Introduction
We’re still in a very strange and unprecedented situation regarding the COVID pandemic. I mean this in the political sense, the psychological sense, the cultural sense, the technological sense, and just about any other sense I could mean it. Did we forget? I think many have. The restrictive and coercive measures, even outright uses of force, have successfully been normalized and are now largely tolerated even by those who object. I’ve hesitated to use this space to address issues surrounding the pandemic. I wanted to make sure that, when I did, it would be of broad utility to you all. I suspect a very large percentage of those who subscribe to this content share my concerns about the breadth and degree of dishonesty, propaganda, and coercion. It’s perfectly normal in this situation to feel destabilized by the tactics used to gain our compliance. Because there is real pressure. Ultimatums are being posed. Threats are being made. And there are consequences for not falling in line.
In a way, I’m in a rare position to help. And I was beginning to feel that not doing so on this platform was a disservice to you all. I’ve developed skills and insights over the years that equip me to maintain a level head, make rational decisions and set boundaries against bad incentives—whether my own or someone else’s. The manipulative tactics currently flooding the socio-political landscape are pernicious and unfortunately, for most people, very persuasive. It has even progressed to the point of invading family and friendship dynamics. But I knew it would. Beginning in October 2019 when I first began to sense something was wrong, I tried to warn people. When after some time I realized most were not catching on, I wrote “A Portrait in The Style of Perspectivism.” I wanted to highlight the risk that this pandemic would be used in service of profit and tyranny. I wanted to outline the human shortcomings that would make this more likely. But admittedly the contents of that piece were abstract, perhaps vague, and didn't offer any application for these insights in the context of the Pandemic. In part I was trying to be too conservative, as many of the facts were uncertain at the time. My aim here is to be more practical and specific to the COVID situation—more specifically, to help outline some of the common strategies used to pressure, coerce, threaten, shame, gaslight, and otherwise deliberately manipulate the public.
When I say I’m in a rare position to help, I mean this in a very specific sense. I’ve done things very differently in my life—and not because I was trying to be different. I just saw things how I saw them, then acted accordingly. As a result, I was met at nearly every turn with criticism, fear, anger, warnings, threats, even aggression when my thinking and behavior didn’t match any recognizable template. I’ll leave the details of those stories for another time. My point is, most cultures aren’t structured with intelligent, far-seeing people in mind. They aim to groom compliant, moderately industrious workers who punch in on time day after day, year after year, and punch out without asking questions. So you can expect resistance in most cultures when you think and act as if you have better plans for your life. How very dare you, after all. Who are you to trust so much in your own experience and capacity? Such arrogance.
I understand it’s a bit of a paradox, and this is something I’ve struggled with for decades: those with traits that lead them to think and act more independently can grow accustomed to being different; they develop introspective and intra-personal strategies to help them manage the reality of their exceptional nature. “Why should I need reassurance?” they might ask. “The copy-paste opinions of the mob don’t weigh anything to me. Their disapproval of me is no exception. I’m fine.”
It might be true that over time it’s possible to detach from the fluctuations of herd opinion. This is healthy for intelligent and independent types. But it’s dangerous to take this too far and discount our biology. We evolved in social contexts, small tribal groups in which people all knew and relied on each other directly. In these contexts the approval or disapproval of others really mattered. It often meant the difference between living or dying, or at least between a fulfilling life and an insufferable one.
Everyone, yes everyone (unless you are a psychopath in strict psychometric terms), has a fear of isolation. The fear of being alone is pervasive. And I don’t mean alone for a little while; I mean alone existentially, completely, and permanently.
Everyone, yes everyone, has a fear of danger or threats to livelihood. The hostility of other humans is one danger to which we have developed extraordinary sensitivity.
And everyone, without exception, is afraid they might be somehow defective. A fear of permeant, personal, fundamental deficiency is common to you and everyone you’ve ever met.
I encourage you to recognize the potential for the current sociopolitical atmosphere to trigger these fears and to perpetuate cycles of reactive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Subtle or gross, no matter who you are, these reactions impact what it’s like to be you—in experience and action. In offering my observations of the typical bad-faith tactics commonly used in the context of COVID to prey on these natural fear impulses, I hope you’ll be able to familiarize yourselves with these and become less susceptible to their influence.
A Lexicon
I won’t outline the following tactics in terms of logical fallacies or their formal terms. Really they are much more than that. I want to capture not only their logical incoherence, but also their emotionally manipulative characteristics. These are smoke bombs and mirages, designed to sow confusion, fear, and self doubt among the sane and self-assured.
1. Tautological Criteria for Expertise and Information
“Name one credible expert or public figure who doesn’t agree with me.”
In logic, a tautological fallacy is a form of circular reasoning that relies on an immutable and unmovable premise which is true in every possible case and refers back to itself as the conclusion by virtue of definition rather than by valid reasoning. Yeah I know, that was complicated. But the example I just gave will prove helpful. When they say, “Name one credible expert…” they are really saying, “There are no credible experts or public figures who disagree with me.” This is the premise. It is immutable because they get to define what is credible. If for example an expert has been labeled as a conspiracy theorist, this is enough to discredit them.
And who does the labeling? The very same people who make this argument. The problem is, their premise relies on a definition of “credible” that is always fluid and written by them. So then, unsurprisingly, this premise refers back to itself as the conclusion: “You see, I told you: no credible experts or public figures disagree with me.” Don’t be fooled. They haven’t made an argument. What they’ve said translates to, “Everyone who holds my position agrees with me.” Perfect tautology.
They use this same strategy to make people think “the science” is one coherent body of work that happens to support their narrative. “I follow the science,” they boast. Okay, which science? The “credible” science? Of course any science cited to the contrary will be discredited by virtue of their definition of credible, which magically changes when applied to their own sources of information. So we’re left with only the science that happens to align with their narrative. Same tactic. “All of the science that aligns with my position supports my point.” Perfect tautology. This demonstrates nothing except that they lack any awareness that they've rigged the game. You don’t have to play a rigged game.
2. Passive-Aggressive Moral Posturing
“I’m disappointed in you.” Or, “You can do better.”
The aim of these statements is to sneak up to the moral high ground without anyone noticing. Without even needing to make an argument, without citing experience or information, anyone who uses these phrases implies they have access to the correct perspective, to the model of integrity, and that you have somehow not met their standards. They have tried to position themselves above you, as someone who holds the measuring stick. But once again, they haven’t actually accomplished anything—aside from moral posturing and passive-aggressive shaming. This can be tricky, because it isn’t overtly aggressive. By claiming to be disappointed or that you could do better, they also imply they have high hopes for you and want you to do well. This manipulation can make it difficult for many to set proper boundaries against this aggression and combat it when necessary. But passive aggression is aggression. And it should be treated as such—perhaps even more harshly.
3. Stereotyping
It’s common for those under the spell of the mainstream mirage to portray everyone who contests any policy about the pandemic response as one homogeneous group. One such stereotype is that those who question the safety of COVID vaccines or their mandates is an “anti-vaxxer.” This term connotes a person who is against all vaccines unconditionally. This is a misleading stereotype because it isn’t an accurate representation of even the average person who questions or objects to these vaccines. Most, like myself, are not against all vaccines; nor are they against all mandates. It’s rather that we have objections in this specific context. Merely by using terms like “anti-vaxxer,” they can cause frustration and self doubt among anyone who questions the narrative, by grouping them all together as extremists possessed by dogmatic anti-vaccine ideology. Any effort to contest this will fall on deaf ears.
Another common trope is that everyone who is against lockdowns, sudden forced business closures, COVID vaccine and mask mandates, travel and work restrictions, etc., must be motived by a selfish, calloused disregard for the vulnerable. They must be either so nearsighted, or so cold, that they cannot empathize with policy makers (who were merely backed into an impossible corner) and those susceptible to poor outcomes from infection. This one is especially pernicious, as it attacks one of the the fundamental things that make us functioning humans. Those who are accused of falling in this category can’t help but ask themselves, if only for a moment, “Is there something wrong with me? Am I cold and uncaring? Is that really what’s motivating me? Am I defective because I’m selfish and can’t empathize with others?” In reality this is not the reason for most people’s skepticism. The attempt to paint it this way is the height of deception and emotional manipulation.
I’m frequently called a Trump supporter online and elsewhere, and accused of having no empathy. Anyone who knows me has to laugh at these. And that’s the point. There is no other response but to laugh. I’ve tried explaining. “No, actually I’m not against all vaccines. No, actually the reason I’m concerned with mandates is that they set precedents for other…” But you’ll be cut off before you finish, like trying to explain your entrepreneurial ventures to drunk Carl at a small-town bar. He’s not listening, even though he asked you. And whatever you say, he’s just going to repeat one of three prefabricated responses that fit you into his small perception of the world. He didn’t ask you because he wanted to know what you do; he asked you because he wanted today something. We know not to argue with Carl. And certainly we know not to allow his very limited ideas influence our self perception.
4. Nebulous Threats
“You’ll be sorry when you or someone you know gets COVID.” Will I, though? Because almost everyone I know has had it, and fully recovered. For the most part symptoms were more mild than a normal flu. Many didn't even know they had it until they got an antibody test, as they had no symptoms. This vague threat is baseless and not in line with the statistical risk of negative outcomes for healthy populations. Sure, if you are close to someone who is at a high statistical risk of negative outcome from COVID infection, then maybe wait to spend time with them until you’ve gotten the virus and fully recovered (which is bound to happen, by the way). Take an antibody test; they’re cheap. Even vaccination won’t prevent you from spreading COVID to others—as is demonstrated by data from Israel and the UK, two of the most vaccinated countries currently. But there’s no point in telling them this. Their intention is to scare you. Any reasonable arguments you make in response will just be taken as a sign their tactic didn’t work, so they’ll move on to the next one. They don’t care about the truth; they want you to comply. And you don’t have to. Not yet anyway.
5. Gaslighting
This has developed a reputation as an extreme and highly manipulative emotional abuse reserved for the truly malicious. Bu the reality is that it exists on a spectrum, and almost everyone does it and has been victim to it. Any time you knowingly lied to someone about anything, big or small, and it caused them to question their own judgement or perception, this qualifies. Gaslighting is deliberately denying facts in a way leads someone to doubt their own experience.
An obvious example of this is changing the story over time. Remember when they said vaccines would prevent infection? “99% effective,” remember? Remember when they said they would stop transmission? When anyone questions these blatant mistakes (or lies), the response is to claim the expectation and intention for the vaccines all along was just to reduce the risk of severe illness and death—so they are doing exactly what we wanted them to do. This is simply not what was claimed. And they know this. Remember when they promised those who got vaccinated wouldn’t have to wear a mask? Remember when they said all of these measures would stop when a certain percentage of the population got vaccinated or recovered from COVID and we reached herd immunity? Those benchmarks were reached in many places, and the promise was not kept. But when challenged, authorities make excuses or deny they ever said these things altogether. But they never say “Sorry, you’re right, we did say that but we made a mistake or lied because we thought we had to.” As a result, the questioner is led to think, “Is my memory failing me? Did they really never say that the vaccines were 99% effective at preventing infection?” This is gaslighting.
Another more subtle example is the use of doublespeak and other sophistic uses of language to hide intentions. A very recent case is CNN’s news coverage of Joe Rogan’s use of Ivermectin to recover from COVID. CNN’s “journalists” and broadcasters claimed that Joe was advertising his use of Ivermectin, a “horse deworming” medication. Likely you've already heard this story. Ivermectin is primarily a human medication, prescribed by doctors—many of whom have incorporated its use as part of in-vitro COVID intervention. It won a Nobel Prize for its use as an anti-parasitic in humans. It’s widely accepted as a human medication, is FDA approved, and has been used this way for decades. It is also used, though with different standards of purity and manufacturing, for veterinary purposes. This is true of many medications, and we do not refer to those medications by the veterinary use when they are prescribed to humans. And yet journalist after journalist referred to Ivermectin as a horse deworming medication. There was an obvious agenda to discredit Joe and the use of Ivermectin with one simple trope. It was catchy, and they knew it. They also know the general public is not educated enough to be able to spot this convenient misrepresentation. And when Joe called them on this obvious sophistry, claiming that they lied, he fell right into their trap. Predictably, they doubled down; because they had not actually “lied,” strictly speaking. They had only misled the public on a technicality, using doublespeak to hide a more machiavellian intent.
The conversation around COVID and Ivermectin is at this point well established. CNN has covered the controversy on multiple occasions. Never before had they referred to it as a horse dewormer. They knew exactly what they were doing. And yet when they were challenged on this they maintained that Ivermectin is indeed used as a horse dewormer, which is not technically a lie, so they did nothing wrong. But everyone who watched that coverage knows they characterized Ivermectin as a horse dewormer in reference to Joe’s use. He did not use a horse dewormer; he used a human anti-parasitic prescribed by a doctor. And yet, those who saw the coverage can only shrug, “I guess technically they didn't lie,” while the network smirks and crosses its fingers behind its back. This is gaslighting.
Gaslighting is one of the most poisonous strategies listed here. When these instances accumulate, it deeply distorts perception. We are left with the intuition that something is amiss. But whenever we express this feeling, we’re led to believe we’re delusional or at least misinformed. You can practice noticing this fist in more casual circumstances, with acquaintances for example, and this will help you develop skill to parse out the more subtle and complex instances.
6. Downplaying
“Come on, really? It’s only a mask. You’re seriously complaining? It’s only a vaccine. We require kids to get vaccines all the time to go to school, or when you travel to places with malaria. It’s only a few weeks of business closure and travel restrictions. It’s not so bad, just think about those who are dying from the virus. In comparison, a little jab and restrictions in restaurants and cinemas aren’t so bad. It’s just conspiracy theory garbage that’s being censored, and only on privately owned platforms. You can’t yell ‘bomb’ in a cinema, right?”
This strategy is often combined, as demonstrated in these cases, with false equivalencies. “You don’t complain about seatbelt or drunk driving laws, so why make a big deal about this?” In the end, these are all strategies to falsely downplay what is actually a serious situation.
It’s not “just” restaurants and cinemas, is it? We understood from the start that this would set a precedent, and there would be nothing standing in the way of implementing these restrictions in all public indoor places eventually. And here we are.
It’s not just “a little jab.” These vaccines ate not equivalent to other vaccines. There are very serious short and long-term side effects. And we are now learning the prevalence of these side effects is unprecedented. Further, by accepting mandates for one and two vaccine doses we have set a precedent for mandating boosters indefinitely; we’re already seeing the initial phases of this.
It’s not “just a few weeks or months of business closures and restricted operation. it’s coming up on two years now. And still the government can at any point shut down businesses on the basis of “case numbers.”
The censorship is not only for crazy conspiracy theories and blatant misinformation. Legitimate medical experts and discussions are being silenced systematically on nearly all public platforms. And governments like in the United States are instructing these “private” companies on exactly how they should be censoring speech on their platforms and services. This is a clear violation of the first amendment. It’s not “just” a little censorship of misinformation. We have set a precedent for the government to define and enforce their own definition of misinformation.
The measures being taken here are grave. And the consequences are grave, too. Notice when those with an incentive to downplay the severity of the situation try to persuade you that you’re overreacting.
7. Alienation
“Look, everyone else is cooperating, so what’s your problem?”
Those pushing the mainstream narrative have made great efforts to paint “the unvaccinated” as a very small, petulant, selfish minority who stomp their feet in protest against what they know is the only socially responsible decision. They want those who won’t comply with their demands to feel isolated, and not only by accident. And not only this. They want us to believe our loss of liberties is our fault, the fault of our stubborn selfishness. In reality we are not isolated. Many share our perspective. And our position is in most cases quite moderate. And our loss of liberties is not our fault; it is blatantly and unequivocally theirs—the fault of the policy makers, enforcers, defenders, and evangelists. You have done nothing wrong by trusting in your natural immunity and questioning the actions of these pathological liars grasping at money and control.
At this point I feel a bit like Sean Maguire in his office with Will Hunting. But I feel it has to be said, all the same. “You see this shit? All this shit. It’s not your fault.” And it’s really not. Like Will, I know many of you are very intelligent. And like Will I know you can understand on an intellectual level that all of this is fucked up, and it’s not your fault that it’s happening. “Yeah I know that,” Will says under his breath and shrugs. But no matter how intelligent a person is, this stuff effects us on an emotional level that can be difficult to access. It takes consistent practice to reliably spot and unravel the emotional impact of what’s happening. So I do hope you will take this lexicon and allow it to help with the process. But in the meantime, I’ll say it once again. What’s being done to us to not okay, and it’s not your fault.
D