Discover more from John Waters Unchained
One Thousand Days of Lies
It is 1,000 days since they suspended the Irish Constitution. These ubiquitous ‘temporary’ suspensions — in reality permanent — were aided by the creation of pseudo-realities across the ‘free’ world.
‘People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’ — Karl Rove, Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, George W. Bush White House
Other countries will have slightly different beginning dates, but the Age of Industrial Lying began in Ireland on March 19th, 2020, the day of the enactment by the Oireachtas (parliament) of a handful of statutes generally travelling under titles like Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020, and such like. The first lie — that there was, facing Ireland, some kind of unprecedented ‘pandemic’, requiring emergency responses — was accompanied by many smaller and more pragmatic lies. Centrally, there was the PCR test lie, used to weaponise as ‘infections’ latent residues of pathogens or toxins, major and minor, within the human body, in order to ramp up the scare factor to be charted in a daily ‘league of disease’, soon afterwards to be accompanied by a daily chart of death.
And it was clear, almost from the outset, that these numbers, too, were being fraudulently harvested, with — virtually everywhere — every death ‘with Covid’ being treated as a death from Covid, and every case of more than two symptoms being treated as proven without recourse to testing. No autopsies, real or figurative, were carried out. Constant streams of propaganda about the ‘deadliness' of the disease were accompanied by an almost total shutting down of alternative perspectives.
The most relentlessly nagging thing about what was happening was that, once you began to delve into the facts, almost nothing was as we were being told by official sources. The number of deaths alleged to have occurred from Covid-19 was nothing like what the official figures suggested. Even early on, the methods of certifying such deaths were emerging as deeply questionable. Most of the deaths occurred in care homes, among people of very advanced years. Almost everywhere, excess deaths showed no significant deviation from normative patterns. Once you started to drill into it, the panic generated around Covid-19 seemed spurious in almost every respect.
Nonetheless, death, an everyday part of human existence, became subject to something like a rhetorical outright prohibition. It was as if no one should ever die in the future. Every death had to be prevented, no matter what the cost to life. The purpose of the State shifted from overseeing the administration of the society, to ‘saving lives’. Anyone who declined to go along with even the smallest element of this regimen of ‘life-saving’ was deemed an enemy of the community, a ‘granny killer’.
Every evening, the journaliars lined up with their statistics in the manner of a politburo announcing a new Five Year Plan. X people had become infected in the previous 24 hours! Y people had died!! The mood was sombre and chilling. We must do better! We must, above all, wheel around and confront the neighbour who is refusing to take this project seriously enough! Never again! When asked to show evidence in justification of the harsh (and objectively grotesquely disproportionate) measures being employed, the ‘authorities’ retorted that the final evidence would reside in the numbers of excess deaths at the end of 2020 (85,000, the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, predicted in March 2020) but until then we could not relax our policy of zero tolerance of death, lest the final outcome be even worse.
When the final figures for 2020 became available, it turned out that they were approximately bang on the average for the previous five years, and slightly below the two years immediately before, 2019 and 2018. It was clear that something of the same order of death had occurred as would have occurred if none of this new zero tolerance of death had been declared. On the face of things, it seemed that there had been no ‘crisis’ at all — until the response to the announced crisis was begun.
These initial lies were followed hard by another form of lying, which I call ‘controlled explosion of the truth’. This occurs when a partial truth is unveiled to create the possibility of a later defence of plausible deniability should some significant untruth eventually come to public notice — but at the same time muddied in such a way that it gains no immediate traction on public attention. In July 2020, for example, after the health investigation unit, HIQA, said that Covid-19 deaths had been significantly overestimated, perhaps by hundreds, the Tánaiste/recently stood-downTaoiseach, Leo Varadkar, responded that the findings were ‘interesting but not a surprise’ because of the way deaths related to the virus were counted. ‘In Ireland,’ he tweeted, ‘we counted all deaths, in all settings, suspected cases even when no lab test was done, and included people with underlying terminal illnesses who died with Covid but not of it.’ Varadkar added that this was the ‘right approach but skewed the numbers’, asserting that the priority had been ‘to save lives, not look good in league tables.’
The problem was that the ‘league tables’ had been used to confiscate basic freedoms. What Varadkar’s statement, properly analysed, would have conveyed was that the mortality figures were meaningless: They had counted not merely people who had died of something called ‘Covid’ but also anyone who had died of something with even a passing resemblance to any symptom of this ’disease’, regardless of diagnosis, and also — in a time of near blanket testing of people in hospitals and nursing homes — people who had shown up with traces of something resembling the SARS-COV-2 virus in their systems and subsequently died of something else. Indeed, Varadkar, in what might have been either a slip of the tongue or an intentional reveal, set down the total truth: ‘[W]e counted all deaths, in all settings’. Yes, you did.
The lockdown policies pursued by Varadkar’s government from March 2020 had been justified by numbers, entirely academic projections, which very soon revealed themselves as grotesquely off the mark. But still the lockdown policies were maintained. Now, four months in, he was, in effect, admitting that the figures had all been knowingly falsified. But it didn’t matter. Why? Because his motives were pure: He was not interested in league tables, only in ‘saving lives’. And because the now utterly corrupted media declined to call him out.
Covid also brought us the ‘noble lie’, whereby some notable spoke in a manner that, perhaps unwittingly, contradicted the narrative, and later issued a spin designed to tidy things up. In March 2020, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, claimed in a 60 Minutes interview that the widespread use of face masks was unnecessary and, by implication, pointless. A few months later, when masked mandates had been issued, as though by an afterthought, right across the democratic world, he claimed that his statements were not meant to imply that there had been insufficient data to justify the use of face masks; he had been merely seeking to avoid mass panic-buying of masks that might have resulted in a shortage in supply, thus depriving medical professionals, who needed masks for their jobs. However, emails from an FOI request later revealed that Fauci had been giving the same advice — against mask use — in private correspondence.
We should remain mindful that those who have imposed the appalling conditions and circumstances of the past nearly three years have had access, above all, to the very best — or worst — of what behavioural psychology can offer. This, far more than it has been a biological crisis, has been a psychological operation — ‘psy-op’. The orchestrators of the public mood — politicians, scientists, medical experts — have clearly been able to impose some kind of spell, if only in the first instance to be contemplated in metaphorical terms, in order to impose their will upon whole populations. It is not outlandish to suggest that they somehow managed to impose a trance, which transformed reality into a kind of dream world, in which, as with actual dreams, nonsense came to seem perfectly sensible and normal while it is happening.
The chief instruments of manipulation involved the leveraging of guilt, obligation and fear, frequently in a variation on the nice cop/nasty cop routine. The Regime employed a rolling series of mixed messages, using language top heavy with negative phrases designed to instil fear and dread. Those who did not obey were told they were risking the lives of others. This was accompanied by embedded command phrases, apparently random but actually serving to emphasise the, in effect, mandatory nature of what was being conveyed: ‘There is no alternative. It just has to be’.
We experienced, at the hands of our own elected ‘democratic’ leaders, the abrogation of legal guarantees long regarded as ‘inviolable,’ ‘inalienable,’ and ‘indefeasible,’ along with ‘fundamental’ human rights and freedoms that had seemingly been underwritten by such epithets in our Constitution, receiving in ‘return’ rule by decree, the marginalisaton of opposition, the scapegoating of a demonised Untermenschen, censorship, social segregation, et cetera. These conditions were achieved through the application of subtle and not so subtle forms of neuro-linguistic programming and saturation coverage of an almost entirely falsified narrative to effect a form of mass hypnosis, which left only small minorities within Western populations unaffected. Every government and corporation on the planet worked openly with global ‘authorities’ to subjugate their human populations, each laying out the same agenda and narrative. They moved in lockstep and lied in harmony.
It is now clear that the unspeakable creeps we had chosen to protect our interests and their accomplices had constructed a pseudo-reality by which to beguile the public into — all but literally — living within lies. This pseudo-reality is as though a Hall of Mirrors in which each mirror, from whatever angle, reflects and affirms only what is reflected from other mirrors, so what is there to be seen is what is put there, and nothing else. For almost three years, we have been living in a closed world of lies.
John Waters Unchained is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The conditions of modern society — mass media, personal computers, smartphones, tech surveillance and data processing — render most people susceptible to the insinuation of a pseudo-reality — in effect, a bubble in which a fog of lies is being constantly generated and renewed by propaganda. Such a fog became almost omnipresent in the Time of Covid. The pseudo-realities we deal with here have been generated from the beginning in each jurisdiction out of the lockstep, centralised, global campaign strategy, maintained by strict discipline, which somehow manages to communicate itself through the layers of command, authority, bureaucracy, administration and execution, through multiple disciplines, sectors and codes, propelled by some form of hidden mechanism that ensures conformity, consistency and imperviousness to revelations of new and true facts. This ominous neo-authoritarianism, utterly new in the cultures of Western democracies, is, as now becomes clear, connected to the concept of the ‘rule-based society’ (as opposed to values-based) we increasingly, and ominously, hear about: a long-planned programme of mass surveillance, social credit scores, universal basic income, central bank digital currency — all measures designed to corral the individual and the mass in a web of control mechanisms such as will render conventional policing virtually redundant because the citizen will be unable ultimately to feed himself unless he obeys every instruction of the watching State.
The purpose of a pseudo-reality is to create a path towards the utopian future that is the destination of all totalitarian projects. In this case the destination is called New Normal/Great Reset. The ultimate purpose is the remaking of human life and the human structure itself. It has nothing, needless to say, to do with human health, except in the most calamitous sense imaginable: that the downstream effects of what was being done would include multitudinous deaths and injuries inflicted on innocent people, and the most radical alteration in the human structure since the Creator signed off on his first human prototype, Adam. This endgame is to be pursued through the development of Human 2.0 — as a permanent and terminating replacement for Human 1.0 — a bioengineered hybrid being, combining human qualities like intuition and creativity with artificial intelligence with a view to creating a superhuman ‘human’ possessing virtually no plausible resemblance to the species we think of as humanity now. This is all part of a carefully prepared programme — the 2030 agenda, or Fourth Industrial Revolution, masterminded by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The ‘pandemic’ was a dress rehearsal for a plan to ensure that, in the proposed human future, non-cooperating ‘organic’ humans may be denied access to the essential energy sources required for survival, especially fuel and food, until they succumb to the logic of the Great Reset.
As to timing, what the World Bank has since 2020 been calling ‘the Covid Project’ had three triggers: the plateaued peak of the world’s oil resources; the related collapse of the world’s money systems; and the advent of artificial intelligence, the Technological Singularity and the transhumanist/posthumanist revolution. The first provided the Combine with motivation, the second with urgency, the third with opportunity. Everything converges on the transhumanist agenda, the ultimate objective being the final absorbing of the human person into the machine. It was to these ends, really, that the politicians, into whose tender mercies we foolishly handed our nations, took to lying and lying and lying. It was never about our health. They didn’t care if we knew it, and they didn’t care if we knew they knew we knew it. They had from the beginning won over enough of us to defeat us from within our own onetime homelands, unless some kind of mass awakening could be provoked.
In the past 33 months, we have been pummelled from all sides with a manufactured menace, channelled in the first instance via the purchased media, but subsequently broken down and carried to all corners of the polis in the manner of simple carbohydrates to the extremities of a human body. The on-the-ground propensity to absorb these straight-faced lies is, of course, the most essential condition for the promulgation of the narrative, and hence to the consolidation of our cultural brokenness, bedding down the conditions for the slavery that will inevitably follow, should an insufficiency of us fail to see what is happening. A quasi-ubiquitous combination of general deference and mutism has ensured that the new demeanour of official authority, meeting little or no resistance, grows stronger all the while.
If a significant and vocal element of the population ceased to buy-in, and instead started loudly to reject and ridicule what it was hearing, the deceit would fall apart in a matter of days. A minority, of course, has been doing this from the start, tuning into alternative sources of knowledge, data and analysis, and recirculating this knowledge with appropriate defiance, but until we reach critical mass — and we do not know other than approximately where that line might be — we will continue to live in this bizarre world where the truth appears to be spilling out, and yet the perpetrators of the Greatest Crime in History continue, in offhand fashion, to fuel the fire they have been stoking since the Spring of 2020.
The Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet’s analysis, which has been comprehensively explored on this platform for the past year and a half, estimates that perhaps 30 per cent of every population is overwhelmed by totalitarian methods, with perhaps an additional 40 per cent middle-ground constituency going along to get along — this latter constituency being difficult to distinguish from the 30 per cent that has been completely brainwashed. In Ireland, these figures are more likely to be 40 per cent and 50 per cent, leaving just 10 per cent unaffected, though this figure may have been growing imperceptibly for the past year or thereabouts, since the ‘measures’ were suddenly and mysteriously ‘relaxed’. How that tiny few escaped indoctrination and entrancement is itself something of a mystery, not to say a miracle. Perhaps, many of them had long since stopped reading, watching or listening to the shamestream media, thus acquiring immunity to what is actually the true ‘virus’: the industrial mendacity of the wholly corrupted journalistic profession, which in effect acted as apprentices assisting the architects and builders of the pseudo-realities, in which the propaganda that constituted virtually all of the scamdemic narrative was made to seem as factual as the sky above and the solid ground below.
A great deal of this compliance has had to do with the demeanours of these malefactors, who, in their public mendacity, exhibited from the beginning a previously unobserved degree of confidence. People in Ireland might usefully think back to the then Taoiseach, Varadkar, and his St.Patrick’s Day speech of 2020, and his subsequent bland lying as he sought to gaslight the public into agreeing that black was the same as white. Those of us who have been fighting the lies and poisons of such unspeakable creeps have been baffled by their sometime capacity to half-reveal the truth on a Tuesday, and on Wednesday to go back again to the Total Lie. We have, time and again, been suckered by our own disoriented optimism, telling ourselves, on the evidence of the latest revelations of criminality, that, ‘Aha! Now they will have to answer!’ or ‘The jig is up for them now!’ This — as we have long since been subliminally aware — is folly, because of the unprecedented and indeed previously unimaginable conditions that accompany this scam: its totalised nature: the complicity in it not merely of a minority but actually of the entirety of official actors, practically everywhere; the utter corruption of the public conversation; but, above all, the continuing demeanour of what reads like confident innocence among the malefactors. There has been no breaking of ranks. Few whistle-blowers have emerged to deliver cracks to the narrative. For the first time in our ‘free’ societies, the primary purpose of politics has been to manufacture and purvey virtually constant untruths, to the end of maintaining the public in a state of fear and obedience.
Dissenters have been subject to constant menace, threats of prosecution and imprisonment, and appended with all kinds of sinister labels and characterisations as to their motives and intentions. For the ‘modern’ state — I mean, the state of the past dozen years or thereabouts — the truth is the ultimate subversion. The citizen who insists on speaking it had better carry his toothbrush and, ideally, a first-aid kit, with him at all times. This is the trademark give-away of ‘progressivism’: the default instinct for demonising everyone who does not agree with the ‘progressive’ policies of the government as a ‘subversive’, an ‘extremist’, and a ‘far right danger to democracy’.
Of course, it goes without saying that the reason the ‘progressives’ seek to suppress the ‘far right’ is that the ‘far right’ are the ones telling the truth about the fact that there is indeed a far right conspiracy, except that it being orchestrated not by them but by the politicians and journaliars accusing them. ‘Far right’ is, in this context, a functional synonym for ‘factual’ and ‘truthful’. If what was being suppressed was simply, as we are told, ‘disinformation’, the suppression of the ‘far right’ would be unnecessary — the spuriousness of the information would take care of things without recourse to menace and scapegoating. Because what is being communicated is common-sensical and true — the straightforward, factual witness of normal, observant people — it represents an ever present danger, which is why the boot at the throat of the truth must be kept in place at all times.
A pseudo-reality is an artificial construct within reality — think of it as a kind of cultural stage-set, made of three distinct materials: contorted language, illogical logic (paralogic), and distorted morality — in other words, language rendered meaningless by virtue of its twistedness, illogic and spurious moral values that are made to seem compulsive. Pseudo-reality — a planned parallel reality — is always the foundational layer of a pathocracy. i.e. a pathological perversion of democracy. Many of the greatest horrors of the history of humanity owe their occurrence solely to the establishment and social enforcement of such a false actuality.
Critical to the maintenance of such an illusion is the demeanour of those who operate it,, rather than any factual scenario, or even the coherence of the narrative that sustains it. The trick involved in its insinuation is based on acquired and predictable habits of human beings, which we all share in common, methods we employ for reading reality and other people, developed since childhood, and functionally reliable until the day before yesterday. This shorthand way of apprehending reality depends on a high degree of trust in established sources of information, and when these become corrupted, the trust can continue to exist for quite a long time, thus enabling those wishing to exploit such channels in presenting themselves as tellers of truth. This is especially true when the narrative is being dictated by ’experts’. It is as though there exists a line of inflexible, non-negotiable command-channel coming down from some unquestionable authority at the top of the power pyramid. At each level as each command tumbles down, its immunity from ifs and buts is conveyed in terms that state or imply some kind of absolute prohibition and/or deterrence, and/or incentive — carrot and/or stick. And not only is this downward channel of authority devoid of human freedom to question or modify its communications — it is also free from all mockery, irony, satire, sarcasm and even eyebrow-raising. The preparation for the present phase has involved the construction of a deadpan world, where the most ludicrous and unthinkable messages may — must — be handed on without comment or reaction, and this almost invariably ensues. Either the recipient, lulled into a false security, has no reason to doubt the nature or the instruction or its underlying logic, or, if he has, he knows enough to stay silent. His mutism, in the face of the apparent incongruencies, added to the fund of ‘evidence’ that helps to maintain in silence the next person in the chain, provides sufficient underpinning to enable the mendacious order to pass along to the next stage, where the process repeats ad infinitum.
And yet, paradoxically, this new form of totalitarianism (the word is not too strong) remains, in a sense, invisible. Such is the nature of the ‘training’ being administered to the populace that, for most people, it does not seem to be there. The very suggestion of it appears preposterous. This new totalitarianism, having camouflaged itself in the white-coat uniform of the medic, presents itself as a benevolent and ‘caring’ phenomenon. It suggests itself not merely as reality, but as benign reality. At first sight, even at second and third sight, it does not appear to be a political or ideological phenomenon. Who could question the project of ‘saving lives’? Its pathological nature, in other words, has folded itself into the phenomenon of its own claimed good intentions. It is an entirely bogus-reality, but more convincing than the real one. No matter how preposterously implausible its governing narrative and impositions, it is much more credible than the idea that it is not real. This totalitarianism appropriates to its purposes the coercive licence of the state, but generally, at least in the beginning, delegating the use of menace and implied violence to citizens themselves, who voluntarily elect to police their fellows. It has all the outward appearances of democracy at work for the furtherance of the ‘common good’, an illusion greatly assisted by the sustained repetition of platitudinous reminders of ‘our democratic values’. But it has been realised that, as Larry Fink, CEO of investment behemoth BlackRock lip-smackingly declared, this totalitarianism is a much better match for capitalism than democracy ever was: ‘Markets don’t like uncertainty. Markets like actually . . . totalitarian governments, where you have an understanding of what’s out there, and obviously the whole dimension is changing now with a democratisation of countries. And democracies are very messy. As we know, in the United States we have opinions changing back and forth.’ Opinions? Tsk, tsk!
In such a society, the violence that is essential to its continuance is overwhelmingly embedded. The ‘measures’ and ‘restrictions,’ and ‘advices’ appear to be consensual, in the sense that they are insinuated as a response to a public demand for increased safety, but that is merely a trick to make them seem voluntary. They are ‘justified’ by industrial lying and enforced, ultimately albeit mostly invisibly, by state coercion: The people’s right to protect themselves by forming police forces and armies has been turned against them, this civic authority delegated to security personnel, waiters, bouncers, who assume the right to deny fellow citizens their most basic entitlements with the insinuation of compulsion, even violence, which remains an ever-present spectre. This represents the refinement of totalitarianism into a model that acquires a degree of plausible deniability even as it becomes more powerful and pervasive, — and more and more invisible as it stretches into every nook and crevice of the intimate lives of the citizenry. Anyone who has awakened has found that many of their friends, family members or acquaintances, whom they hitherto regarded as intelligent, had become deeply embedded in the deception, not alone unable to extricate themselves from the general climate of ‘soft’ terror but actually willingly though, at times, unwittingly, behaving as marshals of Covid enforcement, scolding fellow citizens for going about unmasked, engaging in bizarre public elbow dances on encountering acquaintances, and reacting with embarrassment and suspicion on encountering any kind of dissenter from the campaign to — allegedly — inoculate the population to a level far beyond any prior understanding of the demands of herd immunity. The most immediate element of our experience, then, has been the constant air of menace, coming at each of us from all angles, generally passed on by the nearest human being — walking, cycling or driving by.
This menace seems to seep down from the changed demeanour of our ‘leaders’, their bureaucrat hand-servants, and their unofficial spokespersons, i.e. mainly the journaliars. The treasonous tyrannical imbeciles we trusted to manage our countries speak to us differently now, as though in response to some hidden signal issued in every country coming up on three years ago. Gone is any hint of deference or respect, any sense that they seek to petition the people in respect of their political or professional survival, and instead they speak — as though carefully coached in this regard — with aggression and newly assumed authority. At their backs, at all times, they have the pseudo-authority of ‘The Science’, the new religion of public life, which attributes all knowing to ‘experts’ on the basis of letters inscribed after their names. Those with fewer letters must maintain a proportionate silence; those with competing qualifications who disagree with the narrative are smeared and vilified into irrelevance.
The first and most important thing, in constructing the pseudo-reality, is to seize control — by force or bribes — of the nation’s media. This is a sine qua non for a pathocracy. A single prestigious newspaper, in New York or London, publishing on its front page, for example, some of the information available for the past two years about excess mortality and its coherence with ‘vaccine’ rollouts, would have been sufficient to pull down the whole edifice of lies. But, to date, no significant crack has appeared in the facade of untruth, probably because even the slightest possibility of truth-exposure is held at bay by the strong forces of cohesion that characterise the mendacious enterprise as a whole. Any individual, within any of a dozen areas of significance to the maintenance of the lie, who tried to break away and in doing so summon some sufficiency of reinforcements-within to advance such a counter-insurgency, would have to overcome the conditions of the pseudo-reality to have any hope of success. In the first place, it is unlikely that such a person would feel any great confidence of success, and therefore would be risking everything against the strong probability that the only outcome would be his own destruction.
The pseudo-reality is constructed in the public mind in something like the way a cult constructs a version of reality to draw in devotees. It is also, in a way, analogous to the suspension of disbelief entered into in a cinema or theatre, in which the participant enters in on the basis of trust and agrees to go wherever he or she is led. This is very close to, if not synonymous with, a hypnoidal trance, being dependent on the leveraging of repose, imagination, suggestibility and emotion. Unlike the cinema or theatre, the dominant emotion tapped in a pseudo-reality is usually a negative one — fear or anger. Of course this trance, like the movie or play, has a finite life; in the end, the participant must get out of his seat, blink, and walk back into the real world, with a strange sense of emerging from a kind of dream state. Some commentators have suggested that this is more or less what confronts us here, implying that in due course we can all simply stand up and walk away. This remains to be seen. Here — in this ‘play,’ this ‘movie’ — the set has supplanted reality; the movie ‘location’ is where you live, where you work, in the pub (when it’s open) and the café (when you’re allowed in), in the actual cinema or theatre. The pseudo-reality is not an ‘alternative' world, but for all intents and purposes the ‘real’ one. You are in it almost all the time, so that, occasionally, when the actual ‘real’ world attempts to break though, it is like watching a snatch of a movie on a big screen in a darkened theatre through a swinging door as you cycle past at speed.
The ultimate purpose of propaganda is to construct at the centre of reality something akin to a kaleidoscopic projector casting lies on to the vacant space in the public imagination (which expands exponentially under that influence), persuading or compelling the population to live inside its projections and agree that these amount to reality. The endlessly repeated reflections and refractions of the same untruths render the overall effect misleadingly coherent and seemingly unassailable. Here, the functions of the inclined mirrors of the kaleidoscope are carried out by multiple media screens and platforms which reflect and deflect, refract and diffract the same images and thoughts, so that, without some external point of reference, it becomes impossible to perceive the total effect as other than actuality. Just as the kaleidoscope can create infinite patterns of the same image, a corrupted media sector can create countless versions of the same lie.
The pseudo-reality is constructed linguistically with the objective of initially convincing/recruiting a significant minority of — generally — pathologised individuals, and sufficiently intimidating another quotient of the population into not questioning the imposed fictions. Often, too, the pseudo-reality requires a lens of expertise, requiring to be supplied by ‘specialists’ — a kind of priesthood — whose functions include ‘educating’ the public in the language of correct description, much as the tailors in the fairytale ‘described’ to the emperor and his courtiers the non-existent clothes they were weaving for His Excellency. For these reasons, the manipulators tend to concentrate their attentions at first on the ‘educated’ classes, which is to say heavily schooled, moderately intelligent and ‘informed’ people in the fields of politics, media, academia and the broader ‘educational’ sector. This addresses an apparent paradox of the mass formation phenomenon: that it affects the more ‘educated’ at least as much as the less so. In fact, it is better adapted to minds that depend largely on rote learning in a discrete area among a narrow range of disciplines. Totalitarianism also holds greater attraction for such people, because their ‘intelligence’ depends on having an existing structure to fit into. Generally, too, such people tend to be afflicted by a vanity that exaggerates their own level of intelligence, rendering them easily flattered into acquiescence in a schema with the external appearance of complexity — thus requiring something like their ‘exalted cognitive abilities’ to comprehend. Should they cling to notions suggested by objective reality rather than, for example, ‘the Science,’ they render their ‘intelligence’ open to question, a risky embarkation in a nascent totalitarian context. Fearing being shunned or cast out by their peers, and thereby coming to the unfavourable notice of the Regime, they will prefer to acquiesce in the pseudo-reality. Here, then, a moderate degree of intelligence can become an impediment, causing some to construct complex fabrications to rationalise the pseudo-reality and thereby becoming its more enthusiastic adherents. In such manifold ways, many citizens hand their power up to the Regime.
Abuse of language is a central mechanism of the construction and maintenance of the pseudo-reality. Words, phrases, sentences, provide the building blocks. This involves a conscious use of the language emanating from power centres as something other than a tool of communication,intelligence and understandings. The purpose is, essentially, mendacious. Its objective is to deceive, but not in minor ways. It constructs in words and images a kind of imaginative stage-set, before which an entirely fictional version of reality can be enacted. The idea is that the pseudo-reality becomes the most important element, and not just an aid to achieving some other objective. This is because those who implement the pseudo-reality are psychopaths, who are unable to cope with reality — misfits who, because they are misfits, seek to alter the society into a form they can live with. In acquiring power, they obtained access to the means to do this.
The more someone comes to accept the pseudo-reality, the less ‘normal’ and amenable to ‘common sense’ he becomes, and the closer he moves to the mentality of the governing narcissists/psychopaths. This is why it is foolish for ‘normal’ people to try to ‘understand’ why their neighbours accept the pseudo-reality, imagining them to be misinformed or simply emotionally overwrought. Frankly, we had no idea how easy it could be to persuade seemingly intelligent people of facile ideas. In fact, according to Andrew Lobaczewski, in Political Ponerology, a significant element of humanity easily becomes functionally pathologised, which is to say they come to find the false reality more tolerable than the real one, because the false reality relieves them, at least temporarily, of the pathologies they have developed within a ‘normal' society of mass propaganda, mechanised thought processes and bullshit jobs. This easily propagandised element may be a relatively small fraction of the population — six per cent in Lobaczewski’s direct experience in his native Poland — but its influence is infectious upon a much larger segment of the ‘normal’ population, which will adapt to its thinking so as to rationalise the pseudo-reality sufficiently to be able to exist within it. Normal people don't think like psychopaths or schizoids but, presented with the double-binds of the constructed reality, may engage in mental gymnastics to achieve accommodation with it, causing them to become psychopathically ‘literate’.
As the process develops, the grey areas in the middle tend to disappear and a clear polarisation develops between those who believe in the pseudo-reality and those who continue to dissent. This renders real violence inevitable, which in turn ensures that totalitarianism will always be to a high degree coercive and repressive. Gulags, show trials, zero tolerance towards even minor dissenters, and the other extreme symptoms the world witnessed in twentieth-century totalitarianism inevitably follow, though they may have different names, like ‘mandatory hotel quarantine,’ ‘naming and shaming,’ ‘emergency measures’, and ‘secure transport’.
This process of creating a pseudo-reality is very similar to certain forms of religious adherence, and therefore works very well in societies in which a religious faith that once exercised enormous influence is now on the wane. The rhetoric of the totalitarian drive incorporates elements of moralism, sanctimony, pietism and authoritarianism. It is remarkable that these processes involve the constant insinuation of a moral system, overturning the normative rational process by which reality is objectively described, and inverting also the cultural context, placing pressure on ‘normal’ people to justify their understandings of reality, while elevating the pseudo-reality to the level of fact. The ‘morality’ thereby generated, because it is pathological, feels infinitely more powerful — and therefore more ‘moral’ — than any normative moral system.
Over the long run, a process of incessant gaslighting pressurises dissenters to accept the pseudo-reality, if only for a quiet life, which works in many instances, since believing the lie is socially much more advantageous than insisting upon objective reality. The suspected ‘denier’ will always be presumed guilty, the onus of proof residing with him or her to demonstrate compliance and good faith; failing to do so is deemed to be the basis of self-exclusion. The rules are always blurred, so that everyone is always on the back foot, always open to a charge of non-compliance coming from an unexpected quarter. A strange dissonance enters in: Those who continue to see reality in objective terms, and to that extent to deny the pseudo-reality, are deemed to be the ‘wicked' ones. Societies that are culturally inclined towards ‘agreeableness’ — like Ireland — can be the most susceptible to this syndrome, placing their members under extreme pseudo-moral pressure from their pathologised neighbours/compatriots and conniving regimes, until they succumb to the lie. This process recruits ordinary people as its agents of enforcement, not just as spies and snitches, but as actual enforcers who accuse their fellows of immorality on the grounds of their non-acceptance of the pseudo-reality.
The pseudo-reality is almost impossible to describe in sentences owing any allegiance to factuality, logic or moral order. It is constructed precisely to bypass such phenomena, albeit in a way that augments its own appearance of internal coherence for those within its ‘logic’. It must by definition remain partly mysterious to those who remain within the normal human world, and indeed it may seem not merely improbable but impossible to someone who has had no previous direct experience or opportunity for observation of its like, or who is not in a state of delusion. And because it is completely concocted, it cannot be checked or even coherently critiqued. It seems to operate at the level of pure sentiment, by the most literal interpretations of words and responses, almost as a form of parody, in effect immune to exposition of its objective incoherence. The resulting demoralisation of its fogged hinterland is in fact the destination-state of the entire process.
Because such edifices of pseudo-reality lead to unrestrained amorality and illogic, they eventually collapse under their own weight, though not without bringing down the affected society along with them. It is self-evident that a utopia based on such foundations can never be achieved, so that all that can endure for any length of time is raw power and brute force. This inevitably means that many people will die, and entire societies may be brought to their knees, before the turnaround occurs.
The only way for the affected individual to emerge from the mass formation that serves to populate the pseudo-reality with compliant subjects is by first of all becoming aware of the incoherence of the ‘reality’ he is embroiled in. To achieve this, he firstly needs to follow his nose, trust his suspicions and repugnance, so that the inconsistencies and dissonances of the pseudo-reality become clearer and more inter-connected. This is why the ‘conspiracy theory’ device has been weaponised by the conspirators — as a kind of antidote to the early urges of the potentially awakening subject. If the subject becomes determined to get to the truth no matter what, the next step is to stand up, to resist, in small ways at first, then in bigger ways, then in entering into a ‘parallel reality’ — a real one, the antithesis of the pseudo-reality — in which he lives his life as though the pseudo-reality is not there (which it is not). This is what Václav Havel meant by ‘living in truth’. Finally, the awakening individual reaches the point of being able to engage in outright denouncement of the pseudo-reality and the Regime, pointing to the Emperor and shouting, ‘He is naked!’. This is risky, especially for the pioneer denouncers: To undertake this mission will at first involve confrontation with the amorality and illogic of the pseudo-reality, which may well turn fellow citizens into hostile defenders of the only reality they know.
What, ultimately, drives this? Of course, a large part of the answer can be encapsulated in one word — ‘money’ — or, rather, five words: what appears to be money.The extended policy of quantitive easing, practised by central banks for many years, and acceleratingly since April 2020, has ensured that there was a sufficiency of Toytown money available to buy all those necessary actors willing to be bought — a considerable quotient — who, once bought, behaved in the pseudo-reality as though they were responding to absolute reality. Observing this, the ordinary passer-by must, of habit, be inclined to regard the pseudo-reality as genuine, just as the Emperor was convinced by the tailors’s descriptions of his new clothes. The fact that governments have been prepared to expend previously unimaginable amounts of money on ‘fighting’ the ‘pandemic’ seems, on its face, to betoken gravity, sincerity and, above all, actuality. After all, before all this, the government couldn’t even afford to increase the number of beds in the republic’s hospitals; ergo, this must be a true and real crisis. What this ordinary passer-by is unaware of is that this ‘money’ will, at the moment of the introduction of the quasi-global Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), disappear like Cinderella’s princess dress at the stroke of some none-too-distant midnight, when the dials will all be reset to zero.
And, of course, we must not forget the physical, psychological and spiritual metamorphosis of perhaps two-thirds of the generality of populations by poison injection, which, by colonising their humanity with alien biosynthetic structures capable or replicating and supplanting their insides, rendered them amenable to the cultural conditions now being imposed.
This motley though non-exhaustive collection of factors help to explain the willingness of people to do and say crazy things as though they were perfectly normal. It is as though George Orwell had never existed, or at least had never written either Animal Farm or Nineteen Eighty-four, and that the phenomena described therein are unknown to the public, and therefore unrecognisable as they are rolled out in reality, in real time, to be greeted by nary even a raised eyebrow.
Up to about eight years ago, all this stuff remained beyond the Pale of possibility in our ‘free’, ‘democratic’ societies. Since about 2014, however, a profound virulence of menace has entered in, resulting from the powers-that-ought-not-to-be having quite clearly decided that democratic discussion is a luxury they are no longer prepared to countenance. With the aid of particular imported tools — political correctness, cancel culture, spell words, ‘hate speech’ — and their purchase of a media sector that was under existential threat from the world wide web and on the point of natural expiry, they have created a bubble of intolerance and orchestrated atmospheres of controlled hatred in our societies in which it is no longer possible to engage in public debate on certain matters without endangering your livelihood, serenity, friendships, family relationships and even personal safety.
In truth, the portents of our current undoing have been predictable for many years on the basis of the objectively bizarre phenomenon of so-called public representatives from multiple supposed democracies heading off to the annual WEF shindigs in Davos to hobnob with other wannabe tyrants with secret ambitions to sell out their own populations. The idea of a ‘club’ of international political leaders ought to be regarded as unthinkable in any democratic country, where politicians represent their electorates/citizens, and no one else. It is clear from the images that emanate from these occasions — the strutting and preening of these toxic traitors — that they see themselves as existing somehow separately from those who elected them. We have fallen a long way from democratic and republican ideals when Klaus Schwab, the nominal head of the WEF, is able to boast that he has ‘penetrated’ cabinets around the world to force his economic and social philosophies upon multiple former nations, thereby circumventing the inconvenience of the ballot box and in effect abducting the elected representatives of multiple alleged democracies, who go to Davos to bask in his approval and pseudo-affection.
The political actors responsible for the constrictions, cruelties and unasked-for changes inflicted on our lives and societies in the past three years have presided over the transfer of something in excess of $4 trillion from small and medium-sized businesses to the richest oligarchs in the world. This represents more than a straightforward upward transfer of wealth. This spectacular wealth transfer, when it is mentioned at all in public discussion, is treated as some odd collateral element of the ‘battle’ against the ‘pandemic.’ Of course it is nothing of the kind. It is germane to the central meaning and end-purpose of the lockdowns, and the reason, for example, why the World Bank has, since the outset, referred on its website to the ‘Covid Project.’ The key to understanding what has happened is to perceive that the electorates of the world have been deprived of their sovereignty — snatched from them under cover of a pseudo-emergency, and handed — along with the $4 trillion dollars — to the richest men (they are all male, and almost entirely Caucasian} in the world. In the new world thus initiated, ‘democracy’ will be driven not by the will of electorates/citizens, but by the requirements of the oligarchs who, as a consequence of the past three years, have successfully demanded the disabling and removal of the leverage previously exercised by voters, and its replacement with the leverage of pure capital. i.e. controlled wealth. The oligarchs are now, in a very real sense, the only ‘voters,’ at least the only ones that matter — voting in the secret ‘elections’ to which the masses of the world’s former democracies are not even alerted. The oligarchs agree to fund the political systems, and the political systems, through their political classes, agree to continue providing the oligarchs with whatever they need in order to continue growing ever richer, so they can abundantly cater for all the financial needs of the political system while incrementally gaining control over the whole world and everyone in it. It is said that this project of transformation operates on a need-to-know basis, that each operative in the chain of command knows only as much as his or her role requires, implying that politicians in general are largely in the dark, and to be accordingly assumed as far denser that we ever imagined. There is another school of thought in which the politicians of the world have been signed up to Faustian pacts by which they have agreed to deliver their fellow humans to slavery and perdition in return for favourable treatment in the coming dispensation, including ‘a seat on the Ark’ so they can make good their escape when, arising from their actions, the world as we know it collapses into itself. In reality, their usefulness to the Combine provides them with merely a shade more longevity than the rest of humanity.
It becomes clearer that the only reason we were permitted for so long to indulge our fantasies about rights and freedoms was because the means did not exist to corral us other than in ways that were too messy for people with delicate stomachs. Now that the means are available, it is a different matter. Hitler’s Third Reich, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s Cultural Revolution were all ideological projects devoted to abolishing contradiction from the human subject and reconstituting him as the less problematic posthuman. But the means in those times were inadequate to the ambition. Fundamentally, the elaborate ideologies of the last century sought to abolish the human soul, to eliminate the individual will, and to switch off the subjective consciousness of men. That was a beginning, a practice run. Now it is possible to intervene in the biological and cognitive levels of the human construction, changing these functions fundamentally. The remarkable discovery, recently tumbled to, and satisfactorily confirmed in the Covid Project, has been that man is programmable by the technologies already to hand. Moreover, by a certain imposable logic, human beings and technology had already started to converge, becoming so connected that they already formed a unit in virtually every sense but the physical. It was time, decided the soulless unknowns, to move on to the next phase: the abolition of the human soul. These few, themselves soulless beings, now seek to abolish the souls of the many, partly out of envy, being unable to live with the idea that something so beautiful and uncontainable could remain to them both seductive and obscure.
A world without soul would be a permanent world of lies, a world which denied that which is hidden and mysterious, a world that insisted on filling the vacant spaces with made-up stuff that has no life and therefore rings persistently false. A world of lies would be a world strung upon a false framework, a pseudo-reality passed off for the real thing. This, fundamentally is the world we were introduced to during the ‘Covid Project’: a world of lies within the world of the true, the rind passing off as the fruit. This is the true meaning of the word ‘Covid’.
John Waters Unchained is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This post is free, so feel free to share it.