Around the 11^th to 13^th to the June, the world was exposed to the ugliest display of “one rule for us, another for the masses” when the G7 leaders met in Carbis Bay in Cornwall. You had the blatant “disregard” for the “climate crisis” with all of the leaders jetting in (including Boris Johnson from London) on planes, not requiring any form of quarantine like ordinary people. We were given the usual “social distanced” and masked photo opportunities to show off the delegates from the UK and the rest of the world, but you also had the pictures of care free delegates and guests (including the Queen and Prince Charles) at cocktail parties, ignoring distancing rules and of course with no need for masks. What was striking about these images was the smiling faces of Macron, Biden, Merkel (and wives/partners) et al, whilst at the same time the staff working the social events (e.g., waiters etc) were fully masked, like slaves waiting on their masters. The schism between the elites and ordinary people was laid bare for all the world to see.

I believe these images delivered to the world were no accident. Firstly, the event could have been done remotely (many ordinary people are expected to conduct their business remotely by computer). Secondly, forgiving the carbon footprint faux pas the G7 committed getting to Cornwall, which would make Greta Thunberg issue the greatest “How dare you!”, no doubt, wives and partners could have stayed home, all business could have been conducted indoors, no social events could have taken place/been shown and photo opportunities could have been reduced to just the masked/”social distanced” shots. But no. This obnoxious and arrogant display of the G7 leaders, their partners and guests, being tended by the masked “slaves” was a carefully orchestrated theatre to remind people what the state of play is, albeit, on a subliminal or unconscious basis (for some), that we are destined for a bare life, while they will be privileged and such a horrid existence is not for them or possible. Dominic Raab, being questioned by Trevor Philips on the obvious “rule” breaking by the G7 flustered a response and indicated that such cocktail parties were an important part of political business, essentially highlighting that the political class running world political business are more important than people who run actual businesses and people who work and pay taxes.

No, this G7 extravaganza was a reminder that we are destined for the “New normal”. But there is an even darker message to be taken; on the one hand the politicians put on their serious faces or even cry (like Matt Hancock) to tell us how much they love us and are working so hard to save lives, they are keeping us safe from harm, whilst at the same time the psychological operators are deliberately making people fearful and angry at “anti-vaxxers” and “Covid deniers”. This is interlaced with constant contradictory messages, by simultaneously both the same and other people on the mainstream media; that “we will be unlocking on June 21^st”, then “we should not unlock”, that “we will not have vaccine passports”, then “we should have vaccine passports”, that “children will not be vaccinated”, then “children should be vaccinated”. This narrative is, much more than getting us to adhere to a bare life (e.g., COVID-19 regulations) or a state of fear (e.g., psychological fear propaganda), it is a pernicious schizogenic tactic common to psychological abuse. In other words, this narrative places the victim in a state of confusion; they do not know whether their master (the Government), with their mixed and contradictory messages, really do love them or not. What this achieves is a psychic split in the victim; in other words, it destroys their humanity and their sanity. This is because it is an anti-human and psychotic narrative; a schizogenic and menticidal narrative; to drive us mad and destroy our reason, beliefs and values.

The Bare Life of Giorgio Agamben

The idea that the politics of COVID-19 is a vehicle to usher in political overreach and to make people accept the bare life, the human life as a bio hazard, a world ruled by bio-security of the COVID-19 restrictive dystopia or Brave New Normal, is something discussed by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben in his book “Where are we now? The Epidemic as politics”. It should be noted Agamben is curious figure amongst critics of the COVID-19 Brave New Normal. Agamben is from the left politically, but one of those strange leftists who have actually dared to speak up about the totalitarian nature of the lockdown restrictions imposed by governments around the world, especially his own Italian government. This may be because Agamben knows well the danger of machinations of fascism that overshadowed his country’s past.  Predictably, he has been attacked by the mainstream media/intelligentsia for his outspokenness on the issue. Formerly a darling of the political left, much like the much-loved Slavoj Zizek (who as it happens, seems to have embraced Covid 1984 and lost his critical faculties), his own “tribe” have now decided to destroy him because of his views; he sees this reaction as nothing but fascistic and rightly so, as totalitarian.

Agamben highlights the medico-political overreach which has eroded our freedoms which he argues (like many) that this has been used to as an opportunity to implement fascistic political structures, which really have never gone away. He argues that a world based on social distancing, face masks, and medico-political surveillance is not humanly or politically viable in the long-term. The most serious point he believes is in the way we have treated our dead:

“The first and most serious point pertains to the bodies of the dead. How did we accept, purely in the name of an indeterminable risk, that our dear ones-and human beings in general-should not only die alone, but that their bodies should be burned without a funeral-something that, from Antigone to the present day, has never happened?” Giorgio Agamben, Where are we now? The epidemic as politics 2021, p.35.

He argues we have reached this point as a result of the divided nature of our experience, which because of the dying away of God (in the Christianised West) which is both corporal and spiritual, and reduced experience and conceptualisation of life into a purely biological reality. This abstraction and schism in the modern world (or perhaps postmodern world) facilitated by science and medicine taking the place of God, leads us into inescapable existential contradictions.

In reiterating the point that we have been reduced to bare life, a life as a bio-hazard, Agamben highlights that this COVID-19 situation, which he calls a “state of exception”, is the mechanism whereby democracies can transform themselves into totalitarian states; the history of the 20^th century, particularly the rise to power of Nazism and Communism shows clearly that this is the case. Agamben points out that never before, not even under fascism and during two world wars has the erosion of our freedoms and liberties been taken to such extremes; people being reduced to a condition of bare biological survival, confined to their houses, deprived of social relationships in ways never seen before. He asks:

“Is it really necessary to remind ourselves that the only other place where human beings were kept in a state of pure vegetative life was the Nazi camp?” Giorgio Agamben, Where are we now? The epidemic as politics, 2021, p.39.

One of course could add to this list the communist Gulag or the Soviet psychiatric hospital for political dissidents, and journalists like Julian Assange forced to exist in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK for years on end, now languishing in Belmarsh prison, for the crime of telling the truth; facts that fall on the deaf ears of mainstream British journalists who are arrogant enough to think they hold the moral high ground when it comes to democracy and free speech. The mainstream media’s performance when it comes to the COVID-19 era shows quite clearly they have fallen from grace in a most spectacular way. Agamben argues that his country (Italy) is always on the verge of falling back into fascism and that there are many signs that this is becoming more than a risk, but an actual reality; e.g., the creation of government run “fact checkers” social media and tech giants controlling the flow of information and how peoples’ critical views on their respective government’s policies re COVID-19 have been censored. As Agamben has discovered, most major Italian newspapers refuse to publish his opinions.

Agamben, in attempting to highlight the seriousness of our situation, evokes the wisdom of the great Dutch scientist Louis Bolk. Bolk argues that the human beings are characterised by a progressive inhibition of their natural, vital processes with regards adaptation to the environment. These processes are superseded by what he calls, a hypertrophic growth, of technological apparatuses designed to adapt the environment to mankind. If this process goes beyond a certain limit, it becomes counterproductive and transforms itself into the self-destruction of the human species. Essentially, think of the harmful iatrogenic effects of medico-scientific interventions; psychiatric medication for ordinary human experience which denies a flourishing of a human life by pathologizing the existential and spiritual horizon of Being, or the hyper-vigilance regarding dirt, bacteria, or infections which negatively impact the human immune system (e.g., a weak immune system, anti-biotic resistance). This is why many scientists are describing the novel mRNA “vaccines” for COVID-19 as potentially hazardous by compromising the human immune system and its reactivity to new viruses that arise (e.g., see Professor Dolores Cahill, Dr Mike Yeadon). Whilst it is argued with some coherence that those who are at very high risk of death from COVID-19 (e.g., the elderly, those with underlying conditions) may derive life-saving properties from such an mRNA injection, humanity may in fact fare better if such an extreme mass intervention is avoided due to the iatrogenic effects of the immune system being compromised on a such a large scale. As some scientists have argued, the implications for large-scale “vaccination” with such a technology is unprecedented and the long-term effects are unknown. As a result, we are literally playing Russian roulette with the human biological/immune system. Of course, some even argue this is a deliberate ploy and that this technology contained within the mRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” could be being used for nefarious purposes (e.g., population control/reduction). As the history of the 20^th century shows quite clearly, a genocidal motive is not out with the bounds of possibility; anyone who says otherwise is not alert to the possibility of iniquity of human beings or to the lessons of history.

Perhaps we have to be aware to the reality of iniquity that is occurring by those who are pushing the COVID-19 restrictions and those celebrating and pushing the COVID-19 vaccine programs around the world. Agamben rightly points out that from an epistemological point of view, it is obvious that providing the number of deaths supposedly from COVID-19 without contrasting it with the annual mortality rate for comparable periods and without stipulating the real cause of death is meaningless. And this is precisely what is happening in every country by seemingly blind politicians and scientific advisors. Italian scientist Dr Gian Carlo Blangiardo, quoted by Agamben, highlighted the number of deaths caused by COVID-19 is lower than the number of deaths caused by respiratory diseases in the previous two years.  Yet meanwhile, cancer patients, patients with heart issues, and mental health issues are being side-lined. Agamben laments and asks why is there such cognitive dissonance of these facts, even though such facts are in plain sight if one does a minutia of research? He writes:

“Like the First World War, the war against the virus can only be linked to false and deceitful motives. Humanity is entering a phase of its history where truth is being reduced to a moment within the march of falsity. That false discourse which must be held as truth is true, even when its non-truth is revealed. In this way, it is language itself, as a space for the manifestation of truth, that is being confiscated from us.” Giorgio Agamben, Where are we now? The epidemic as politics, 2021, p.48.

This cultic practice of confiscating language and the abuse of language, which encapsulates the new religion COVID-19 science/medicine, is as Agamben points out, no longer free or voluntary to follow; it is “mandatory” in the mainstream media and via real regulations and legal sanctions. This religion of the bare life and biosecurity is resulting in the cessation of all authentic and effective political activity; e.g., the fact is that the UK parliament at present can hardly be called a functioning democratic institution, as a small number of people, some elected, some not (i.e., SAGE) some even unknown, are dictating policy. This is a similar situation in other nations. 

In another book by Agamben’s, “Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and bare life”, he points out that in every modern state there is a line that delimits the point in which the power of life transforms into the power of death and where biopolitics and biosecurity becomes what he entitles thanatopolitics. Medicine or science today in the COVID-19 era has the power or the illusion of sovereignty which affects both the ethical and political planes. The subordination of life to statistics (or SAGE’s computer modelling machine) leads to a life not worth living and the political body becomes a biological one. Equally, as echoed by Ivan Illich, such growing medicalisation of life accompanied by a spiritual or existential atrophied postmodern world, has a profound effect on how people experience their bodies and their lives. The vital experience of people, which is always inseparably and simultaneously corporal and spiritual has been reduced to a human life as a biological entity; biology being the dominant marker of experience. What has occurred in the COVID-19 era is that the body, artificially suspended between life and death has become the dominant political paradigm in which people must regulate their life; the conservation of a bare life and medicine/”the science” as the new religion.

Beyond a Bare Life and a State of Fear

Agamben highlights the democratic crisis from his particular (left leaning) perspective and how fear of something (e.g., an object, i.e., COVID-19/variants of concern that cannot really be seen, except through SAGE’s computer modelling output) and people’s reliance on science or medicine has become the new religion. However, as a leftist/atheist, Agamben stops short in highlighting the graver psychological/spiritual crisis at hand, especially in light of his observations that language has been confiscated from us. There are the more serious implications of not just an abuse of language, but the deconstruction and breakdown of human and spiritual experience as a result of the COVID-19 restrictions. The COVID-19 era is far more than a crisis of democracy and restriction of our liberties and freedom. The “reasonable” narrative of questioning the deliberate attempt by the psychological operators of the government to make us more fearful, to nudge us into protecting ourselves and others, hides a darker more sinister nature of what lies behind the psy-op.

Laura Dodsworth, whose book “A State of fear: How the UK Government weaponised fear during the COVID-19 pandemic”, exemplifies the “reasonable” questioning of the the fear mongering propaganda/tactics of SPI-B psychologists of SAGE and the UK government and the resultant crisis in our democracy. One the one hand Dodsworth praises the vaccine roll-out and vaccine program as being the “happy ending” to this COVID-19 saga, and on the other hand hopes for the occurrence of a public inquiry into the use of psychology in the future, for more transparency by government and a return to a more democratic and transparent government. However, there are also troubling contradictions within her book. On the one hand she highlights how the vaccines were developed at miraculous speed (page 3) and on the following page (4) how perhaps the fear in some way can be justified due to the threat of COVID-19 and that the changes to Human Medicine Regulations policy facilitated the faster than normal roll-out of the vaccines for COVID-19. Her essential argument couched in the language of reason appeals; that people are reasonable and that people don’t need to be frightened, that their liberties are being taken away, but we should be wary of the breakdown of democracy. Indeed, her book was feted on the mainstream media, endorsed by several prominent people (e.g., Steve Baker MP). However, the psychologists of SPI-B are still in post, and people like Professors Susan Michie and Stephen Reicher are still offering the doom-laden forecasts on mainstream television and radio. Any “inquiry” that ever takes place will no doubt offer a passing glance to “lessons have been learned”, “we can offer support to frightened/mentally damaged people”, and “the vaccine has been a great success of which we should be proud”. Reasonableness dressed up with an air of coherence. Being pragmatic, perhaps that is all we can hope for; government inquiries rarely satisfy the real issues at hand.

The tone of reason was present in the Dodsworth’s interviews with the psychologist members of SPI-B. Some pointed to the fact that their tactics may have been ethically dubious, some felt uncomfortable, and some felt the tactics necessary. Unfortunately, the interviews with the psychologists are just not credible. Knowing psychologists as I do, (I trained as one) they pride themselves to the point of arrogance on being able to decipher data and being able to conduct themselves in their actions to the highest possible ethical standards. The members of SPI-B interviewed by Dodsworth never seemed to query the actual risk of COVID-19, but take it (the hype around COVOD-19) as a given. More importantly, it is just not credible that the psychologists did not know that they were breaking the ethical and practice guidelines of the British Psychological Society (see my article “Psychological attack on the UK” on the UK column website-link below). Firstly, they would be well aware of the ethical duties contained within their code and how the tactics deliberately making people fearful were completely against the code of ethics. Secondly and more importantly, the Head of Policy and the British Psychological Society Kathryn Scott is a member of SPI-B of SAGE; it is just not possible that the group of psychologists on SPI-B did not realise that they had torn up the ethical rule book of their very own profession. I do not think we should hold much hope in the British Psychological Society or their regulator, The Health and Care Professions Council, coming to rescue us from these unethical tactics. They have both been silent in response to the unethical work of psychologists of SPI-B of SAGE. Indeed, the British Psychological Society supported and praised the work of Professor Susan Michie after she was “attacked” on social media for her role in the fear mongering by SPI-B of SAGE. It is quite clear, that both these organisations are fallen organisations that offer no protection from the psychological attack and fear mongering which is, in my opinion, designed, not to make us and keep us in a state of fear and on the side of “reason”, but to drive us out of reason, into a collective psychosis. This is the modus operandi of menticide that flourishes under totalitarian regimes. [i]

Menticide and Schizogenesis

Hannah Arendt, described totalitarianism the attempted transformation of human nature itself. However, this attempted transformation only results turning sound minds into sick minds. This idea was discussed in great detail by the Dutch psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Joost Meerloo who studied the mental effects of living under totalitarianism wrote in his book, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing published in 1956:

“… there is in fact much that is comparable between the strange reactions of the citizens of [totalitarianism] and their culture as a whole on the one hand and the reactions of the…sick schizophrenic on the other.” Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, 1956/2015, Martino Publishing, p.117

The book describes how scientific brainwashing is conducted and he argued that most people find it difficult to resist such techniques. Putting people into a state of fear, only the first part of the processes of a longer-term goal, is known to create a menticidal hypnosis. This involves the conscious part of the personality no longer being fully alert or conscious to his or her actions and behaviours. The brainwashed person lives in a trance, repeating the “mantras” of the dictator.

Like totalitarian states, democratic states are also subject to the insidious influences of menticide on a political and a non-political level. This becomes, for supposedly democratic states, just as dangerous to freedoms and liberties of life as overtly totalitarian states themselves. Meerloo argued that people of supposed democratic countries, like overtly totalitarian countries, must guard against the creeping intrusion into their minds by technology, bureaucracy, prejudice and mass delusion.

Priming a population for the crime of menticide begins with the sowing of fear. People then are very susceptible to progress to delusions of madness. Meerloo describes how threats real, imagined, or fabricated can be used to disseminate and create fear. Moreover, a particularly effective technique of menticide is to use waves of terror. This technique involves the sowing of fear interspersed with periods of calm, but each of these periods of calm is followed by the creation/invention of an even more intense dissemination of fear, which can be repeated indefinably, or as Meerloo writes:

“Each wave of terrorizing . . . creates its effects more easily – after a breathing spell – than the one that preceded it because people are still disturbed by their previous experience. Morality becomes lower and lower, and the psychological effects of each new propaganda campaign become stronger; it reaches a public already softened up.” Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, 1956/2015, Martino Publishing, p.147.

What Meerloo describes is exactly what is happening with the psy-op under the psychologists of SPI-B and the UK government with regard the threat of COVID-19 and “variants of concern”. The use of fear mongering propaganda to spread misinformation and to promote confusion with respect to the threat of COVID-19, “cases”, “variants of concern” and the constantly moving goalposts regarding the nature of the crisis, helps to break down the minds of the masses. The use of contradictory reports both by and by others in the messaging is key and is also evident in the UK psy-op; e.g., “3 weeks to flatten the curve” to “the vaccine is our route to freedom”, “masks are not needed” to “masks are needed”, the “cancelling” of Christmas/Easter at the last minute and now the ever present “variants of concern” which may or may not, depending on the which scientific advisor, government official or day of the week it is, could signal an impending danger to the human race. In more recent weeks and months, we have had “Freedom Day”, then the off/on issue of vaccine passports, “no jab-no job” threats for care workers, the Marburg virus threat by the World Health Organisation, dire warnings of the miraculous return of deadly flu this winter, and now the idea that children should be vaccinated if they want to attend school. Of course, we cannot forget the “climate emergency”, “fuel shortages”, and “energy crises”. These “waves” and threats are designed to deliberately grind people down, to make them submit, to induce breakdown, to coerce them to give up, to induce madness and make people lose themselves.

What we are experiencing under the COVID-19 tyranny, is straight out of the “schizogenic” relationship as described by the radical Scottish psychiatrist and psychoanalyst R.D. Laing. Laing showed how contradictory messaging from a child’s mother can drive a child into psychosis/schizophrenic breakdown. An example of a schizogenic relationship is when a mother say’s to her child, “I love you, please come to your mother for a hug”. If the child goes in for the hug and the mother is cold and unresponsive and the child pulls away the mother asks, “What is wrong, don’t you love me?”. If the mother subsequently chastises the child for pulling away, e.g., “What a bad boy you are. Of course I love you?”, this confusing and contradictory messaging can produce a psychotic/schizophrenic break in the psychic world of the child if such a schizogenic pattern is repeated often enough. Logic, reason and language is destroyed. In this scenario, logic can be met with logic, while the illogic cannot—it confuses and misleads.

The reason I introduce the idea of menticide and schizogenesis in relation to the COVID-19 is because the narrative of the “pandemic” is often couched in reason (on both sides of the debate), with an appeal to logic, as though this will save us. We see this reason and logic in how Agamben describes the pandemic from his leftist/atheist perspective as an assault of democracy by fascists, or as elucidated by Laura Dodsworth in her “State of fear”, how the vaccine roll out is a “happy ending” to this saga, that we must have an inquiry to discuss how we want to be governed, and why we need to have a debate on how psychological/nudge tactics should/could be used in the future. Unfortunately, appealing to reason (e.g., we need our freedoms back because X, Y, Z) and logic (e.g., the facts show otherwise) will have no effect on the totalitarians pushing the COVID-19 menticide.  

We have to realise that we are not dealing with particularly rational or logical people; they speak with forked tongues. The psychologists in Laura Dodsworth’s book know very well how the menticide inducing propaganda works, as does the UK government-it is planned; any feigning towards partial innocence or ignorance is no better than the schizogenic mother in the example by R. D. Laing. Like Arendt argues, the totalitarians are attempting to transform our human nature; this horror exemplified by queer theory ideology (e.g., The destruction of the family, trans ideology, contra reproductive futurism), transhumanism (e.g., merging artificial intelligence with biology), medicine, technology and science as the new God (e.g., Zero carbon utopia, smart cities, digital world, mRNA “vaccines” with constant upgrades needed) are all part of this drive for this dark transformation.

It is no accident that our governments (and governments around the world) are using the tactics of isolating people with lockdowns etc and are constantly disrupting normal social interactions (e.g., face masks, social distancing). When people are made to isolate and their normal interactions with friends, family and co-workers are taken away, people become far more susceptible to menticide. In isolation or through the disruption of ordinary social interaction, people lose the corrective force of the positive example. The totalitarian knows that not everyone is seduced by the fear propaganda and that these people can help free others from the menticidal attack. If, however, isolation is enforced (i.e., lockdown, mixing/social distancing rules) the influence of these positive examples greatly diminishes. But far more worryingly, which the psychologists of SPI-B are well aware of, as are the UK government, isolation increases the efficacy of menticide because people are very easily conditioned into new patterns of thought and behaviour when isolated; as Meerloo describes with regards to the physiologist Ivan Pavlov’s work on behavioural conditioning:

“Pavlov made another significant discovery: the conditioned reflex could be developed most easily in a quiet laboratory with a minimum of disturbing stimuli. Every trainer of animals knows this from his own experience; isolation and the patient repetition of stimuli are required to tame wild animals. . . The totalitarians have followed this rule. They know that they can condition their political victims most quickly if they are kept in isolation.” Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, 1956/2015, Martino Publishing, p.43.

State of Play

It cannot be said enough; we are being subjected to a menticidal assault and being forced to adapt to a schizogenic state. This is planned and it is firmly on the side of evil. An abuser very rarely ever admits to committing any wrong. One just has to look at the reactions from the “pandemic pushers” when people exercise their God given sovereignty (e.g., not wearing a mask, going to the beach, going on holiday) they throw the toys out of the pram and cry “lockdown!”, but are blatantly silent when the elites (e.g., MP’s, MSP’s, G7 leaders and revellers at Ascot) flaunt the rules. This is all part of the promotion of confusion, menticide and schizogenesis. Freedom and democracy depend on both mental and physical freedom. Both are under attack from menticide. Menticide is a crime against humanity. Those who are complicit in this menticide need to be held to account, not indulged with reason, appeals to logic, or let off the hook with “inquiries” to see how best to use nudges or unethical psychological tactics in the future. It has to be remembered, these people pushing the menticide are complacent in their celebration of the roll out of an experimental mRNA “vaccine” for children, where the long-term effects are unknown. The narrative of reason and logic only serves the interests of those pushing the menticide and the formation of the state of menticide and schizogenesis.

---

[i] A recent webinar (Towards a New Normal) on the British Psychological Society website, which was recorded on the 7^th May 2020, featured Susan Michie and Kathryn Scott, clearly showed that the public were being deceived and lied to by the UK government about what was taking place. The psychologists in the webinar discussed how immunity passports were being discussed prior to May 2020, that the public were being manipulated (unawares, without informed consent) for behaviour change, to a “New Normal” which indicated that there was no intention, even then, that old freedoms were going to be returned. This indicates that the psychologists in Dodsworth’s book were not being truthful about the extent of what they knew and the plans of the UK government. Link here: https://www.bps.org.uk/coronavirus-resources/public/towards-new-normal

My article on the UK Column, “Psychological attack on the UK” : https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/psychological-attack-uk