Controlled Participation and COVID

Oct 18th rant

This morning I found a great video about how the Irish government is stage managing the COVID narrative.  Even though he never uses the term, what he is discussing is Controlled participation.  When I was in school we learned about controlled participation.  I searched online and found a definition to reprint here.

 Controlled Participation

 Giving the illusion that the citizen are participating in government and that they can have influence. However, this participation is controlled such that it does not affect or limit the policies or goals of the Party/government.

In school we were taught that the Nazis and communists used this technique to keep people docile.  People were convinced that the government was only carrying out the will of the people.  The government allowed people to choose but the list of choices was carefully controlled.  The one thing they did not teach us in school was that this practice is not exclusive to Communists and Nazis.  All governments use controlled participation.

Take the last Federal election in Canada.  The 2 main issues were climate change and vaccine passports.  Each party had their ideas of how they would mitigate climate change.  These policies ranged from taxes and carbon exchanges to outright bans on certain activities.  It was all just shades of grey.  The starting point for all of them was that we must do something about climate change.  There was no option of simply doing nothing.

Here is one of the dirty little secrets when it comes to climate change.  If, and that is a very big if, it happens, the warming will benefit northern agricultural nations like Canada.  You read that correctly.  In even the most ridiculous warming scenarios Canada benefits.  Why the hell would Canadians spend a nickel trying to prevent something that benefits them?  If the rest of the world wants Canadians to hamper our economy with energy consumption restrictions, they should paying us to do it.  How many political parties gave you that choice?

Vaccine passports were just as ridiculous.  Canadians were asked to choose what kind of passport that we wanted.  The only party not advocating for passports was the people’s party of Canada (PPC).  The PPC was not allowed to take part in the national leader’s debates in either French or English.  Outside of the debates when the media was not attacking the PPC they were ignoring them.

Canadian’s were not allowed to hear that doing nothing is an option.  In the case of climate change no action was easily the best option and that information was never discussed.  So much for free and fair elections in the great white north.  This was just all political theatre.

The COVID farce has been a master class in controlled participation.  The government has framed the debate from the start.  The starting assumptions were that social distancing, lockdowns, and masks work and are the only options.  In each case these starting assumptions were false.

  1. Lockdowns

Lockdowns had never been used before and had no scientific basis.  Theoretically a lockdown could work but it would need to be complete.  No one would be allowed to leave their home, for any reason.  Under that scenario few people would have died of COVID but everyone would have died of starvation and thirst.  If you allow people to leave their homes even for groceries the virus will spread.  Partial lockdowns are all pain for no gain.  A complete lockdown is the simultaneous eradication of both the virus and humans.

  1. Masks

Lockdowns had never been tried or studied but that is not the case for masks.  Masks had been extensively tried and studied.  The evidence for the effectiveness of masks is overwhelming.  Masks are ineffective at stopping airborne respiratory viruses.  Masks do not work but the only debate allowed was how much force should be used to put a mask on a toddler.

  1. Social distancing

Social distancing was also never studied and had no chance of stopping the transmission of an airborne virus.  If the building re-circulates the same virus laden air, 600 feet is no different than 6 feet.  The debate should have been how we improve building ventilation.  Instead the debate was whether it should be 3 feet or 6 feet.  Both answers were wrong but that was the only choice we were given.

 

Now that Vaccines are for sale governments are up to their old tricks.  The choice we are allowed is about children.  At what ages should vaccinations start?  The government is carefully controlling this debate and will manage the age down until we are vaccinating babies before cutting the umbilical.  At no time will we be allowed the choice of simply not being vaccinated for a disease that poses no threat to almost everyone.

After that long preamble here is the video.  Please watch and please think.  This is happening in every western democracy.

 

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *