Which is the Real Threat?

Nothing breaks my heart more than seeing the beaming, Godlike faces of young chidren being smothered under all those ubiquitous, loathesome masks. For even as vandals senselessly deface our historic monuments, parents and schools are actively defacing their own children, made in God’s own image, under the slimmest pretext of a viral threat. So perhaps one of the questions we should be asking today is this: “What constitutes a real threat?”

Growing up in the 1960s I well remember the threat of nuclear annihilation by the Soviets as our greatest fear. Yet in spite of that looming apocalyptic prospect, life still went on in its regular rhythm. Kids played, dinner bells rang, and we still had to get tomorrow’s homework done. The threat to world peace, though very real, was not an excuse to overturn one’s everyday existence. Society still functioned in its normal channels.

How times have changed! During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis President John F. Kennedy stood up courageously to defuse a potential nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union, and the world breathed a deep and communal sigh of relief. Today we have watched five months of petty public officialdom endlessly botch any sane or rational response to a very different kind of threat: a tiny virus that has instigated global panic and virtual social paralysis. This is not because the virus is particularly virulent but only because obsessive media saturation has conflated it into the greatest systemic threat to mankind since Hitler’s unleashed his blitzkriegs into Polad and France.

Forget the fact that fewer people have actually died during the first seven months of 2020 than in the same period for the previous two years. Forget the CDC admission of screwing up infection counts or its confirmed death rate for Covid-19 between 0.04% and 0.26%, or about one third the fatality rate for recipients of flu shots. Forget those states where officials now admit that people confirmed as positive cases were never actually tested.  Forget that after a candid admission by Dr. Fauci, mask manufacturers now include a disclaimer that their masks do not deter Covid-19 transmission. So in view of such disclosures what is the real nature of the current “threat” that it requires non-vulnerable students and young children to be forced into donning dehumanizing masks and told not to congregate?

Normal life has been put on indefinite suspension and whole economies ruined because of the looming threat that someone might sneeze! Ludicrous is too kind a word to describe the befuddled reactions of officials and their crony newsrooms to such a purported “threat.”

In order to unravel this mystery we need to go back to the 1960s when Americans were feeling far more threatened by Cuban missile bases than by sore throats. For at that same time a new kind of “threat” was being engineered on a purely psychological level. Public consciousness was then being sensitized through both advertising and news media to the new danger.  That great existential threat to mankind and planet earth we were informed was ordinary people like ourselves. “We” were the problem and the only way to save the day was to get rid of all those excess folks fouling up the air and water. The 1968 best seller by a California professor named Paul Ehrlich summed up the threat in its very title, The Population Bomb, which neatly laid out the threat to humanity from people. Not bad people or greedy people, just “too many” people.

Ehrlich’s dire predictions of mass starvation by 1980 never happened, of course, but the gauntlet had been thrown down. Henceforth the “threat” to society no longer depended on some dangerous ideology or activities like terrorism or mass murder but simply the act of living out one’s personal life. Driving your car threatened the environment. Having more than 1.8 children threatened global starvation. Flying in an airplane or generating electricity became threats to earth’s climate. The systemic root of every “threat” was people going about their daily lives. Simply eliminate all those excess people and, voila!, the threat evaporates. 

Now if you think this to be a rather simplistic assessment of the human condition you are not alone. But as Hitler’s chief propagandist and later KGB operatives well understood, the constant repetition of  some lie or nonsensical idea can exercise a powerful persuasion on the mind. They call it the “Rule of Three,” and its aim is psychological conditioning and manipulation.  1. Slogans become beliefs when endlessly repeated. 2. Auto suggestion neatly planted in “news stories” generally flies below our ordinary suspicion radar (called a BS meter). 3. Finally, mass hypnosis can be achieved through entertainment venues, especially music, where subliminal messages penetrate into the subconscious brain.

These indoctrination experts also understood that big lies are more believable than small lies because they are more general in nature and therefore harder to disprove. Most of all, their fabrications need to induce fear and the sense of a threat in order to be useful. For example: “5,000 species may become extinct in the next decade if we don’t act now!” “Our planet will turn into a hothouse unable to support life within the next half century.”  “The loss of rain forest is leading us towards a climate catastrophe.” None of these highly alarming statements can be either proven or refuted scientifically, but all are designed to heighten one’s anxiety. Such “threat psychology” plants the idea in the mind that “people” are the one truly existential threat to each one of us and, by extension, to the world.

For 60 years now we have been bombarded by this message in various forms every time we switch on a screen or read a periodical. The threat is out there, the threat is real. People are dangerous creatures and they present a constant threat to your well being. This mentality rationalizes the need for children to be wearing masks, to be under the constant surveillance of their smart phones, never walk to school, and be provided with classroom “safe” spaces. They are so threatened, in fact, that they even need to be sheltered from discomforting ideas, i.e., opinions that may disagree with the standard narrative.

By keeping them under some kind of threat, whether perceived or real, children naturally become more pliable and conforming, hence the masks. But masks are especially odious because what they do psychologically is to exile “others” to a “safe” distance while reducing every person to a virtual,  faceless hologram. And by reducing or limiting close human interaction the face masks perform much the same function as a contraceptive. And why not? Because in today’s world nothing is more threatening to a woman than a child in her womb. Babies are a threat. Your school friends are a threat. People are a threat so keep those barriers in place to reduce the threat.

The subtle (and surely intended) message which is being planted in the minds of these most vulnerable youngsters is that people are an existential threat and therefore need to be kept at arms length (more like 6 feet) for their own safety. If you wanted to raise a generation of fearful parranoids this would be the perfect method. At the same time you are forming a generation of timid, compliant automatons who will unquestioningly submit to whatever school, health, or government authorities demand, even if that means a micro chip in your body or a sterilizing vaccine in your arm. Yet many good Christian parents now routinely place these disgusting facial contraceptives over the mouths of their five year olds to “protect” them from what? Breathing the good free air God has provided to keep them alive? (The only thing the child is not protected from are microscopic viruses that can pass through a mask like a sieve.)

Every child’s face is a beautiful reflection of God’s glory and “the mask” is a symbol of something evil: a denial of the innate goodness of other persons which treats them as threats and contaigons. Masks further undermine the virtue of charity by planting suspicion rather than fraternal love within our psyches. They make others out to be “dangerous” threats to our survival in the same way that Hitler portrayed the Jews, Stalin demonized the Kulaks, and Pol Pot branded Cambodian intellectuals. In al three cases those targeted groups were subjected to mass extermination because they were no longer regarded as fully human.

If the great threat to society today is defined as “people” ( a stage we have long since reached evidenced by widespread support for abortion and now euthanasia), then a time will come when the wholesale elimination of “threatening,” “uncooperative,” or “offensive” people is undertaken. Do not fool yourself that such a thing could never happen here. It is already plainly on the horizon. Today’s threat is real, but it is not posed by a virus. Rather, it is our own apathy and compliance with those deep state “Pied Pipers” who would steal away the minds and hearts of our children into the arms of a Leftist tyranny. Face masks are insidiously becoming the swastikas of the current globalist’s regime. They are symbols of loyalty to that malevolant power some would call the anti-christ. I let you decide for yourself, but the only symbol I choose to adorn my body with is the cross.

 

Francis J. Pierson   +a.m.d.g.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s