Letter: Views on COVID-19
I have been reading your news service with great interest. I am a member of the Liberal Party in Victoria. One of the major issues dividing members that is not being discussed on your news service is the COVID-19 situation.
Please allow me to briefly discuss the views of Liberal Party members on the pandemic, shutdowns, vaccines and related matters. The primary issue I see is that members are divided over whether COVID-19 is a medical issue or a political issue.
This question is creating a growing divide within the Liberal Party with one side aligning with the tendency toward COVID-19 conformism (“COVID is a medical problem”) versus the tendency toward COVID-19 scepticism (“COVID-19 is a political problem”).
This leads to two very different approaches about how we should deal with COVID-19, and proposes very different solutions to the wider problems involved.
I would also suggest that the left and centre of the Liberal Party tend toward the conformist medical perspective. While those to the right of the party are taking an increasingly sceptical perspective.
The conformist perspective is well known. The more critical view is now labelled as “conspiracy theorist” or “Luddite”. Well informed people should understand the points being put forward by the more sceptical view. I would like to explore it a little so as readers can reasonably appreciate it or counter these points in political discourse.
Let’s take an overview of what has happened. The Australian public in general heard about the coronavirus in late February and March 2020. This was in the context of an uprising in Hong Kong and growing international criticism around China’s genocide of a Muslim minority. At the same time the US Democrats were looking to undermine Donald Trump ahead of their elections.
The media broadly ran two stories. One was about the origin of the virus being from Chinese people eating raw animals like bats and snakes at a market in Wuhan. The other was a story originating from UN health experts creating the idea that the new virus was very deadly, affecting people’s lungs for life and requiring significant martial law measures. Both these stories originated from China but were pushed heavily by the UN and the Western media.
We may as well ignore that a few people were saying that there was no coronavirus and it was all a cover up for the installation of the 5G telephone network. Realistically, there were few notable critics of the majority narrative pre-lockdowns who held that the virus was probably deliberately released by the Chinese, and came from a large microbiology/virology/bioweapons research lab in Wuhan, China. Further, very few people were saying that coronavirus was nothing more than having a bad cold.
The media whipped up fear, and at that time a majority of notable party members and MPs were giving instructions about how to wash hands and cough into your elbow.
Incidentally, there was the toilet paper company that had recently been sold to Chinese intrests, so Chinese Australians created a rush onto the supermarkets leading to a widespread toilet paper rationing. A similar rush was observed in other Western countries.
Victoria entered an unprecedented lockdown where helicopters, drones, a tracing app and other coercive methods were employed that had the effect of destroying the economy and cowing people into staying home.
Major retailers Woolies, Coles and Bunnings remained open, as did liquor shops and pharmacies, all of which enjoyed continuing revenue. With government employees safe and job keeper being abused by larger businesses, as well as doubling welfare payments, the population became silently divided between those who benefited from the bureaucratic rule and those who did not.
While working from home and schooling at home took some getting used to, productivity and children’s education soon began to ebb. The social costs were hidden too: mental illness, suicide and domestic violence. All of it because of the fear which the media and government propagated.
A series of unprecedented laws were rammed through in Victoria, as well as the unconstitutional quarantine and closing of state borders. Alarmingly, the right of free association was suspended, and all kinds of impositions were put onto businesses, volunteer organisations, sporting clubs and churches. If anyone protested on social media the police showed up at the front door!
By this stage people began to realise that the virus was not so deadly, and that the economic and political costs of the whole lockdown far exceeded the minor death toll. Reasonable people began to think that everyone should go back to normal, not this false “new normal”, if the situation was only lightly managed (i.e. just isolate aged care and medical facilities).
Even though every year the flu kills many hundreds of people, somehow deaths from COVID-19 were unacceptable. At first there was talk about flattening the curve. This meant spacing out coronavirus deaths so that the health system could cope. But then Dictator Dan and others started to push the idea of eradication of the virus. But was this all a pretext for amassing power?
Some people even started drawing analogies between masks and forced vaccines as a diabolical plot to pacify the population or even weed down the population in Africa, or even as a sign that we were now in the end of days and these things were the precursor to the Christian Right’s “mark of the beast”.
Big pharmaceutical companies were eagerly involved. Bill Gates particularly. It was said that vaccines were being developed which would contain cellular molecules that would be designed to alter a person’s genetic structure, as well as a range of other so-called vaccination products designed to lessen the impact of the virus’ symptoms. Further, some of the rhetoric around the mandatory nature of vaccines and the idea of vaccine passports as very disturbing.
Practically speaking, this meant that a portion of the Liberal Party membership began to quietly question Scott Morrison, his motives and his commitment. They expressed concern that he was praising Dictator Dan too. Liberal members began to say they had lost faith in ScoMo. They questioned, “How could a Christian leader act this way?”
Sky News and other sources are reinforcing a sceptical view which is being embraced by a sizable portion of the Victorian Liberal Party. Yet it appears that most MPs are not acknowledging input from the conservative side of the political spectrum. With the party becoming a little dictatorship run by Ian Quick’s cronies, members began to question everything. What could they do? They could turn to protests in the CBD and fly by night organisations like Reignite Democracy exist somewhere between nuttiness and scepticism.
The entire situation has also led to some very interesting social developments.
The first is the move to digitisation is prolific with visual communications like zoom being taken up by most party members. (The NBN, online banking and online shopping has also taken off.)
The second has been the cutting back on voluntary interactions, meaning that this would lead to the greatest single collapse in party membership ever. (Generally happening with all voluntary type organisations.)
The third is the flow of donations has reduced to a trickle. The economic situation as well as the participatory reality means that income has dropped substantially. While this is true in politics it is also happening with charities, not-for-profits and churches.
Fourth, and this is the point that needs to be understood, is that while the environment politically now favours the thriving of the extreme left due to mainstreaming and bureaucratic backing, there are motivations, dissatisfaction and cynicism to also drive some toward the extreme right. Thus we are in an increasingly polarised environment where the “medical solution” people are using cohesive politics to achieve their ends while the “political solution” people are using ideological propagandising through digital means to communicate as best as possible the realities of the current situation.
Interestingly, social media companies and the news media have sought to counter the sceptical view by increasingly placing intrusive statements on information being presented by sceptics (e.g. on social media). Further, buildings are not made available for meetings of those who question the situation. Online users are finding their content, accounts and websites increasingly are being banned or hidden.
Instead of direct to public communications, information passes from peer to peer. Thus, the banning of a particular church in Canada, or the Sky News getting in trouble from youtube were shared through private chat groups, direct messaging and peer to peer emailing.
As the political crisis worsens, eventually the threat of the current left wing paradigm is going to force the other side to act, and may indeed cause momentum for the pendulum to swing the other way.
Already insular Liberals supporters who initially thought that Pauline Hanson was bad are now graduating to listening to Steve Bannon and other far right figures. While the sceptics are fighting in the digital world where there are negligible results, but if it transcends this into active measures, they would have a profound effect on the current political reality. With a catalyst like an actual war emanating out of the northern hemisphere, the choice between COVID-19 scaremongering or the survival of the West would bolster the sceptical view, and provide an opportunity for the reprisals onto the current far left paradigm.
This is the logical conclusion of the “political problem” view because it leads to a political solution which is motivated to completely cut off the current pandemic and vaccination scaremongering. This of course could be politically shocking, stormy and seismic. If something like this were to occur, nothing is more important than strong and sensible leadership and a return to old Australian values, because ongoing chaos or strange new ideas are detrimental.
The Liberal Party also has a group of factional hacks and trouble makers who are fighting for the same COVID-19 narrative as is presented in the media and by Daniel Andrews. I realise that there is a violent different of opinions on these issues, but I think it is important that we discuss them.
Thank you for letting me have my say.