How the Great Deception could actually work

In my e-book Seeing through Smoke, mainly written last year, I discussed how our times are really the first in history when the kind of final global deception, or “rebellion,” described in Scripture, might be able occur. This is because of the combination of global communications and institutions, and the sophisticated level of propaganda that has not only been understood, but comprehensively applied, over the last century. But I also wondered how such a delusion could gain the near-universal traction accorded it in Scripture, given the polarised nature of our political scene.

But maybe I didn’t give sufficient weight to the sheer power of what might be called “social contagion,” which has only really become evident in the lockstep imposition of oppressive, and counter-evidential, measures against SARS-CoV-2 across the world this year.

This element is stressed in the first book I’ve seen on this crisis, The Price of Panic, which went to print not long after the first wave of the pandemic eased, and so is conscious that in some ways it will already be out of date. That of course is true for any book on current society and politics, at a time when a day, rather than a week, is a long time.

The book is by two ID stalwarts, Jay Richards and Doug Axe, and by my favourite statistician William Briggs, who is more associated with the climate change controversy and similar modelling issues. Since the book is about neither controversy, what the authors have in common, I think, is their awareness at first hand of the power of hegemonic science to stifle discussion nowadays. That has been very evident throughout the whole COVID debacle.

So at the end of chapter 5, the “rush to lockdown” is explained thus:

[N]ow there is overwhelming evidence that we fell under the spell – not of a conspiracy, but of a global social contagion.

The authors’ main point is that, unlike even a recent comparable pandemic like swine flu, social media has this time around been a ubiquitous cause of the social contagion of, primarily, fear. Panic, after all, is the most primal of social emotions: seldom does a wave of calm rationality sweep through a mob. The apocalyptic models of Imperial College and elsewhere, taken up and promulgated as truth by the WHO, first captured the hearts of the social media addicts, which may begin to explain why initially cautious state scientists suddenly became converts to authoritarianism, and why libertarian politicians like Boris Johnson jumped from defending Britons’ “inalienable right to visit the pub” to alienating such visits by whopping great fines and enforced closures.

The underlying truth this all shows is just how strong a force for evil mere social conformity is, and not only amongst the general public. Some of the independent and retired scientists standing behind things like the Great Barrington Declaration, mystified by the unexpected censures and even enmity of their professional colleagues that fly in the face of established science, frequently report how, in private, many say they agree with them, but “I have my career and my family to consider.” Interesting that, because exactly the same thing is said by academic opponents of climate alarmism, string theory, intersectional theories, dietary medicine and Intelligent Design. It’s less a pattern than a contemporary template for the profession of science.

So we get a confluence of purely social pressures: a majority of people are both intellectually too lazy to investigate for themselves, are easily led by “official” pronouncements, especially when these use fear as a weapon, and are keen to jump on bandwagons for their socially-accepted narratives by being the first in line to report those they perceive to be disobedient or get a free test for purposes even the government isn’t clear about.

In the social media age, the sheer force of these herd-stampedes makes the rest of the livestock justly fearful to swim against the stream. So even scientists are willing to perjure their scientific integrity to keep in with the crowd (and gain tenure and funding, I guess). Once that line of integrity is crossed, the convert becomes more bigoted than the true believers were. As for the politicians, they are not only ignorant of science and apparently overawed by its high priests, but even more obviously swayed by what they see as the public mood, via Facebook and Twitter. And the press, as our authors point out, are almost entirely ruled by the desire for ratings and revenue, and so they too take their cue from social media trends.

And so paradoxically the panicking sheep, ultimately, rule with an iron fist. It’s a reasonable certainty that evils like black lynchings in the Southern States were less motivated by individual racism than by the irrational fear of the mob – the same irrational force now being deliberately inculcated in the name of anti-racism against equally blameless victims

There are other problems with the press, I should add – Nick Davies’s Flat Earth News is still worth a read on this, but was written before the massive political bias of mainstream media became obvious to any discriminating observer. Likewise, the identical bias in all the social media platforms, which has led to frank censorship, “fact checking” and algorithms that amount to propaganda tools, should not be underestimated in seeing why the force of social conformity has become so irresistable in COVID, as it is less glaringly in other issues like climate and woke morality.

On the face of it, for the chairman of the UK Football Association to have to resign because of omitting one conjunction in laying out his opposition to racism (he said “coloured players” instead of “players of colour”) is more than absurd. It is in fact ethically superficial, judgemental and divisive. But it only takes social media users, who know that someone (who, exactly, and with what mandate?) has decreed that “coloured” is racist, but “of colour” is not, and a distinguished career is over. And they know this because press and social media feed them that line so pervasively that asking its origin and justification is superfluous. “Everybody knows…” except presumably the Chairman of the FA, who either doesn’t use social media or is fed by a different algorithm. The answer to that, of course, is to get everyone on social media and standardise the algorithms.


And this brings us to the devilish bit. The Price of Panic prefers social contagion to conspiracy theories, but still reports some real conspiracies in relation to COVID. And so it is highly suspicious (as I, like others, have long pointed out) that the WHO sang the song of the Chinese Communist Party in downplaying the pandemic when it was first spreading, and in recommending historically unprecedented and previously discredited (in their own literature) lockdowns as an urgent measure. The WHO now weeps crocodile tears about their ill-effects, but too late.

I could add, in the UK context, how although the WHO was roundly condemned by the EU’s official report for its corruption with regard to the swine flu epidemic, because 1/3 of its advisers had interests in vaccine companies which affected its policy, the UK’s SAGE has 12 out of 20 of its main advisers with such vaccine interests, and the government itself has invested in vaccine projects and received funds for them from the Gates Foundation. These financial interests favoured the type of social contagion that resulted, and so are highly suspicious.

The book also points out how the US press (and ours aping it) decided early on that whatever President Trump did was wrong – he was criticised across the board for rightly shutting the borders with China when the WHO denied it was necessary, and for failing to lock down when, rightly, he said there was no good science to support it. In other words, the relentless one-way pressure of the press on public opinion was a strategic policy, not a mere response to the public mood. That’s conspiracy.

In other words, passive and unplanned social contagion may well be the force which directly produces the results. But it is also very possible that cannier groups of people, who have studied how to manage public opinion, might be able to pull its strings deliberately. In the case of COVID, we know at the national level that this is so, because behavioural psychologists have been prominent in SAGE (unlike more basic skills like immunology), guiding the government not on how best to inform the public, but on how to ensure they comply, not least through engendering fear. They have done their job well, even, it appears, through the seeding of social media by the infamous 77th Brigade, an army unit formed to subvert the populations of hostile nations through social media, but now used to keep us on message. It does this by flooding social media and comment columns with the official line, using fake “Joe Public” identities. I think Scripture refers to that as “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” but the government probably uses a blander term.

At the global level it is scarcely a conspiracy theory (because they have announced it themselves) that the World Economic Forum are hoping to initiate a Great Reset of the world’s political and economic system at Lucerne next May. Prince Charles heralded the revolution on Remembrance Day. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are all for it. WEF posters are appearing around the country saying that in ten years we won’t own anything, but will be happy. The details are all on their website, and match pretty well exactly what the tin-hat brigade has been saying about the Illuminati and the Bilderbergers for decades.

They have announced a new world order of co-operation between all in a golden future, but what they have not announced is a democratic process for consulting the world’s peoples about it. And oddly enough, politicians in parliaments from Britain to Australia are still dismissing it as a conspiracy theory, so the man in the bus or the woman in the pew is reassured there’s nothing to see. Except the posters and the broadcasts by the next king. We can all keep on making sure we wear our masks and avoid talking to people about things above our pay-grade.

It seems that the biggest 1,000 globalist corporations (including the big pharmaceutical companies, oil concerns, banks, commercial monopolies like Amazon and Google, and the social media giants) can sort it out all by themselves, like the true lovers of mankind they have always shown themselves to be. I would guess this process would require that the whole idea spread to the sheep by pandemic social contagion, and that the rest will be forced to comply by social pressure. It’s still a conspiracy, though.

You can perhaps appreciate that with a sufficiently centralised 4th wave technocratic capitalism controlling every transaction, owning all the media, and having a savvy eye and boundless resources for propaganda and censorship, it would be by no means impossible, if such a thing ever became desirable, to assemble the governments of the world to fight a decisive battle against some agreed enemy of the checked facts and civilised norms, and for all the conscript combatants to agree before they were even asked.

It also becomes more realistic to see how some single sticking point might become the line at which the truly elect in Christ would finally say, “Enough, already!”. However, I would like to think the churches might be more active than they are in understanding what’s going on in the world, well before that crunch comes. One neglected method would be to compare the Great Reset with those Scriptures warning us of the Final Deception.

Let’s leave the last word (with some interruptions) to Klaus Schwarb of the WEF, mastermind of your benevolent new world order, which is scheduled to start this very twelve-month.

Jon Garvey

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Medicine, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to How the Great Deception could actually work

  1. Peter Hickman says:

    Today on the Andrew Marr show a Labour shadow cabinet minister called for primary legislation to deal with anti-vaccine disinformation on social media; she proposed that social media executives should be subject to substantial fines for allowing it, and that they should be subject to criminal charges for repeated offences.
    During the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic (now over) I have already seen the censorship of unconventional views and the removal of their proponents from Facebook, so this call is beyond the thin edge of the wedge.

    If such legislation was enacted, and I wished to post an opinion such as, “I am not convinced that the MHRA is entirely independent of government influence and it behoves us to rigorously test any claims it makes about the safety of a Sars-CoV-2 vaccine”, this opinion, although conservatively worded, may well be censored by deletion. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not (currently) hold this view but I think that I should not be prohibited from expressing it.

    We remember the MMR debacle. Censorship was not the answer, and is never a good way to respond to unorthodox views.

  2. Jon Garvey Jon Garvey says:

    Peter

    The scenario I imagined when I heard that is the GP in Manchester who writes to the Lancet about two cases of new and suspicious death or disability in those who have been vaccinated. He finds there’s no room this month for his letter, but hears a similar story from his colleague in Biggleswade, and posts about it on Facebook, only to have it removed and a visit from the thought police. He’s salaried, so he gets the sack.

    More and more of these cases crop up, but by then it’s pretty clear that whistleblowers will pay the price in jobs and reputations, so most doctors shrug and hope they’re wrong. And so it takes forever to be flagged – or never, if the Great Reset takes over come May.

    This is not implausible – the dangers of lead in petrol were well known at the time, but were suppressed by commercial and academic interests, so it took over 50 years to sort out, even without a censored press and “misinformation” laws.

Leave a Reply