some observations and suggestions to those opposed to lockdown ideology.
How to keep our movement stable.
Introduction.
There are a lot of people “waking up” to our descent into a darker, more authoritarian world (hereafter referred to as ‘New Normal’) and these people are starting to interact, culminating in an anti-lockdown/pro-medical freedom movement. Since the movement is relatively new, all we really have in common is that we object to the government-imposed pandemic response actions of 2020 onwards. As we move into what may be very troubling times, we offer a few suggestions on how those who believe similarly may align and mobilise in the hope of being more effective.
We do not claim to lead anything. We are merely observers commenting on who, and what is before us. This is our position statement.
On ourselves.
As any movement or ideology has more people come to it, fringes and disagreements will become apparent. After all, we are all individuals, with individual perspectives. We exist on a spectrum of scepticism and faith. We understand vastly different things from the same words. Looking at factions found in political parties (e.g. the Conservative and Labour parties have the CRG, ERG and Momentum among their ranks), trade unions and other organisations suggests that such subdivision is perfectly normal.
We are also a diverse group of people. Some rich, some poor. Some socialist, others conservative. We have different convictions that dictate how we see the world and therefore the events unfolding. Sometimes, it is hard to know if belief in one thing (e.g. the flaws of the capitalist model or animal rights) colours our view of another. We should therefore be mindful of potential intersections and conflicts in our own beliefs. For instance, if we view the lockdown/pandemic/New Normal situation through an animal rights lens, we may alienate those who do not, despite agreement about the main, lockdown issue. If we consider the situation as an example of capitalism run amok, then we run the risk of alienating those who do not, and so on.
What is to be done then? Surely if we try to factor in everyone’s perspective, we end up standing for nothing? We suggest that this is beginning to happen anyway and such ambiguity might well fragment our movement. We suggest close dialogue among ourselves to decide what it is that we stand for. This will become especially important as policy regarding the situation evolves and will allow us to target our resistance efficiently.
We should not use general terms like “freedom” or “autonomy.” This is like saying we like “food.” Do we like pizza, or pastrami? cheese or calzone? There is simply too much to be inferred about what we believe in using vague language. We should be more specific. Do we want people to make their own health choices without coercion? Do we support free assembly? Are we against all forms of state overreach? Or do we stand for something else altogether? The examples above are what many among us would consider encompassed in the word ‘freedom,’ but our understanding of the word is not universal. Our opponents invoke the idea of ‘freedom’ too. ‘The freedom not to be infected,’ ‘the freedom to know the health status who we’re choose to associate with.’ Being specific in what we stand for deprives them of this avenue of attack.
On conspiracy theories.
Theories trying to explain why we are where we are, are everywhere. Is this a cock-up? Is this a conspiracy? Is 5G a weapon of war? Is there a Great Reset? Is prepping the answer to everything? Subscribing to any of these theories is a value judgement, as is taking the position that ‘New Normal’ is a bad thing. That is to say once we ask ‘why’ enough times about something, we arrive at a point where we just think it is; we have uncovered our axioms. A problem occurs when belief in a certain theory is so strong, that those who support it interpret everything that is happening through the points of the theory and use events unfolding to show that they are correct to believe what they do.
To use an example: let’s say someone believes that we are in the end times, and that vaccine passports are the mark of the beast. If they have spent a long time believing that we’re in the end times, and if their belief is all-consuming, any coercive measure around identification in general might very well look like ‘the mark of the beast.’ When a national biometric ID card was proposed in the United States in 2011, it was compared with the mark of the beast [1] and now the same is happening with vaccine passports. Which one is the mark of the beast then? When recklessly applied, labelling like this appears to be born from a desire to have a previously held belief proven correct, rather than an attempt to interpret things as they are. Similarly, ISIS in capturing the territory that they did, did so in the belief that they were active participants in the end times [2]. Given that was a few years ago, and we have not all been raptured, it seems like the strength of their belief may have led to some inaccurate predictions of the future.
We suggest that conspiracy theories at their heart are ways to connect and explain several, apparently unrelated observations together as part of a single framework. They come into being when mainstream narrative fails to provide an adequate explanation for events. Pending verifiable evidence these connections between events are conjecture.
We believe that if a conspiracy theory predicts events well, it is worth paying attention to. The more events a given theory predicts future events correctly, the more faith we ought to put into it and use it to plan for the future. The opposite also applies. The more “off” a theory is, the less stock we ought to put into it. This should enable more efficient, targeted resistance. On an individual level, becoming more familiar with the principles of critical thinking [3] will also help determine whether a given theory is accurate or inaccurate; useful, or useless.
On controlled opposition and the choice of proper platforms of dissemination.
There is concern that we are being infiltrated and subverted. This is probably true, and so vigilance is not a bad idea. Yet, there is a balance to be struck between trust and suspicion and if we get it wrong, we risk of falling into paranoia. For example, not everyone among us making a tactical error or exercising poor judgement is compromised, or controlled opposition, unless there’s a pattern of bad behaviour that can be determined. Impossibly high standards of conduct guarantee one thing: That everyone will fall short of everyone else’s expectation, leaving trust, goodwill and understanding in very short supply. This is not desirable. Such distrust of others strikes us as characteristic of the New Normal.
We must also be sure never to idolise. When we do and hold people as leaders or embodiments of our movement, we invest an unusual level of faith in them. How many people are truly worthy of that faith? Are they all unerring, unfaltering and impossible to compromise or buy, or to put it more simply, inhuman? It is better to structure our resistance to New Normal such that if a key figure were to betray us or make a mistake, the fallout would not be too great, perhaps through avoiding over-centralisation. On this basis, we suggest that the ideas and actions a person brings to our movement are held in much greater importance than the person themselves.
Given we should not misplace our trust, we should avoid over reliance on a single platform for the dissemination of our message. There has been much annoyance about the removal of our representatives and ideas from a number of social media platforms. We consider these removals utterly unsurprising, and are bemused by the anger over them (think about the story of the frog and the scorpion). We cite these de-platformings as warnings against over-reliance on systems such as Facebook and Twitter. We suggest that our messages are best disseminated using a multiple platforms both online and offline, simultaneously, such that it is more likely these messages will be seen and remain visible for a greater length of time.
On ‘shedding,’ and ‘mixing with the vaccinated’.
A few of our comrades have stated their concerns about mixing with those who have chosen to be vaccinated. We advise discretion on their part. Shunning people that are not directly opposed to us, due to a choice they have made is one of the behaviours and features of the New Normal, i.e. segregation. After all, if the things we aspire to see in the world, e.g. inclusivity, human closeness and inalienable rights are things we are willing to work for, it makes sense that we embody them to the best of our ability.
Much has also been made of the hazard those who have chosen to be vaccinated present to those who have chosen not to be. To us, this is once again, another form of the pathological levels of anxiety over health that define the New Normal. In the interests of inclusivity and mutual trust, we welcome those who have chosen vaccination but oppose the New Normal and shall embrace them just as we would anyone else.
On protest and violence.
There have been some animated discussions about what constitutes effective protest. An an example, some have called the regular marches in towns and cities useless and when we look at what policy changes have been effected by those marches, it’s hard to disagree. However, we propose that marches have an alternative purpose when at suitable scale; they show to the public the extent of opposition to the New Normal, with the unit of measure being the number of people on the streets.
Protest marches benefit us in the following ways: When we move as one, shouting a single message, we experience a surge anchoring us to to the bodies and reality we have been told to be afraid of. When we walk close together, we rekindle a trust in our fellow man that we have been encouraged to lose, she is another human being, not an infection risk. When we chant in indignation what we say has more power to all who hear [4]. When we see agents of the state, their eyes wide in fear, their fig leaf masks covering their shame at inflicting tyranny, we know what it is to be a force, even if we have done nothing forceful. We cannot be herded if we choose not to be. Once we know our strength, it becomes a lot easier for each of us to come into and display that strength in our daily lives. Resist, defy, do not comply.
When large enough and in appropriate locations, people unaware of what we advocate for, will see a filing past of those in opposition to the New Normal. This, might trigger some curiosity in them about what it is we stand for. As mentioned earlier, we must clarify that, for our movement to be effective. In being seen, it is made clear that whatever future is planned for us is not universally accepted. Our visibility may form part of a historical record that those attending have in some small way influenced. When news of the scale of our protests spread and the Lügenpresse (lying press) stay silent, a seed of distrust is planted in ‘normal man.’
Distrust of the establishment is the key to getting more people on side. Some may ask why this matters. To answer this, we look at historical uprisings that led to political change, such as those for Irish independence from the UK in the early 20th century [5], the Romanian revolution [6] and the Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia [7].
All of these changes required a good amount of favour with the public, in the form of: mass non compliance with state directives, creation of an atmosphere unwelcoming to state agents and finally a support of dissidents and their actions. For this to happen, it is necessary to win over the unconvinced public. From the cafe owner that does not demand proof of health status, to the doctor willing to treat all those who come through the door equally per his oath, substantial blows against the New Normal are struck [8]. We suggest that it is through the sum total of these small defiances that desirable change comes about.
Therefore, we ask others aligned with us to consider carefully their words when calling for violent action. Violent action has never, and will never succeed unless popular opinion is in favour of it. This is due to the state having a monopoly on force and resources. No matter how tactical the attack, or how ‘committed’ an ‘activist’ may be in their violent action, unless they have the ability to deliver physical force comparable with that of the state, any threat that is posed to the current order will be eliminated swiftly. Furthermore, should there be casualties in any violent action, there is a grave risk of losing public favour for our cause. One can look to examples of Islamic terrorism post-2001 to see many examples of this phenomenon. No policy changes favourable to radical Islamists have been enacted in the western world as a result of their actions and many now view Muslims and Islamic communities with a heightened degree of suspicion, deserved or not. This is counterproductive and we must avoid the same fate if we are to thrive.
In closing.
We may we walking into a bleak future (New Normal) and effective resistance to what may happen to us in western societies is best served by:
1. Communicating a clear, specific message that we are all able to support
2. Assuming the good faith of people in our movement, unless proven otherwise, perhaps through a catalogue of counterproductive decisions
3. Not pigeon-holing events unfolding into set conspiracy theories without a large body of evidence
4. Avoiding centralised leadership, cults of personality and communication platforms
5. Welcoming all supporters irrespective of their earlier choices
6. Embodying the ideals we’re trying to defend
7. Being proportionate in our actions as time goes on.
August 2021
References
1. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-national-biometric-id_b_542821 | Mirror: https://archive.ph/7r3ra
2. McCants WF. The ISIS apocalypse: the history, strategy, and doomsday vision of the Islamic State. 2016.
3. https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/1401/academic_skills/105/critical_thinking/2 | Mirror: https://archive.ph/ZKPFv
4.
| Mirror: https://archive.ph/zv27r
5. English R. Armed struggle: the history of the IRA. London: Pan Books; 2012.
6. https://adst.org/2015/10/the-1989-romanian-revolution-and-the-fall-of-ceausescu/ | Mirror: https://archive.ph/4NTsf
7. https://adst.org/2015/10/the-velvet-revolution-november-1989/ | Mirror: https://archive.ph/eVMuP
8.
| Mirror: https://archive.ph/3tDB5
Well written...
Not sure about violent responses. Muslim violence, and perceived threat of violence has led to many changes in the UK . Polygamous marriages by muslims has been allowed, even though strictly against the law; and FGM is illegal, but goes on, and not one muslim tried or convicted. Why is this? Because we now.all fear the anger of muslims.and know that they might attack us. So we and our politicians cower in fear of them.
So violence doesn't work?