Project Fear

There appears be a chasm between sections of the ruling class (i.e., moneychangers and powers-that-be) concerning “lockdown” over “super-duper corona” mass incarceration. One side favors easing restrictions. The other side, which is supported by “mainstream” media and the Project Fear campaign, favors an indefinite “lockdown.”

Unsurprisingly, the masses have been sequestered in fear long enough to spawn the numerous psychopathologies as previously described in Notes. The rank-and-file peons are afraid to leave their residences (read: agoraphobia), and they have become afraid of other people (read: anthropophobia). And, most of all, the wage slaves are “scared shitless” of returning supposed universally infected workplaces. The longer “lockdown” in effect, the symptoms and co-pathologies increase.

In a recent op-ed piece, Norman Lewis observed:

From the outset, most governments have adopted the Project Fear approach to dealing with the threat posed by COVID-19. We were all at risk, we were told. The virus didn’t respect borders, age, class, ethnicity or race, they said, as if the virus had a conscious plan to smite all of humanity indiscriminately. Lockdowns were necessary to flatten the curve and protect the health service. 

But we now know that a lot of this was just fearmongering and exaggeration. It is clear that there are important differences in the level of threat COVID-19 represents; that it is possible to develop a strategy that can protect the vulnerable and the health service while not shutting down the economy upon which we all depend for everything in life. Flattening the curve did not require riding roughshod over basic freedoms and the critical reproduction of economic life. It required a balanced, sober strategy, with targeted support and resources for where they were really needed. 

How can anyone now be shocked when the fear-driven, excessively policed public now feels a deep trepidation and a sense of increased vulnerability, nervous that returning to work would be like putting your head above a First World War trench at the Somme? A desire to cocoon yourself in the security of locked doors with access to technology that can allow communications with work, family and friends – but steer clear of pestilence – was not irrational. It was inevitable.

In conclusion, Lewis opined:

This is tragically short-sighted, because what everyone seems to be missing is that there is no ‘public’ anymore – just a collection of fearful, atomised individuals, isolated from society and living in trepidation of the future. This fractured caricature of society represents a barrier to the kind of social solidarity, organisation, and vision that will be needed to get over the impact of this crisis and the future repercussions of disastrous decisions like shutting down the economy.

This begs the question as to why so-called “powerful interests” are seeking to extend the “lockdown.” Is Wall Street on this side, or is it the “Deep State”?