Charlotte, NC — One of the most disheartening aspects of the whole COVID-19 pandemic, (if it can be called that) is the lack of action on anyone’s part to call out the lies and contradictions so obvious to those paying attention. Sure, there are doctors, writers and journalists who are tirelessly exposing such things to a frightened public, hoping to persuade them out of their self-induced hypnosis. I’m talking about the people who have the power to affect policy and perceptions on a larger scale. People were excited, for example, when Rand Paul was grilling Dr. Fauci over gain of function of research. What happened to that? Since that time, the vaccine has been approved by the FDA, and our so-called representatives are sitting in silence, as people across the country are being forced to choose between their jobs or taking the vaccine.
Employer-mandated vaccines were first introduced by The New England Journal of Medicine as early as October 2020. They state employer mandates will avoid the possible “due-process” concerns of imposing legal penalties for noncompliance. They also cite the effectiveness of imposing vaccines as a requirement for children to be enrolled in school. In other words, conscripting employers to play the game has been part of the plan all along.
How can Rand Paul, or anyone else for that matter, sit back and allow this to happen when just a few weeks ago he was arguing in front of God and country that Covid is a manufactured virus? Do we have to accept mandatory vaccines for a disease that was deliberately created to be more contagious? Interestingly enough, the NEJM article also states vaccines should only be mandated if there is a state of emergency and if a system of accountability is in place. As of right now, pharmaceutical companies are immune and employers cannot be held liable for adverse reactions.
From the very beginning, the coronavirus narrative has been rife with inconsistencies, misperceptions and outright lies. Any one of these on their own, should have been enough to put an end to any of the Draconian measures originally taken to flatten the curve. The PCR test is a great example. Not only has it produced a high rate of false positives, the cycle count was deliberately set higher than it should have been to record a high number of cases. In January 2021, the W.H.O. dropped this threshold, which in turn, began to reflect a lower rate of infection. Many commentators suspected this was done to create the illusion of an effective vaccine. The false positives can most likely be attributed to the CDC admitting there was no isolated virus sample from which the testing procedure was developed in the first place.
What does that matter? They created a synthetic sample of something they believed mimicked COVID-19. No big deal, right? People become angry when confronted with this information. “Follow the science,” they say. This admission is in the CDC’s own document detailing the procedures used in developing the testing process. What other science matters pertaining to this issue? In June 2021, the CDC withdrew the emergency authorization requests for the use of PCR testing, and urged the adoption of other testing procedures by the end of the year. Procedures incidentally, that in their own words can differentiate between the Flu and COVID-19. Why?
Another massive lie that should have enraged the whole country, considering what they put us through in 2020, and what they are attempting to do now, is the admission by Dr. Birx that if someone died with COVID-19, the death was attributed to COVID-19. This led to the wildly exaggerated claim that 600,000 people were killed by the disease. It was also admitted by the CDC that hospitals were paid up to fifteen percent more in Medicare funding to label people as COVID-19 positive, and this was responsible for driving up the death count. That doesn’t matter though, does it?
Surely, these revelations should be enough to prompt investigations, and put an end to the narrative that we are in a life ending pandemic, shouldn’t it? You would think so, but no one seems very interested in doing anything at all. Why?
In late summer of 2020, news began to break that the numbers of deaths from COVID-19 were being revised to reflect those that were suffering from other underlying illnesses. This claim was constantly fact checked, and those claiming it to be true were discredited as the tinfoil hat type. This is another example, however, of something being admitted by the CDC. In June 2021, they released a report entitled Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,677 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020-March 2021. In their own words, the death of 94.9% of those hospitalized due to COVID-19 can be attributed to comorbidities such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and even high rates of anxiety.
They concluded this study by saying other underlying medical conditions were strong factors for severe illness associated with COVID-19, and targeted efforts to ensure high rates of vaccination among those at risk should be the priority.
The intent thus far has been to point out the continual disparities between the way the government and media portray COVID-19, and the words used in their own studies. Years of media and communications research lead them to believe most people simply are not paying attention to anything more than what is being reported by the mainstream news. When people do pay attention, and can articulate these inconsistencies, the left doesn’t like it, and they look for ways to discredit anyone who challenges their narrative.
If The CDC states people with these high-risk factors should be the target of vaccination, why are they pushing it on everyone? Why are people who have zero risk being forced out of their jobs for choosing to not get vaccinated? Why are our so-called representatives sitting in silence ignoring these outright fabrications, while allowing this agenda to drive on?
Most Americans concerned with such questions know their elected officials have a vested interest in at least presenting the perception that they are on the moral side of any issue. What they may not realize is the amount of study that goes into such things. For example, a Princeton University paper entitled Narratives, Imperatives and Moral Persuasion, discusses the relationships between agenda driven narratives and the perceptions of the morality behind them. A moral narrative is one which prompts behavioral change because failure to do so could have moral implications. “Take the vaccine or else you are threatening others.” Moral narratives are often pushed, according to this paper, for reputational concerns.
In other words, no one wants to be seen standing against the effort to save humanity from the world ending pandemic if there is any possibility it is true. Nor do they want to be seen supporting conspiracy theories when many of the people they represent are falling for the fear tactics. Sadly, there are millions of Americans who are demanding mask mandates and forced vaccinations. There are millions more who are just sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. Moral persuasion, then, is framing the narrative in a way that gives moral imperative to those pushing it to influence behavior change in accordance with the message.
Moral narratives are defined in this paper as anything that can change the narrators, decision makers, or the public’s beliefs about the benefits or consequences of going along with the story. What consequences do government officials face for going against the grain? What are the social benefits for pushing the narrative? We are dealing with something which presents the perception of a major public health threat and going against the narrative threatens credibility.
Another paper from the Kent University Psychology Department entitled The effectiveness of moral messages on public health behavioral intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic states that a message of utilitarianism, which is an overall concern for the greater good, is highly effective in persuading behavioral choices. It is also highly associated with beliefs about public health and people’s responsibility to behave in ways which support good health practices. Framing the COVID-19 message around ideas like family and community safety are effective and are “a promising approach for future studies of interventions to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the US.”
To put these findings in simpler terms, there is a fear of standing out and not being accepted which controls people’s actions. Behaviorist B.F. Skinner stated in his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity that “people who get along together well under the mild contingencies of approval and disapproval are controlled as effectively as (and in many ways more effectively than) the citizens of a police state.” This means that our representatives are not questioning the contradictions of the COVID-19 narrative because the moral imperative of being concerned for the greater good has been effectively attached to it.
He also states that people are controlled by the value they place on their efforts. “Those who work productively because of the reinforcing value of what they produce are under the sensitive and powerful control of the products.” This is also known as effort justification. This suggests that the amount of work put into achieving a common goal may be enough to prompt an attitude or behavioral change. There may be some representatives who challenge the narrative on a personal level, however, the work they put into maintaining the illusion they are working for public safety keeps them under control of the party line. Effort justification is also a result of Leon Festinger’s theory on Cognitive Dissonance.
When people are forced to adapt behaviors which defy their beliefs a feeling of uneasiness and confusion sets in. This is known as dissonance. Whatever actions are taken to reduce this feeling is justified. It is entirely possible the COVID-19 narrative was pushed so hard and fast nobody had any time to make sense of it. Feelings of dissonance when confronted with mask mandates, lockdowns and other measures taken likely occurred because those actions contradict common sense.
The issue needs to be reframed, and new questions need to be asked. For instance, the FDA approval letter for the Pfizer vaccine clearly states that the long-term effects of the shot are not yet known. How is it moral to force a vaccine on an individual, or make someone choose between their job and getting a shot, when the long-term effects are unknown? How is it moral to be on the side of mandatory vaccines, or to just sit in silence when the agenda is driven by faulty and inconsistent information? We must take the moral imperative to change the moral nature of the message being pushed.
Support The Liberty Loft by donating via PayPal or donate with crypto. Your support helps us achieve our mission to deliver conservative news and opinion. You can find us on a wide variety of social media channels or subscribe to our notifications to receive all the latest information as it is released.
