Most of the Western world is no longer in lockdown, some vaccine mandates are being loosened, mask wearers are distinctly the minority everywhere you look.
For now at least, and for want of a better phrase, we have largely “gone back to normal”…except, you know, now with a totally broken economy, more centralised financial power, dozens of alarming precedents set up for future deployment and millions upon millions of people injected with poison under false pretences.
But on the lockdown front at least, we’re normal…mostly.
Lockdowns are quickly becoming one of those embarrassing things that were only ever supported by other people, like wearing flares or voting for Thatcher. Politicians are feverishly passing the buck back and forth, claiming to have never wanted lockdowns in the firstplace.
…but not in China.
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
As the rest of the world “lives with Covid”, people in Chinese cities are still subject to dystopian levels of control and surveillance. Up to and including being welded inside their own homes.
Well, we can certainly rule out a few mainstream “explanations”:
- We know it’s not because Covid is a real disease or uniquely dangerous in any way whatsoever. The data has spoken on that.
- We know it’s not because lockdowns work to protect the health of the public or prevent disease outbreaks. The data has spoken on that too.
- We know it’s not because the Chinese government holds the lives of their citizens as more precious than their Western counterparts.
- And we know it’s not because they were the victim of some bio-engineered viral attack by the West. That idea was always absurd.
…so what’s the real explanation?
Well, there are really several answers to that, all of which come back to our old friend the fake binary.
1. Heel Vs Face
If you accept that the Covid “pandemic” was in fact a global psy-op, carried out by most of the governments of the world working in concert at the behest of supra-national financial, corporate and political interests, then it de facto follows that any apparent differences in approach or attitude between those co-operating governments serve a role in the narrative.
In short, someone has to play “the bad guy”.
In this case, China’s brutal “zero-Covid” approach allows the Western governments to claim the “moderate” label simply by virtue of not being so cartoonishly “evil” as China.
Of course, this works in both directions.
“The West” can say to their citizens, “look how brutal China’s lockdown was, we would never go that far, because we care about your rights”.
Meanwhile, China can say “look how lax and disorganized the West’s Covid response was, we would never be that careless, because we care about your health”.
It is – and here’s that phrase again – a fake binary.
Each side serves as the good guy in their own narrative, and the bad guy in the other, and in that fashion they actually support each other whilst corralling each other’s dissidents into a controlled “alternative opinion”.
2. Promoting Vaccines
In The Guardian two days ago, the now-ubiquitous Devi Sridhar actually defended China’s “tough decisions” on Zero Covid, coming at it from the angle that China has to be that harsh because their vaccines don’t work as well as ours do:
The entire column is really just a way of shilling “safe and effective” mRNA vaccines (as well as other agenda we’ll deal with below):
Again, the twin-sided narrative.
The West says, “see, we don’t need these brutal lockdowns, because we’ve got magical vaccines”, with the inevitable unspoken corollary of this being “we’ll need to go into lockdowns if you don’t get vaccinated enough” .
Meanwhile, China gets to lay the blame for their own lockdowns on Western selfishness, “the only reason we have these lockdowns is the mean selfish Western companies won’t share their technology”. This neatly turns ALL pro-Chinese voices in Western alternate media voices into pro-vaccine voices too.
3. Feeds The Lie That “Lockdowns Work”
Lockdowns do not work to halt the spread of diseases and, before 2020, were never suggested or used in that manner.
Then, in the spring of 2020, almost every world government seemingly simultaneously took the unprecedented decision to go into lockdown to fight Covid. To justify this the mainstream narrative was in need of some evidence lockdowns work.
Over and over and over again you will read apparent “condemnation” of China’s lockdowns alongside the qualification of their supposedly low Covid death numbers.
In mainstream sources, the clear implication is left unspoken, but prominent alternative voices are happy to say it out loud: “These lockdowns may appear unethical, but they saved millions of lives.”
Since ALL Covid “cases” are entirely the product of PCR testing programs, and ALL “Covid deaths” are subject to ludicrously tortured definitions, we can conclude China’s Covid statistics are a contrivance designed to sell the idea that lockdowns actually work.
More than just lockdowns, an undercurrent of the pandemic narrative has been a softening of the public attitude to authoritarian governence in general, usually through compliments to China.
As early as March 2020 we had “experts” on Channel 4 praising China’s approach, we had Neil Ferguson lamenting the UK government didn’t have the power to follow China’s gameplan, we had western news outlets claiming China had “triumphed” over Covid.
The message was clear, and not at all subtle: “Man, obviously having no regard for individual rights is bad, but that approach really does seem to work, doesn’t it? Clearly, we would never do that, but you can’t deny it’s effective, can you?”
That messaging still carries on today, and it has nothing to do with China per se, and everything to do with the slow-burn legitimisation of tyranny by virtue of the ends justifying the means.
To sum up, China’s “zero covid” approach forms a vital piece of the overall pandemic narrative, working in conjunction with Western governments as a deliberately stark contrast:
- It promotes the idea that vaccines work and helped prevent further lockdowns here.
- It shines a flattering light on Western governments, who appear less draconian by comparison.
- It serves as an argument for the effectiveness of lockdowns and other authoritarian measures.
Perhaps most importantly, the supposed difference works to corral and control public debate.
Traditionally leftwing critics of Western capitalism are forced to defend vaccines and lockdowns by their ideological loyalty to China.
Conversely, right-wingers have China’s “socialist” practices to point their fingers at, whilst praising Western capitalist pharmaceutical innovation for saving us from the need for tighter lockdowns.
Each side is controlled by their ideology, not realising their loyalties are being used to position them inside the permissible spectrum of opinion.
All the while, both sides claim the virus is real and dangerous, both sides use the same PCR tests and both sides shill vaccines made by the same companies. The superficial “differences” serve only to sell their many points of agreement.
In other words, the divide over Covid tactics is as real as the fight over Ukraine. It all serves the same purpose, promoting the great reset and the global technocratic government. A system neither communist nor capitalist, but absorbing the worst vices of whilst purging the virtues.
Zero Covid is just China working as the other side of the scissors.
Kit Knightly is a journalist. This article was originally published on OffGuardian.