---

The Covid-19 pandemic was used as a means of psychological warfare to turn people against each other by creating mass paranoia and hysteria. 

Key aspects of the psychological warfare included a “protecting others” motif, emotional manipulation using guilt, shifting blame onto the public, creating the idea of the “enemy within,” creating scapegoats, persuasion-by-association, dehumanisation and encouraging citizens to police and punish each other.

Both media and politicians played a significant role in this assault on the public, including inciting hatred against the unvaccinated through coordinated campaigns of vilification.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

David A. Hughes is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lincoln, UK. In 2024, he published a book about the covid-era psychological warfare that worked to turn people against one another and to prevent them from uniting against their oppressors. As a result, at the time the book was published, society was deeply divided between those who could see through psychological operations and those who could not.

The book was published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  You can read the book online HERE, download a copy HERE or search online for a suitable seller to purchase a copy.  Hughes provides a list of sources at the end of each chapter.

The following is an AI-generated summary of a chapter from the book. AI programmes are prone to inaccuracies and what’s known in the industry as “hallucinations.”  We advise readers to refer to the original book to check the accuracy of information.

“Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy by David A. Hughes, 2024

Chapter 7: Mass Paranoia and Hysteria: Turning Society Against Itself

Table of Contents

Covid Pandemic and Totalitarian Tactics

The Covid-19 pandemic was utilized as a means to implement psychological warfare, turning society against itself by inculcating mass paranoia and hysteria, which is a characteristic of totalitarianism.

The lie that “anyone can spread it” was used to create extreme irrational mistrust among the public, with the UK Government and NHS posters in late March and early April 2020 urging people to “ACT LIKE YOU’VE GOT IT” and to avoid coming within two metres of another human being, thereby displaying a “global distrust of humanity”.

The government’s list of generic and non-Covid-specific symptoms, including sore throat, temperature, and dry cough, was used to weaponize everyday experiences and instill contagion-fear, loathing, and paranoia, as noted by Kevin Corbett, with the idea that asymptomatic transmission poses an existential threat.

The “Covid-19” operation followed principles similar to those used by British imperialist methods, as inspired by Tavistock’s John Rawlings Rees, which involved finding sociological and psychological means of dividing the population against itself, as described by Versluis, where “The totalitarian system is predicated upon paranoia and division” and society turns on itself, strengthening the power of the authorities.

The public was encouraged to police one another, with mask mandates segregating society, dissenters being scapegoated, and a new form of hate speech being introduced, such as “anti-maskers” and “anti-vaxxers”, as the “vaccinated” were turned on the “unvaccinated” through mechanisms of blame, medicalized apartheid, incitement of hatred by the media, and lies that hospitals were filling up with “unvaccinated” patients.

The production of mass paranoia was a key aspect of the “Covid-19” operation, with the goal of dividing society between those who can see through psychological operations and those who cannot, as the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” myth styled the outgroup as vectors of disease, similar to Nazi propaganda against Jews, and the media played a significant role in inciting hatred and lies against the “unvaccinated”.

Asymptomatic Transmission and Scientific Discrepancies

The World Health Organization (WHO) claimed on April 2, 2020, that there was no evidence of asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19, and this claim was supported by a global scientific consensus that coronaviruses do not transmit from people without symptoms.

Despite this, the UK Government and National Health Service (NHS) propaganda campaigns were premised on the concept of asymptomatic transmission, which suggests that the goal was to create mass paranoia and hysteria.

The idea of asymptomatic transmission is connected to the justification of quarantine measures, with studies suggesting that quarantine is most beneficial when there is significant asymptomatic transmission, and that if asymptomatic individuals transmit the virus at a rate of at least 20% of symptomatic individuals, quarantine is always more effective.

The WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove initially stated on June 8, 2020, that asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is “very rare”, but later changed her position to say that there is a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and that the true extent of asymptomatic transmission is not yet known.

The scientific evidence for asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 was practically non-existent, with most studies being based on a small number of cases, and the most frequently cited Western meta-analyses being based on studies that all come back to the same small number of cases.

The UK Government launched a new propaganda offensive in winter 2020/21 to reinforce the threat of asymptomatic transmission, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support this claim.

The concept of asymptomatic transmission was used to justify lockdowns and quarantine measures, as it suggested that the virus could be spread by people without symptoms, and that therefore the whole of society needed to be placed under restrictions to prevent the spread of the virus.

The Department of Health and Social Care urged people to stay at home and “act like you’ve got it,” claiming that around 1 in 3 people with COVID-19 don’t have symptoms and can pass it on without realizing, which was later found to be an inaccurate estimate, with a more accurate figure being 1 in 19, according to Fenton et al.

The concept of “act like you’ve got it” turned COVID-19 into a perverse performance, where healthy people acted as though they were diseased, creating a kind of mass hypochondriasis, and this performance made the disease real as a pervasive social phenomenon, regardless of its objective scientific existence.

Dr. Fauci stated in January 2020 that asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks, and that even if there is a rare asymptomatic person who might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers, which is supported by the fact that viral spread requires viral replication and shedding, and in immune individuals, the virus is prevented from replicating rapidly.

The chance of asymptomatic carriers spreading the virus is low, and even presymptomatic cases account for a very small proportion of transmission, with laboratory-confirmed cases in which no symptoms were reported being consistently between 1 and 7% in 2020/21, according to the UK Weekly National Influenza and COVID-19 Surveillance Report.

The paranoia induced by the idea that anyone can spread the virus was morally and scientifically unjustifiable, and the use of PCR and lateral flow tests, which are incapable of distinguishing between viable and non-viable RNA fragments, further contributed to the misinformation and hysteria surrounding asymptomatic transmission.

“Protecting Others” as a Tool of Control

The COVID-19 moral order introduced a new moral framework, where following government guidelines was equated with virtue, and non-compliance was associated with vice, representing an attack on liberty and elevating the collective above the individual, with the principle of maximizing the common good being a totalitarian principle, as seen in the Nazi 25-Point Plan.

The idea of “protecting others” was used to justify the suspension of individual rights and due process, similar to the Decree for the Protection of People and State, which was implemented after the Reichstag fire, a possible false flag event, and this phenomenon is reminiscent of the words of Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, who stated that the pandemic has forced a philosophical debate about how to maximize the common good in the least damaging way possible.

The Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours, a UK body, emphasized the need to promote the idea of “protecting others” through behavioral psychology, suggesting that wearing face masks outdoors could complement existing government messaging of social responsibility.

The concept of “protecting others” was widely promoted, with examples including the NHS contact tracing app’s slogan “Protect your loved ones” and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps’ statement that wearing a face covering helps protect fellow passengers.

Various individuals, including WEF agenda contributor Trisha Greenhalgh and WEF Young Global Leader Jeremy Howard, made the case for wearing masks to protect others, despite acknowledging the lack of scientific research on the efficacy of public mask-wearing during a pandemic.

The idea of “my mask protects you, your mask protects me” was also promoted, with some authors invoking the “precautionary principle” as a moral imperative to justify mask mandates, even in the absence of robust scientific evidence.

The UK Government’s introduction of mask mandates was based on a precautionary approach, as recommended by SAGE, but failed to conduct a thorough risk assessment or cost-benefit analysis, with some authors admitting that wearing cloth masks was more about solidarity than science.

The promotion of mask-wearing as a means of protecting others was often politically motivated, with authors such as Kolstoe acknowledging that wearing a cloth face mask was “less about science and more about solidarity”, highlighting the blurring of scientific and political considerations in the response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The UK Government and NHS launched an advertisement in September 2020 featuring people from diverse backgrounds reciting the mantra of protecting others, such as “I wash my hands to protect my family” and “I wear a face covering to protect my mates”, in an effort to promote the idea of protecting others during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a video on November 3, 2020, titled “I wear a mask because”, which featured characters from diverse backgrounds delivering lines that started with “I wear a mask because” followed by a formulation of the “protecting others” motif, such as “I want you to stay healthy” and “I want to keep others safe”.

The media also conveyed the message that the main purpose of face coverings is to protect other people from coronavirus, rather than the wearer themselves, with the Daily Mail reporting on a Danish study that supposedly found face masks do not protect the wearer but can stop them from infecting other people, although the study actually found that face masks make no statistically significant difference to the likelihood of the wearer contracting SARS-CoV-2.

The “protect others” motif was also applied to vaccination, with Matt Hancock claiming that getting a vaccine is something that not only protects the individual but also protects the people around them, making it a powerful propaganda device that is hard to resist.

The use of the “protect others” motif creates a moral imperative to obey instructions and overshadow scientific evidence and common sense, even though the infection fatality rate of Covid-19 is relatively low, with 99.95% of under-70s surviving the disease, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and Ioannidis.

Former Israeli health minister Yoram Lass argued that the measures taken to protect a few people with low life expectancy should not ruin the country or the world, and it is doubtful that the over-70s wanted the rest of society to sacrifice their freedoms on their behalf.

Guilt as a Tool of Control

The deliberate exploitation of guilt as part of psychological warfare is a tactic that has been used before, and in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, it has been used to control people’s behavior and make them more likely to follow government guidelines and instructions.

The method of systematically exploiting unconscious guilt to create submission is a tactic used by various entities, including the Nazis, as mentioned by Meerloo in 1956, to break the will of courageous resistance fighters and convert them into meek collaborators.

The CIA torture manuals also propose inducing feelings of guilt in order to break the prisoner’s will, as stated in the 1983 manual, which suggests that intensifying guilt feelings will increase the subject’s anxiety and urge to cooperate.

According to Ellul in 1965, a key objective of propaganda is to induce guilt feelings, and cult leaders use guilt and shame as emotional levers to control and manipulate their members, as noted by Lifton in 1989.

Guilt is also used as a control mechanism in domestic abuse situations, where the abuser typically blames the victim for their own suffering, and the victim may internalize the blame, as observed by Anthony and Cullen in 2021.

During the “Covid-19” era, the state assumed the role of the abuser, victimizing the public through lockdowns, which caused significant psychological, economic, and social damage, as reported by various researchers, including Dettmann et al., Bhattacharya and Packalen, Green and Bhattacharya, Rancourt et al., Bardosh, and Harrison.

The lockdowns were the result of government policy, rather than a response to a virus with a low infection fatality rate, as noted by Ioannidis in 2021, and the UK Government blamed the public for its own degradation, using tactics similar to those used by abusers, as advised by behavioural scientists, including SPI-B in 2020.

The use of guilt and blame by the government and other entities serves as a powerful form of emotional bondage, allowing them to control and manipulate individuals and populations, and leveraging guilt to make the victim feel responsible for their own suffering is a common tactic used by abusers, as noted in the CIA manual and observed in domestic abuse situations.

The Covid-19 pandemic was accompanied by a propaganda campaign that utilized ghoulish imagery, such as patients wearing oxygen masks, to guilt-trip people into complying with the measures, with slogans like “LOOK [X] IN THE EYES” followed by messages emphasizing the importance of safe distance and adherence to rules.

The use of actors in these propaganda campaigns, rather than genuine sick patients, raised concerns and added to the impression that the pandemic was simulated, with the aim of stoking the desire for retributive justice by showing alleged victims of outgroup behavior.

Blame Shifting and Government Hypocrisy

The government’s messaging was inconsistent, as seen in the “eat out to help out” scheme announced on July 15, 2020, which was followed by Boris Johnson blaming the public for potentially facing a second lockdown, a tactic consistent with narcissistic abuse.

The media portrayal of thousands of holidaymakers flocking to British beaches in the spring and summer of 2020 as selfishly risking the health of others was not supported by data, as hospitalization and death rates did not surge in areas like Devon & Cornwall, which was later placed into Tier 1 with the fewest restrictions.

Epidemiologist Mark Woolhouse told the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that there were no outbreaks linked to crowded beaches, contradicting the narrative that such gatherings were risky, and highlighting the lack of scientific evidence to support the government’s claims.

The authorities, including SPI-B’s Susan Michie, established an abusive relationship with the public by blaming them for being complacent in not following the Covid-19 regulations, refusing to admit responsibility for their actions, and instead shifting the blame to the public or “The Science” for the imposition of restrictions.

The pattern of blaming the public for the government’s decisions was evident, as seen in Boris Johnson’s announcement of new “Tier 4” restrictions on December 20, 2020, where he claimed that the scientific evidence had left him with no choice, thereby avoiding accountability for the impact of his decisions on the public.

The government employed a tactic reminiscent of classic abuser behavior by blaming the public for the spread of Covid-19, as seen when Matt Hancock labeled the large number of people crowding into London’s railway stations as “totally irresponsible” in an attempt to shift the responsibility away from the government’s actions.

Public Health England director Susan Hopkins warned that for each day of relaxation on restrictions, five days of tighter restrictions would be needed, making the public feel guilty about spreading the virus and complicit in harsher measures to come, which was further reinforced by the threat of a third national lockdown should “infections” continue to rise after Christmas.

The 77th Brigade’s Tobias Ellwood told Parliament that letting down their guard for five days over Christmas could be very dangerous, yet he was caught having dinner outside of the rules with a large number of people, highlighting the hypocrisy of government officials who were supposed to be setting an example for the public.

The “Zero Covid” agenda, pushed by Independent SAGE, presented an impossible standard for the public to follow, where nothing they did was ever good enough, and single “cases” were enough to “lock down” entire societies, ultimately requiring complete surrender to authority.

Fear of the “Enemy Within” to Create Paranoia and Scapegoats

The concept of the “enemy within” was used to create a sense of paranoia and fear among the public, where individuals were seen as potentially deadly disease vectors, and this tactic is not unique to totalitarian regimes, but has been employed by various governments and organizations throughout history, including during the Cold War and in the post-9/11 era.

The use of this tactic is reminiscent of the ideas of Meerloo, who wrote that totalitarianism needs the image of an “enemy within” to justify its own internal troubles, and Versluis, who described the pervasive atmosphere of terror and paranoia that results from such tactics, where no one knows whom to trust and there is a projection of “the enemy” imagined to be “in our midst”.

The concept of fear in a society can lead to the creation of internal scapegoats and external enemies, as noted by Meerloo in 1956, where individuals direct their inner fury and rage against these perceived threats, and a pandemic can serve as an ideal vehicle for generating such scapegoats.

According to Schwab and Malleret in 2020, the pattern of searching for scapegoats and placing blame on outsiders is a recurring theme throughout history, particularly in pandemics, which can promote intolerant conformism and encourage abuse against those who do not comply with government measures.

The mass fear propaganda in the spring of 2020 had predictable and deliberate effects, including the creation of a hysterical and conformist society, as observed by Lass, who compared it to the type of craziness seen in fascist regimes.

The use of lockdowns is an effective way of creating scapegoats, as it punishes an entire group for the alleged misdemeanors of a minority, and this tactic has been used in various contexts, including brainwashing of POWs in the Korean War and the Stanford prison experiment.

The concept of the “fundamental attribution error” in psychology, where individuals attribute their successes to themselves and their failures to others or circumstances, can be applied to the COVID-19 pandemic, where those who comply with government guidelines may blame non-compliers for any negative outcomes.

The use of masks and other symbols can create social segregation, as seen in Jane Elliott’s famous lesson on discrimination in 1968, where the use of special collars to distinguish between blue-eyed and brown-eyed schoolchildren led to the creation of two antagonistic groups and a change in behavior among the children.

The creation of scapegoats and the promotion of conformism can have significant effects on individuals and society, including the suppression of dissent and the encouragement of abuse against those who do not comply with government measures, as noted by Sumption in 2020 and Sidley in 2020.

Symbolic Segregation and Hate Language

The Covid-19 pandemic context demonstrates how easily people can be divided and turned against each other based on arbitrary markers, such as mask mandates, which served as an instrument of social segregation and forced the public to display outwardly who was willing to comply with the measures and who was not.

The use of face masks was likened by critics to muzzles, putting the wearer in a state of humiliation, and was seen as a symbol of belonging to the ingroup rather than the outgroup, with “virtue” and self-degradation being conflated, as noted by Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav, who compared mandatory masks to the yellow star used to mark Jewish victims of Nazi persecution.

The yellow star and face masks are both instruments of segregation, with the former marking out Jewish victims of Nazi persecution and the latter signaling compliance with the regime, as seen in the example of Farringtons School in Kent, which made mask-exempt pupils wear yellow badges.

Totalitarian regimes, according to Meerloo, must fabricate a hate language to stir up mass emotions, and this is achieved through intergroup psychology, where outgroup members are derogated as inferior or defective, and smears and aspersions are readily adopted and deployed along group lines, as seen in the Covid-19 context with terms such as “Covidiots,” “Covid deniers,” “anti-maskers,” and “anti-vaxxers.”

The use of hate speech and pejoratives, such as “dangerous conspiracy theorists,” “antisemites,” and “far right extremists,” is intended to suppress critical questioning of the official narrative and to present political problems in moral, rather than scientific terms, as noted by Ellul, who observed that facts come to be discussed “in the language of indignation, a tone which is almost always the mark of propaganda.”

The attempt to repackage matters of scientific fact in moral terms was a feature of the Covid-19 operation, with questions about the adequacy of evidence being reinterpreted in moral terms and dismissed as irresponsible acts of “covidiocy,” and truthful speech that challenges emergent technocracy being rebranded as “harmful” and censored, as noted by Kidd and Ratcliffe.

The concept of “persuasion-by-association” is a means of subliminal manipulation that links an idea, person, or cause with another idea or image that is automatically regarded as good or bad in a given culture, as discussed by Huxley in 1958 and observed in “War on Terror” propaganda by Jackson in 2007.

In the context of “Covid-19” propaganda, the idea of “The Science” is automatically regarded as good, while outgroups are portrayed in negative terms, such as “anti-masker,” “anti-vaxxer,” and “science denier,” to create a sense of division and fear among the population.

Self-Policing and Community Enforcement

Totalitarian societies, as described by Meerloo in 1956, rely on citizens policing themselves, and this phenomenon was observed during the “Covid-19” pandemic, where citizens were encouraged to report and punish each other for non-compliance with rules, adding an extra layer of division and fear.

The SPI-B proposed strategies in March 2020 to get community members to police one another, including providing social approval for desired behaviors and promoting social disapproval for non-compliant behavior, which was later implemented through measures such as “Covid marshals” and community involvement in legislation.

The introduction of “Covid marshals” in September 2020, as reported by Aitken, and the proposal to use children as undercover spies to report on parents, as mentioned in a Telegraph headline in January 2021, demonstrate the extent to which the population was encouraged to police itself and report non-compliance.

The enforcement of “Covid-19” rules was driven by fear, rather than ideological conviction, and was carried out by ordinary people seeking to avoid ostracism and punishment, as observed by psychiatrist Mark McDonald and author Hopkins, highlighting the psychological impact of ostracism and the aversive experiences it can create for human beings.

The concept of “HUGHES beings” refers to the tendency of people to conform to the ingroup, and this can be used as a deterrent against dissent and opposition, as individuals prefer the comparative safety of belonging to the ingroup, which can lead to the betrayal of once close relationships.

In totalitarian societies, the fear of being accused promotes conformity, and it is often friends and colleagues who report individuals to the authorities, as observed by Hopkins, and this phenomenon was witnessed during the “Covid-19” era, where nonconformists were discriminated against by those they had known their whole lives.

The “Covid-19” era saw academics who spoke out against the narrative being discriminated against by their own colleagues, as seen in cases from Yale, NYU, and Stanford, and this kind of institutionalized spying and denunciation can destroy social bonds and relations of trust, creating a socially atomized and individualized society.

Lockdowns and Atomization

The “lockdowns” can be seen as a key purpose of creating an atomized society, where people are fearful of one another and unable to unite against the predator class that holds them in subjugation, and this is achieved by manipulating base instincts and arousing diabolical forces in individuals, as noted by Fromm during the Hitler years.

Totalitarianism seeks to manufacture hysteria and exploit the lower passions in individuals to produce violent and criminal behavior, as observed by Meerloo, and this can be achieved by appealing to the “subhuman mindlessness” and “moral imbecility” of crowd-intoxicated masses, as noted by Huxley.

The Stanford prison experiment, which was conducted in 1971, demonstrated how a simulated prison environment can lead to sadistic outcomes, even among individuals with normal psychological profiles, and the “Covid-19 lockdowns” can be seen as a form of house arrest that produced a similar environment, bringing out the worst in people and emboldening those who felt they had the power of the state behind them to attack dissenters.

The use of the term “lockdown” itself is significant, as it is a prison term, and the expectation that everyone would “perform” the pandemic during this time can be seen as a form of social control, designed to manipulate individuals and create a sense of mass paranoia and hysteria, as discussed by authors such as Zimbardo, Arendt, and Sumption.

Deindividuation Causes Destructive and Violent Behavior

The experiments conducted by Zimbardo in the late 1960s and early 1970s found that anonymity, such as that provided by masks, leads to a greater propensity towards violence, and this concept is also supported by anthropological research, which shows that societies that use masks or painted faces in preparation for war tend to exhibit more violent behavior towards captives.

The use of masks, as seen in the “Covid-19” operation, performs a deindividuating function, hiding personal identity and emotion, and creating an environment in which individuals are more likely to engage in violent or aggressive behavior without feeling remorse or accountability.

According to Zimbardo, anonymity alone is not enough to unleash violent behavior, but when combined with permission to behave in aggressive ways, such as that given by institutions or authorities, it can lead to destructive behavior, as seen in the actions of some individuals during the “Covid-19” operation who were encouraged to “shame” non-mask wearers into compliance.

The actions of authorities, such as Cressida Dick, Stephen Nolan, and Matt Hancock, who encouraged mask wearers to shame or report non-mask wearers, are consistent with a totalitarian regime, in which citizens are given permission to act on their primitive impulses without feeling guilty, and civilized standards of behavior are corrupted.

The use of “flowery catchwords” such as “stop the spread,” “flatten the curve,” and “protect others” during the “Covid-19” operation helped to rationalize immorality and evil into morality and good, leading to a corrosion of civilized standards of behavior and the emergence of appalling behavior, which was often reported by the media.

The concept of deindividuation, as described by Zimbardo, is also relevant to the use of identical uniforms and haircuts in armies, and the use of balaclavas or cloth coverings to hide the face in paramilitary organizations, which can also lead to a diminishment of empathy and accountability, and an increase in violent behavior.

The Covid-19 pandemic led to numerous incidents of violence and aggression towards individuals who did not wear masks, including a 24-year-old disabled woman and her 16-year-old sister who were verbally attacked on a train in July 2020, and a man who was pepper sprayed by a policeman in September 2020 for refusing to wear a mask for medical reasons.

In other incidents, a young man was attacked and ejected from a train by masked passengers in Barcelona in July 2021 for not wearing a mask, and a row over face masks on a train sparked a brawl that left children in tears in December 2021.

Media Manipulation and Opinion Polls

The media played a significant role in shaping public perception by misreporting protests against Covid-19 countermeasures, using tactics such as underreporting the number of attendees, portraying protestors as violent, and giving disproportionate attention to other protests.

For example, the BBC reported that only 20,000 people attended an anti-lockdown protest in Berlin in August 2020, when in reality the number was significantly higher, and failed to cover a large protest in London on April 24, 2021, before reporting on it a day late and focusing on “senseless violence against police”.

The media also used opinion polls to manipulate public perception, with companies like YouGov, founded by Nadeem Zahawi, later the UK Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, producing findings that consistently supported the official Covid-19 narrative.

The strategy of framing dissenters as “fringe” or “other” was used to enhance group-based identification and create the perception that the majority of people hold the official view, with protestors being portrayed as “far right conspiracy theorists” and the media giving minimal coverage to their events.

The use of anonymous authors in BBC articles, which do not provide author names, made it difficult to hold individuals responsible for the distortions and misreporting of events.

Results of various opinion polls related to Covid-19 restrictions and vaccinations in the UK, which suggest that a majority of the public supports measures such as limiting air travel to vaccinated people, wearing masks in public, and requiring secondary school pupils to wear masks, with results including 54% supporting limited air travel, 75% supporting Tier 4 coronavirus restrictions, and 82% supporting mask mandates for public transport.

These results are questioned for their credibility, as they seem to indicate that most Britons repeatedly support having their freedoms taken away, and are divergent from those of the World Vaccine Poll, with the text suggesting that opinion polls can be used to collect real information on public opinion while concealing the truth from the public, generating an asymmetry of information that gives social engineers an advantage.

Opinion polls can be used to set social norms, such as Matt Hancock’s claim that a high proportion of people in the UK would take up the vaccine, in an attempt to make those who refuse the vaccine appear as a “fringe” group, and this can be used to influence public opinion and behavior.

Dehumanization and Propaganda

The concept of dehumanization is also explored, with references to authors such as Huxley and Zimbardo, who discuss how dehumanization can be used to suspend morality and legitimize persecution, with examples including the use of dehumanizing language in military training, the portrayal of certain groups as subhuman, and the use of propaganda to depict certain groups as vermin or pests, such as the Nazi depiction of Jews as vermin or the stigmatization of black people as “niggers”.

Hughes also highlights the discrepancy between the reported number of vaccine “refuseniks” and the actual number of unvaccinated individuals in the UK, with the Mail reporting 5 million vaccine “refuseniks” in December 2021, while UKHSA data published in July 2022 shows that 18.9 million Brits remain unvaccinated, including 12.4 million adults, demonstrating the potential for misinformation and manipulation of public opinion through opinion polls and media reporting.

The Covid-19 operation was dehumanizing as it led people to view each other as disease-ridden biohazards rather than participants in a civilized society, which is a common theme in genocides where perpetrators refer to their victims as sub-human or vermin, as noted by Hassan and Shah in 2019.

The assumption that human beings were presumed sick until proven healthy, even if they displayed no symptoms of disease, was a flawed one and led to dehumanizing measures such as social distancing and restrictions on physical contact, including telling people to stay away from and not hug their loved ones.

Propaganda played a crucial role in promoting the image of human beings as repositories of disease, with examples including a government/NHS ad campaign in autumn 2020 that used CGI to animate SARS-CoV-2 particles coming out of people’s mouths, and a similar video released a year later in conjunction with the Universities of Cambridge and Leeds.

The Cambridge/Leeds scientists involved in the latter video appeared to have ignored important factors such as natural immunity, the alleged protection offered by vaccination, and the fact that asymptomatic transmission does not drive disease outbreaks, as noted by Fauci, and instead encouraged people to open their windows during the winter despite soaring energy bills.

Other examples of dehumanizing propaganda included British morning television presenters Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield hugging each other through a plastic sheet, and the manufacture of a plastic “hugging coat”, which twisted expressions of affection into acts of potential harm.

As restrictions were gradually lifted, headlines and statements from public figures such as London mayor Sadiq Khan and SAGE’s Catherine Noakes further reinforced the notion that the state had the right to interfere in people’s personal relationships, with the BBC even providing “five ways to make hugging safer” that included being selective, making it quick, avoiding face-to-face contact, doing it outside, and getting tested.

The overall effect of these measures and propaganda was a diabolical attack on human affection, with “social distancing” instilling a learned distrust of human contact, as noted by Hopkins, who referred to this phenomenon as “the pathologization of society”, manifesting a morbid obsession with disease and death.

Unscientific Social Distancing and Dehumanizing Masks

The scientific basis for Covid-19 countermeasures, including social distancing, is dubious, with a lack of well-designed epidemiological studies on the topic, as noted by Ahmed et al. in 2018.

The two-metre social distancing rule was arbitrary, with Robert Dingwall from NERVTAG claiming it was “conjured up out of nowhere” in April 2020, and a report by Rancourt in 2021 finding social distancing and mask mandates to be “arbitrary and nonsensical” in light of actual knowledge about transmission of viral respiratory diseases.

According to Martin in 2021, no single study has confirmed that social distancing of any population prevented the transmission of or infection by SARS CoV-2, and a UK Government social distancing review in July 2021 cited no peer-reviewed scientific literature.

The concept of social distancing has its roots in a quasi-autistic model of disease control based on forced human separation, developed by computer scientist Robert Glass, who was part of a network established in 2005 that addressed infectious disease modelling and military readiness.

Face masks serve as an instrument of dehumanisation, making people appear less human, as noted by Potts in 2020, and preventing expressions of humanity from being read, with many people finding masks to be utterly dehumanising and separating individuals from others.

The use of face masks is seen by Fagan in 2020 as a means to diminish humanity, rob people of their ego, identity, and autonomy, and make them appear less-than-human, with masks often being associated with horrific characters in popular culture, such as Hannibal Lecter and Bane.

Dehumanising infographics, often featuring cartoon characters without facial expressions or personal identity, were extensively used to tell people how to behave during the pandemic, and were commonly used by organisations such as the CDC and featured on news websites, including the BBC News website.

The use of dehumanising language and imagery, such as referring to face masks as “face coverings”, may be an attempt to downplay the dehumanising aspect of these measures, and the overall effect of these measures is to create a sense of dehumanisation and degradation, as noted by Lunning in 2013 and Needham in 2014.

The use of “disinfecting pods” and “Steripod” sprays in public places, such as football stadiums and pubs, has been employed as a means of supposedly preventing the spread of Covid-19, but these measures are more akin to pseudoscientific propaganda stunts that evoke memories of Nazi concentration camps.

Vaccine Apartheid and Discrimination

The term “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” coined by CDC director Rochelle Walensky, has been used to dehumanize and blame individuals who refuse to get vaccinated, drawing parallels with the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany, where they were framed as a danger to public health and subjected to dehumanizing treatment.

The language used in vaccination campaigns, such as “getting jabs into arms,” has been criticized for being dehumanizing, as it reduces individuals to mere body parts rather than acknowledging them as sovereign beings with autonomy over their own bodies.

The “Covid-19” narrative has created a new moral order that seeks to exclude and stigmatize the “unvaccinated,” with the media and public figures encouraging the vaccinated to turn against the unvaccinated, using language that implies the unvaccinated are a threat to public health and safety.

Examples of this include a Mail article from February 2021, which blamed the unvaccinated for keeping the UK in lockdown, and an op-ed in The Guardian, titled “It is only a matter of time before we turn on the unvaccinated,” which demonstrates the ways in which the media has contributed to the stigmatization and scapegoating of the unvaccinated.

Writers such as Hopkins and Sardi have noted the disturbing parallels between the treatment of the unvaccinated and the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, with Sardi predicting that deaths would be blamed on the unvaccinated, rather than on the vaccinated, and Hopkins jokingly referencing the possibility of “disinfection camps” being set up to solve the “Unvaccinated Question.”

The concept of a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” was propagated by the corporate media in July 2021, with German Health Minister Jens Spahn, a former WEF Young Global Leader, using this term to describe the situation in Germany.

According to McDonald, this concept has no scientific credibility, but rather serves as a form of propaganda meant to provoke anger towards those who choose not to get vaccinated, intentionally dividing the public against one another.

Scientific studies have shown that there is little to no difference between the COVID vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of becoming infected, harboring the virus, and transmitting it, contradicting the propaganda surrounding the “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.

The CDC was forced to change its definition of vaccination on September 1, 2021, to remove all reference to immunity, due to the poor job of the COVID-19 vaccines in preventing infection and transmission.

Increases in COVID-19 cases in the United States were found to be unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties, further contradicting the notion that the unvaccinated are responsible for the spread of the disease.

The idea that the unvaccinated are to blame for new variants of the virus has also been debunked, with studies showing that the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation.

Israel’s “Green Pass” program, announced in February 2021, required people to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination to gain entrance to registered venues, creating a two-tier system that has been compared to the Nazi occupation of France, where Jews were prohibited from entering public venues.

The European Union also announced its own “Digital Green Certificate” in March 2021, which was finalized in June, using similar “green” language that may be connected to broader “green” agendas, potentially paving the way for “climate lockdowns”.

The NHS app was developed to function as a “vaccine passport” and was integrated with the European Union’s system in July 2021, allowing for the differentiation between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of freedom and restrictions.

Tony Blair stated on June 6, 2021, that it was time to distinguish between the vaccinated and unvaccinated for the purposes of freedom, with the vaccinated being granted more freedom, while Anthony Fauci claimed that the United States would be divided into “two Americas” based on vaccination status.

The idea of segregating the unvaccinated and restricting their freedoms was promoted by various individuals and organizations, including CNN, which called for the unvaccinated to be segregated and made to pay for daily tests, and the BBC, which initially published a headline stating that fully jabbed people would be treated differently.

Similar to historical instances of discrimination, such as the segregation of Jews in Nazi Germany and the segregation of African Americans in the United States, signs and policies emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic that discriminated against the unvaccinated, including signs that read “Ungeimpfte unerwünscht” (unvaccinated not welcome) in Germany and “Covid Passport and ID required” in Ireland.

Examples of vaccine apartheid were widespread by the autumn of 2021, with separate lanes for vaccinated and unvaccinated passengers at Vancouver International Airport, segregation of the unvaccinated behind metal fences in Estonian town squares, and different rules for vaccinated and unvaccinated children in Britain, as well as the introduction of wristbands to signify vaccination status for first-year university students.

Businesses and organizations also implemented policies that discriminated against the unvaccinated, such as cutting sick pay for unvaccinated staff at companies like Morrisons, Ikea, Next, and Ocado, and denying access to unvaccinated veterans at the Royal Canadian Legion, demonstrating the widespread nature of vaccine apartheid during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, openly acknowledged that the vaccine passport system was creating two classes of people, “the vaccinated” and “the unvaccinated”, when she replied “That is what it is, so, yep” to a question in October 2021.

Lockdowns of the Unvaccinated and “No Jab, No Job” Policies

Several European countries, including Austria, Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Greece, Romania, and Ukraine, implemented or called for “lockdowns of the unvaccinated”, which is a discriminatory measure that targets people who have not received the Covid-19 vaccine.

Notably, countries with a history of fascist regimes, such as Austria, Italy, and Germany, were among the first to propose “lockdowns of the unvaccinated”, highlighting a concerning trend towards authoritarianism.

A referendum in Switzerland in December showed that 60% of voters supported the “Covid pass”, which is essentially a lockdown of the unvaccinated, following a campaign that pitted different groups against each other, including the old against the young and the vaccinated against the unvaccinated.

The UK government remained silent on the issue of “lockdowns of the unvaccinated”, with Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab refusing to rule out such a policy, and some media outlets, such as the Express, suggesting that the UK could follow Germany’s lead on unvaccinated rules.

The implementation of “no jab, no job” policies forced many people to choose between their livelihoods and their bodily autonomy, with some being forced to sacrifice their jobs and others reluctantly taking the vaccine to keep their jobs and provide for their families.

The mandatory vaccination of military and intelligence agency personnel in the United States raised concerns about the erosion of bodily autonomy and the potential for a “political purge” of dissidents, as those who refused to comply were forced out of their jobs.

The biosecurity paradigm, which prioritizes state control over individual bodily autonomy, is a totalitarian system that leaves no room for dissent, and the vaccine mandates were a step towards this goal, according to scholars such as Agamben and Tucker.

The incitement of hatred against “the unvaccinated” is a concerning trend, as it creates a divisive and fanatical atmosphere, where those who are not vaccinated are demonized and persecuted, as observed by scholars such as Versluis, who notes that this kind of fanaticism can lead to persecution and violence.

British Media’s Campaign Against the Unvaccinated

The British media played a significant role in inciting hatred against individuals who chose not to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, often referring to them as “the unvaccinated” or “vaccine refuseniks”, with various media outlets and personalities making inflammatory statements to motivate others to cause harm.

In April 2021, Edwina Currie appeared on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, stating that she did not want to be near unvaccinated individuals, and instead suggested that they should stay at home, exercising their freedom in that manner.

The Guardian published an article on May 6, 2021, that explained how to find out someone’s vaccination status due to a loophole in the NHS Digital vaccine booking system, which was seen as irresponsible and potentially harmful.

On May 17-18, 2021, the British media launched a coordinated campaign of vilification against those who did not want to take the Covid-19 vaccine, with outlets such as The Sun, Sky News, and LBC featuring guests who made calls for forced injections, mandatory vaccinations, and even incitements to violence.

Various media personalities, including Rachel Johnson, Shelagh Fogarty, Sarah Vine, and Angela Epstein, made public statements that stigmatized and shamed individuals who chose not to receive the vaccine, with some using language that could be construed as antisemitic, such as the term “vaccine refuseniks”, which was originally used to describe Soviet Jews denied permission to emigrate to Israel.

The media campaign against the unvaccinated continued throughout 2021, with newspaper headlines such as “The unvaccinated have become a lethal liability we can ill-afford” and “It’s time to punish Britain’s five million vaccine refuseniks: They put us all at risk of more restrictions”, demonstrating a coordinated effort to ostracize and shame those who did not receive the vaccine.

Official reports of serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine were largely ignored by the media, despite the fact that there were over 5.2 million reports of adverse reactions, according to OpenVAERS, MHRA, and WHO, highlighting a significant disparity between the media narrative and the actual safety data available.

There was a widespread media and political campaign of hatred and discrimination against individuals who chose not to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, with numerous public figures and media outlets calling for the restriction of their freedoms and the implementation of punishments.

Various journalists and commentators, including Neil, Johnston, Brady, and Sheffield, expressed their frustration and anger towards the unvaccinated, with some suggesting that they should be locked down or face restrictions, such as Mason’s proposal to reserve the harshest restrictions for the 5 million people who declined to be vaccinated.

Mainstream British television shows, such as the Jeremy Vine Show, featured guests like Lucy Beresford, Yasmin Alihai-Brown, and Carole Malone, who advocated for taking away freedoms from the unvaccinated, with Beresford suggesting punishment and Alihai-Brown proposing a badge to identify the unjabbed.

Other media personalities, including Benjamin Butterworth, Nick Ferrari, and Piers Morgan, also expressed support for punishing or restricting the unvaccinated, with Morgan producing a stream of vitriol against those who had refused the vaccine.

The media campaign was echoed by political leaders, including Tony Blair, who called those who were not vaccinated “irresponsible” and “an idiot”, and Emmanuel Macron, who vowed to “piss off” the unvaccinated by banning them from public places.

Other world leaders, such as Justin Trudeau and Boris Johnson, also made derogatory comments about the unvaccinated, with Trudeau claiming that they were often misogynistic and racist, and Johnson labeling antivax campaigners as “completely wrong”.

These remarks were part of a transnationally coordinated propaganda strategy, with all five leaders making their comments within a 16-day period, and that another way of discriminating against the unvaccinated was to claim that they took up a disproportionate number of hospital beds.

False Statements About Covid Being a Disease of the Unvaccinated

The Guardian reported in November 2021 that Covid-19 had largely become a disease of the unvaccinated, based on the word of an anonymous “secret consultant”, but this claim is contradicted by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data, which shows that for Weeks 49-52 of 2021, “unvaccinated” cases accounted for 41% of the total, not 90%.

Health Secretary Sajid Javid claimed on December 19, 2021, that around 9 out of 10 of the most ill hospital patients were unvaccinated, but UKHSA data from the same period shows that the proportion of hospitalized cases with confirmed or probable Omicron who are unvaccinated is 25% across England, and even lower in regions outside London.

A UKHSA report from December 12, 2021, indicates that 19.3% of UK adults had refused the vaccine, and the total percentage of the population “unvaccinated” rises to 32.1% including children, which suggests that the proportion of “unvaccinated” people in hospital outside London is lower than expected.

Boris Johnson claimed on December 29, 2021, that 90% of people in intensive care were not boosted, and that unvaccinated individuals were eight times more likely to get into hospital, but these claims are not supported by UKHSA data, and appear to be exaggerated or fabricated to push a particular agenda.

Figures and claims made by government officials and media outlets, such as the claim that the Mater hospital in Belfast was “full with young, critically unwell, unvaccinated COVID patients on ventilators”, and NHS England Chief Executive Amanda Pritchard’s claim that hospitalizations were 14 times higher than the previous year, are often misleading or false, and contribute to mass paranoia and hysteria.

The data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in England, covering the period from April 1, 2021, to May 31, 2023, reveals that only 5% of deaths involving Covid-19 were among the unvaccinated population, while 78.7% of deaths involved individuals who had taken four shots, with the remaining percentages distributed among those who had taken one, two, or three doses.

The ONS data also shows that the fourth dose was primarily targeted at clinically vulnerable individuals and older adults in care homes, who are already at a higher risk of death, which may skew the mortality rates among the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

According to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), as of July 2022, 23% of adults remained unvaccinated, which correlates with the 23.5% of deaths among the unvaccinated population, assuming that everyone who took a fourth dose would have died anyway and that there is no difference in the death rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

The analysis of the ONS data suggests that Covid-19 vaccines may be ineffective in preventing deaths involving Covid-19, or possibly even increase the risk of death,

Consequences of Societal Division

The Covid-19 operation has been characterized as a deliberate attempt by the transnational ruling class to divide society, destroy democracy, and institute a novel form of totalitarianism, with the mechanisms of division analyzed in this chapter consistent with the first four stages of Stanton’s ten stages of genocide, including classification, symbolization, discrimination, and dehumanization.

While the term “genocide” may not be entirely accurate to describe the current situation, as the targeted group is defined by dissidence rather than national, ethnic, racial, or religious identity, it is still essential to be vigilant and aware of the potential risks and consequences of such division and manipulation.

The Covid-19 operation has led to a significant division among families, friends, and communities, resulting in an atmosphere of distrust that pervades society, with nearly everyone having lost friends or fallen out with people they thought they were close to since 2020.

There are four intervening stages before the final stage of extermination, which include organisation, polarisation, preparation, and persecution, with the digital surveillance infrastructure for advanced counterinsurgency already in place, as discussed in Chapter 8.

The majority of people have been indoctrinated by propaganda and brainwashed by psychological warfare, believing in “The Science” and trusting the authorities, while a minority has remained immune to the psychological operation and sees their counterparts as unwitting victims trapped in an artificial reality.

The real question is whether subjective consciousness will catch up with objective conditions fast enough, as warned by Trotsky in 1938, who stated that the objective prerequisites for the proletarian revolution had ripened but were beginning to get rotten, and without a socialist revolution, a catastrophe threatens the whole culture of mankind.

The Covid-19 operation has been compared to the events leading up to World War II, with the author referencing Vernon Coleman and quoting Trotsky, who warned of an impending catastrophe if a socialist revolution does not occur, and the outcome of World War III is uncertain.

Featured image taken from ‘Europe vaccine crackdown: Why UK could put unjabbed into fresh lockdown’, Express, 29 November 2021