This is part three in a series on Pandemic Culture. Please read Part 1, and Part 2 before reading this. <3
It’s not about logic at the end of the day, though, is it? I already knew that, but it felt important to make my case anyway. I’m not under the illusion that I’m a journalist. But it felt ethically, spiritually important to say my bit, as best as I could. For myself if for no one else. For the vibrancy of my throat chakra, for the sake of the flow of life force that becomes impeded when we succumb to self-censorship.
I’m not trying to convince anyone. It’s generally not possible, and not a state of mind I wish to inhabit. And yet, it still feels important to express myself and stand in my truth, even if it convinces no one. Besides, most of you reading this are already well aware of these ideas. I know I’m writing about these things rather late in the game. But as I said in the introduction to this series, I believe it’s important to reflect on the past years, and all that has transpired, in the interest of our collective future.
Most of us who have been following alternative narratives have also been following the work of the psychologist Mattias Desmet who studies the history of totalitarianism and mass formation. He offers an explanation for how we could have allowed such censorship, extreme measures, divisive, tactics, inordinate losses of freedoms.
When people are afraid and isolated, when there is a lot of generalized anxiety floating around for which there is no clear focus (which might as well describe the predominant mental state pre-pandemic, exacerbated by fear-based reporting and lockdown measures), then when a clear target for the state of fear and anxiety is presented (virus), with a clear solution (measures + vaccine), a new social bond is formed. The social bond is importantly not between individuals, but between each individual and The Group. As such, it is not solidarity as we normally understand it.
In a psychological state of fear and isolation, the promise of a social bond is so great that people are willing to go along with just about anything. Psychologically, meaning and a clear focus for our efforts, are so much more important than logic. (Of course, most of us are unaware of the psychological forces that drive us, and at the time it feels entirely rational.) People were led to believe that following the measures was an act of solidarity (even when solidarity meant not visiting dying relatives or foregoing funerals, which Agamben points out is virtually unheard of in human history).
We have a common enemy and an apparently self-evident solution. Anyone who questions the proposed solutions must be silenced for they threaten the solidarity and new social bond that is the only salve for our isolation and anxiety and fear. Thus even experts who had logical counter arguments were forcibly suppressed, creating the conditions in which dialogue and debate were not allowed, and which, as I’ve argued, creates the conditions in which knowledge is not possible.
In an article published in late 2021 (that I just discovered a few days ago), neurosurgeon Russell Baylock puts it this way:
“I have never seen such an enormous effort by government, medical bureaucracies, media, private institutions, and even medical institutions to prevent dissenting views from being openly discussed — even the opinions of highly qualified scientists in every field of medicine from epidemiology, infectious disease, virology, pathology, and protective equipment engineering. This includes removal of dissenting physician’s licenses, loss of hospital privileges and retraction of peer-reviewed, published articles from the medical literature.[34,36] Science, as any true scientist should know, can only advance by an open discussion of all points of view — especially dissenting viewpoints. Science advances by challenging hypotheses and prevailing theories. Institutionalized views stifle scientific advancement and will, especially in clinical medicine, ultimately harm people. These rigid viewpoints become ideological in that any dissent from the particulars of the orthodoxy constitutes a cause for a vicious attack and shunning.[17]”
This kind of group psychology necessitates scapegoats, that historical figure who makes a convenient target for humanity’s suppressed rage. “The unvaccinated” obviously are the new scapegoat with supposed progressives emboldened to banish those who were once their friends, denying them of community and care for what should be a private medical decision, despite the utter lack of rationality, for we well know that there are very many conditions that lead to illness and transmissibility, and if we are to start shunning people because we view them as a “threat”, we should shun people who have preexisting conditions, or who are immunocompromised, or who are overweight (for they are all also more likely to get sick and therefore transmit), and that’s very clearly not a road to go down.
Of course people will claim that’s different, it’s not their fault, whereas not getting vaccinated is willingly putting others at risk. This narrow logic is wearing thin. I wrote about this already last summer. There is simply no logical rationale for excluding the unvaccinated, especially because by now most of us know the vaccines are only moderately effective, and only for a limited time frame, and they also carry significant risks. I’m not about to try to make a medical case here. I don’t have that capacity. But I think by now most of us realize the science is not what we were told.
Shunning the unvaccinated isn’t about safety or health. It’s about shunning those who refuse the new social bond, the new culture of “solidarity”. They must be punished for not sacrificing themselves on the altar of biomedicine–meaning, accept a potentially risky experimental treatment they may not need for the sake of the group–for not selflessly forgoing concerns about their own health. They must be punished for they threaten this new social order that resolves our fear and anxiety. The unvaccinated don’t pose a medical threat, but a psychological one. And scapegoating feels good to people who engage in it. They feel righteous and powerful and in control.
As Aldous Huxley once said: "The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."
The rhetoric around the unvaccinated clearly shows that it’s not about medicine, but about scapegoating:
The simplistic logic that equates vaccination with compassion (despite the utter lack of compassion in this position–is there anything more selfish than insisting others undergo a medical procedure against their will to make you feel safe?) is itself indicative of group psychology. The principles of informed consent that are precisely meant to protect against medical malpractice have been utterly denied by this logic that bullies and coerces people into accepting treatment they may not actually want, and that may actually be unnecessary or unadvisable: for people who don’t have a high risk of dying from Covid (young, healthy people for instance, and especially children who have a minuscule chance of dying), the risk of treatment may outweigh the potential benefit from treatment, and in that case, from a medical perspective, they should not take the treatment. Never before have we accepted that an individual should put themselves at risk medically for the sake of others.
It’s never been about logic, rationality, or science. People can use logic to argue nearly anything while simultaneously ignoring any information that contradicts their perspective. People will dismiss an entire perspective because of one point they disagree with, or the mention of one doctor who has been publicly defamed. The funny thing about when people accuse others of confirmation bias is that we all do it. It applies just as much to the person making the accusation as to anyone else.
We can fixate on details and quibble over technicalities. But what about the big picture? What about the consequences of all that is justified by our logic? What about extenuating circumstances, confounding variables, unintended consequences, externalities, systemic effects? What about the ways we rationalize bullying and condemning and punishing people? All these can be easily ignored if our logic is too narrow. But narrow logic still feels logical to those who use it.
(Speaking of confirmation bias, I suspect people may write off the interview I share below, and all of Desmet’s work, because of the interviewer. But in this climate, only people who are already on the fringe are willing to do this work, to speak with people like Desmet, to critique the dominant narratives. So please, evaluate Desmet’s work on its own terms. I can’t account for everything an interviewer has ever said.)
In perhaps my favourite interview yet with Mattias Desmet, after so coherently making his case that what is taking place needs to be understood as mass formation, a group psychological state similar to hypnosis, in which people barely notice that nearly everything could be taken from them, in which people willingly give up their rights and freedoms, which historically has led to humanity’s worst atrocities, he ends by saying that while we are unlikely to be able to convince anyone, it is nevertheless our ethical duty to, as coherently as we can, speak our truth.
Even if we don’t change anyone’s minds, the very presence of counternarratives can affect the evolution of mass formation, preventing the worst potentials from occurring. If we all remain silent, we effectively silently consent and empower more and more ruthless policies (for if you think this political context is over, I’m sorry, I seriously doubt that–especially in Canada). Simply by standing in our truth we can alter the course of history.
This is true, not only of experts, not only of those who have a platform, but for ordinary people as well. We don’t need a youtube channel or a blog in order to stand in our truth. Simply by standing in our truth in our ordinary lives we contribute to the critical mass that is required to prevent the worst case scenario.
I can’t say it’s easy. Over the course of the past year as I’ve written, with more and more boldness, about my perspective, I’ve lost large swaths of subscribers (though never more than after the last post). I’ve lost clients. I’ve lost friends. I’ve been shut out of communities. My livelihood has been threatened. My psychological state has at times been precarious. (And none of this is to say poor me–for anyone who has gone against the dominant narratives has experienced something similar). But finally, the impossible feeling of self-censorship, of silencing myself, of fretting over how people will respond to my words, became more unbearable than the possibility of losing friends, community, and clients.
And while many people have unsubscribed, I feel closer to those of you who are still here–whether you agree with me or not, you’ve stuck around, and for that, I’m grateful. Desmet has also shared how it’s usually only about 20% of society who is truly swept up into the mass formation. About 20% remain totally unscathed. And the majority are simply somewhere in the middle, going along with things, but not caught up in the formation. There are plenty of people in a sort of middle ground who are open to reason. Maybe some just haven’t been exposed to alternative narratives. The state of censorship means that truth is hard to come by. So even if it feels important to not try to convince people, there are people out there who might yet come around, and who are coming around every day. I’m finding that plenty of people have quietly shifted their views over the past months. The media doesn’t in any way represent the majority view.
But I’m through with being careful and tentative. There was a long period where I wanted to try to bridge the gap. I wanted to try to speak carefully with my loved ones, to see if we couldn’t find some common ground. But the days of being careful are over (which is certainly not to say I don’t still love my loved ones who see things differently).
Now what I want is to connect with those of you who more or less have a similar perspective as I do–or who are open minded to it at least. While I’m wary of echo chambers, it’s becoming clear that we need each other. We need community. We need to support one another. We need to cultivate spaces in which we are allowed to be, and we see one another, and we foster our own kind of solidarity–true solidarity–between individuals, not with The Group–and together grow stronger.
It’s hard to let go. I get attached. But I know it’s time. Past time. To let go of what was and embrace what might be. To open up to new relationships, new communities, new ways of being. To allow for the shifting and reconfiguring that these times are asking for as we identify and align differently in the interest of ushering in a more beautiful world.