Finding Agreement in the Polarity Around Viruses
Millions protest globally as vaccine-mandates and other virus-policies are enacted. We are polarised on this subject to an extreme degree, and it is in the mending of this polarity that we find the potential of real progress.
At the root of either side of the debate is fear.
On one side is the fear that we, or someone we know, will be killed by the virus, and that we need to ensure the lives of people against the virus at nearly any cost. On the other side we have the fear of authoritarianism rising in the shade of the policies enacted against the virus. It is not hard then to see why conflict is occurring, as our priorities for safety are seemingly a zero-sum game. Safety versus freedom.
This point of contention has led to immense polarisation, with many of us on both sides considering people on the other side of the debate to be real threats to our own existence. Unsurprisingly, throwing around slurs such as “sheep” or “anti-vaxxer”, has has been normalised, while we seem to be increasingly willing to sanction punishment towards each other.
Despite the immediate intensity of fear, it is less noticeable how much it can minimise our capacity to think freely. It is as if the scope which we are observing the world through narrows down. We see every potential danger of the actions of our opponents, while failing to see the cliff behind us which we are slowly backing towards. In the case of this debate, we seem to have lost the understanding that we are literally in the same boat. Those vulnerable to the virus need help, yet we can’t simply choose to ignore that people need to make a living. We can’t simply tell people that they should blame the government for not issuing stimulus cheques, and not criticise the virus-policies.
It doesn’t solve their problem of immediate economic uncertainty, foreclosure, and eviction to know that a political process of issuing cheques is being considered. Furthermore, the stimulus cheques have, especially in the US, been ridiculously small compared to the expenses people having simply to pay rent.
Thus, we need to be able to challenge the economic structures of society, while at the same time also having in mind the immediate, personal livelihood of others. Saying that the economy suffers from virus-policies doesn’t mean that billionaires lose money, but instead that millions of people will literally lose their homes, starve, or die. Thus, there is merit to the idea that the cure can’t be worse than the disease, and we can’t simply discredit this statement as apologetics for billionaires, seeing especially as the latter mentioned have seen nothing but increases to their wealth since the virus-policies were enacted.
The totalitarian systems of the 20th century represent a kind of collective psychosis, whether gradually or suddenly, reason, common human decency are no longer possible in such a system. There is only a pervasive atmosphere of terror; A projection of an enemy imagined to be “in our midst”. Thus society turns on itself, urged by the ruling authorities. — Joost Meerloo
We need to reassess our approach to this entire subject, as the polarisation is increasing at an alarming rate, and this starts with an attempt to understand the people on the other side of the debate. Believing that they are all simply stupid or careless is an attitude of extreme superiority based not only on what is absolutely unlikely to be true, but also on incredible cruelty. It is essentially saying that the concerns and fears of others should be dismissed because they are, according to us, too stupid to understand reality, and that punitive measures should be enacted to keep them in line.
This is no easy task, as it requires being willing to accept that none of us hold the absolute truth, and furthermore a willingness to take a nuanced approach to a highly complex subject matter. It may alleviate the fear to cling to the sense of certainty that a certain group may offer, but we will almost surely be sacrificing both our own integrity and the possibility of new understanding when we accept a narrative of reality provided to us by those we perceive as authorities.
“When polarization exists, we must consider that we may be holding one side of truth and the opposite party may be holding the other side of truth. In other words, objective truth may just arise out of the amalgamation of both currently polarized perspectives.”— Teal Swan
We need to look for how seemingly opposite world-views can actually be integrated, and in this case, it is actually not as challenging as it may seem, as most of what we believe isn’t necessarily incorrect, but merely one aspect of a bigger picture.
For any person a virus like one of the current one’s can absolutely seem threatening. Whether it is a fear of how a virus may influence our bodies or someone truly vulnerable to the virus due to lacking immunity, the fear is certainly valid and understandable. Yet, we need to challenge ourselves to expand our understanding both in scope and scale.
This pandemic has gone on for 1,5 years at this point, and from the beginning it has seemed that resolution is right around the corner.
Yet, that has hardly happened, despite large amounts of us being vaccinated, we are still being told that masks, lockdowns, isolation is a necessity. This is mostly being blamed upon those of us unwilling to get vaccinated, yet this blame is misplaced for a multitude of reasons. One can look to Israel, which as a country has one of the highest rates of vaccination, yet recent outbreaks of new variants seem to have had no problems spreading regardless. One could also compare the effects on the virus of lockdowns, between countries on the strict side, France, Spain, Belgium, etc. with countries like Sweden on the more modest side, and see that there hasn’t been any real difference between the overall outcomes.
The point here is that these measures don’t seem to be the solution they have been sold as being. And is this really the solution we will accept? A continuous series of vaccines for every new variant and permanent mandates of lockdowns and mask-wearing?
“There has been a deepening recognition among elites in the West that as you begin to lose the power to control people by force, you have to start to control what they think.” — Noam Chomsky
Additionally, this challenges our attitude towards viruses in general, as the fear does seem to have limited our understanding with the virome. Viruses after all, have existed longer than we have, and our existence is symbiotic with them. They are in the air, water, and earth, in numbers beyond count, and thus within our bodies as well. We might wonder then why it seems that they can sometimes appear harmful to us, yet the answer is literally staring us in the face.
As the world is increasingly industrialised, we seem to have gained a sense of apathy manifested in sayings such as “everything gives you cancer”, and while it may feel like that is the case, the truth of it ends with certain practices and productions which really do harm us. A primary component here is chemical agriculture, which at this point has become the norm. We do not hear much about it in the media, but chemical agriculture is destroying our health. The main producer in the western world, Bayer, has paid out billions to people who developed cancer due to the products, and tens of thousands of cases are still outstanding. Yet, the effects do not stop there, and it is our immunity which is especially harmed by these chemicals. I recommend taking 15 minutes to watch the video below for a more elaborate explanation:
What is important to understand is that we have forgotten the context in which the viruses exist; our own bodies. I mention chemical farming because this is a main disabler of our immune-system, but the problem extends to factors such as stress, lacking sleep, diet generally, pollution from other industries, etc. The point is that we have zoomed in on a symptom in the form of a virus, while missing the root cause, like missing the tumor under a rash. It is the health of our bodies and the health of nature in general that determines whether viruses become a problem, not the virus itself.
The above explains why virus-policies feel so futile, despite demanding so much from us personally; they ignore the real causes of the problem.
Thus, our collective focus needs to shift towards the ways in which we are destroying our own health, and this is a very different approach which demands us taking personal responsibility, not by isolating ourselves from each other, but to take an honest look at how our industries and ways of life are at an absolute detriment to ourselves and the natural world.
Returning again to our food-production, it is not merely the use of chemicals which harm us, but also the production of animals. As we have managed to create factory farms, the conditions for animals have become so horrendous that their lives are spent in perpetual torture, from birth to death, despite what industry advertisement has us believe. As if this wasn’t enough, the enormous use of antibiotics combined with the waste from these animals form enormous lakes, in which bacteria and viruses stew, becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics. An absolutely huge potential for pandemics which would actually be dangerous for others than just elderly people, unlike the current one.
“Look, part of the whole technique of disempowering people is to make sure that the real agents of change fall out of history, and are never recognized in the culture for what they are. So it’s necessary to distort history and make it look as if Great Men did everything — that’s part of how you teach people they can’t do anything, they’re helpless, they just have to wait for some Great Man to come along and do it for them.” — Noam Chomsky
Looking at the big picture we are a species in the process of destroying ourselves, while fighting among ourselves about how we should treat a mild symptom of our decreasing health. Having everyone comply with virus-policies and getting vaccinated will solve nothing, and any feeling of safety resulting from it would be an illusion. We will have given over our most fundamental civil rights, for a fleeting feeling of safety, as the virus policies have so far consisted in restrictions of freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and bodily autonomy. Just like the atrocities we commit during times of war, fear has the power to make us excuse any measure, as long as safety is promised to result of its enactment.
If safety and well-being is truly what we want, we need to address the root causes of our problems, and not give away our personal autonomy to neither governments or corporations.
We need to face our fears and seek to understand reality outside of what certain people and institutions tell us, and even be willing to hear out those we consider to be our enemies. The polarisation needs to be faced head on, as it in itself has the capacity to fester in our tribalistic tendencies, blinding us to any flaws in our thinking, and worse, blinding us to damage we cause others, justified by excuse-covered fear.
Right now, the most intense debate has been on whether or not vaccines should just be mandated, directly or indirectly. The thought is understandable as many of us are exhausted by the pandemic, and consider widespread vaccination to be the last frontier of returning to normality. From this perspective, it is easy to become frustrated with those of us refusing vaccination. It can seem like people are refusing out of unwarranted hesitancy or stubbornness, and that their concerns for freedom are nothing but petty cries based on lacking intelligence.
This is an understandable perspective, yet one which in its frustration fails to recognise its own blindspots. Vaccines are utterly unlikely to return normality, as the very people and institutions promoting them are already conceding that mask-wearing, lockdowns, and further vaccinations will be required. Furthermore, the concerns around personal freedom is by no means petty, as mandating vaccination is setting a precedent for violating a persons right to bodily autonomy. We may believe the vaccines to be safe, yet being willing to force them upon others is an entirely different choice than simply taking one ourselves, especially seeing how these vaccines are new tech, which has not yet been thoroughly tested.
Thus, this issue can not be glossed over as some kind of given or necessary step, and needs to be seen for what it is; a willingness to force others to be injected against their will with a substance, that at least in this case, is absolutely experimental. Yes, most of us wont have to do the dirty work of actually forcing others, as either police will be ordered to do so, or people will accept it out of necessity, resulting from the sanctions we have put upon them, but we are undeniably forcing others. There is in practice no less violence in sanctions as there is to directly forcing people. No jab = no work, social life, or freedom of movement, is just as coercive as a direct use of force, and only serves to lessen our own guilt of having enacted the measures.
It can be frightening to exist as we move closer towards our own self-induced extinction, but if we give into fear and resort to demonising others, we will not only experience the iron grip of authoritarian dystopia, but also miss the opportunities for the change which we truly need, which simply are not part of most government policy at this time.
The belief that the only way to create change is through top-down state enforcement is one engrained in most of us, yet it is one we need to let go of. It is essentially a belief that the only way we can get what we want, is by forcing others to comply. A zero sum game, where we almost inevitably end up seeing half of the people around us as being evil, and vice versa.
This is not to deny state-action is a useful avenue for change, simply to make the case that it is only one part of how we can create change. The other part, which we are indoctrinated into dismissing is our personal choices which we make all day, every day.
Choices in our consumption, interaction with others, how we spend our time, all determine how we will influence the world in a more profound and direct manner than through voting for politicians, as we literally vote for what we wish to see more of. It may seem insignificant what we spend our money on, yet by buying something, you are directly sending a message that the production of this item should increase. Whether it is a sweat-shop t-shirt, cheap plastic items, or chemically produced foods, our money is what supports it, and thus, what feels like a small purchase in the moment, has the significance of casting a vote at the booth.
This is simply the law of supply and demand.
The world is only the sum of its parts, and thus the root of any change lies in the choices of individuals. Even collective action is nothing more than individuals choosing to make an effort together. Their effects may not resolve all problems of the world, but they can certainly make significant improvement in every way we need to.
Governments promise improvement on their terms. Through factory schooling they indoctrinate us in to believing that only they can make the necessary change, and that it is other people who stand in the way, thusly requiring us to turn against other groups of the population. Any idea of independent action is dismissed entirely as a if it were inherently futile, and it is hammered into us that we have to work “within the system”, making slow change based on heavy compromise. We are taught that this is a mature and rational way of making change, when really this is more akin to a passive acceptance of powerlessness and enslavement to the state.
We may even tell ourselves that this is realism, but in reality it is merely cynicism dedicated to sparing us from social stigmatisation and disappointment of failure to create change in alignment with our own integrity.
Within the indoctrinated framework, we almost inevitably turn on each other, as we become so obsessed with the idea that other people are in the way of our own safety and wellbeing, that we see no other option, but to enforce our worldview upon them.
Therefore, we need to be willing to challenge the ways we have passively been indoctrinated into thinking; the beliefs, rules, dogmas which we take for granted for absolute truth. This is especially important when it comes to the beliefs of the group which we identify, as we are likely to have the most blind spots around those beliefs, due to our attachment of belonging to the group.
However uncomfortable, confusing, and disorienting it may be to have an open mind, it is something we critically need to be willing to practice, as there is simply no “right side of history”.
“The basic principle I would like to see communicated to people is the idea that every form of authority and domination and hierarchy has to prove that its justified — it has no prior justification. For instance, when you stop your five year old kid from trying to cross the street, that’s an authoritarian situation: it’s got to be justified. Well, in that case you can give a justification. But the burden of proof for any exercise of authority is always on the person exercising it — invariably. And when you look, most of the time those authority structures have no justification: they have no moral justification, they have no justification in the interests of the person lower in the hierarchy, or in the interests of other people, or the environment, or the future, or the society, or anything else — they are just there in order to preserve certain structures of power and domination, and the people at the top.” — Noam Chomsky
Having everyone forcibly vaccinated will probably change very little, while bearing an enormous cost in the loss of personal freedom and bodily autonomy. It will at best hold off one virus out of billions, for a while, at the cost of establishing dystopia. The same goes for the other major virus-policies, all of which fail to ameliorate the true source of the problems.
We need to reinvent almost every aspect of our lives, so that we can find some semblance of harmony with the natural world. Our food-production, industries, lifestyles, and societal structures need to be remade, and the great thing is that we can start right now. Many already have, and their example can be a great source of inspiration.
The debate about whether personal choices matter compared to collective/state action is completely irrelevant. We simply do both, and it is imperative that we start now. We need to stop demonising others and start looking for truth, even if that means hearing out those we consider stupid or evil, so that we can gain a more complete understanding of reality.
An understanding we desperately need if we want to create the real progress we need.
“The great events of world history are, at bottom, profoundly unimportant. In the last analysis, the essential thing is the life of the individual. This alone makes history, here alone do the great transformations first take place, and the whole future, the whole history of the world, ultimately spring as a gigantic summation from these hidden sources in individuals. In our most private and most subjective lives we are not only the passive witnesses of our age, and it sufferers, but also its makers. We make our own epoch.” — Carl Jung
