Lockdown, The New State Fascism: Scattered Fragments and Ramblings

by Archeron the Glitchling

April 5, 2020

Introduction

I write this, knowing it may be my last work. The state is slowly killing me through unbearable

levels of stress. It may disappear me into the gulag of the infected, or require compromises I cannot

give. Or it may disappear me for writing this piece. In any case, I must leave a warning to the

future, and proposals to take resistance forward. I refuse to believe that this new totalitarianism is

the end of history. Because if I believed this, I would give up on living already.

levels of stress. It may disappear me into the gulag of the infected, or require compromises I cannot give. Or it may disappear me for writing this piece. In any case, I must leave a warning to the future, and proposals to take resistance forward. I refuse to believe that this new totalitarianism is the end of history. Because if I believed this, I would give up on living already. This entire panic, like those before it, is a mass outbreak of emotional plague.

Regardless of how the disease turns out, the structure of the response is a particular kind of moral

panic, which is being used to generalise the securitisation and fascification of everyday life in

continuity with trends I have long abhorred.

panic, which is being used to generalise the securitisation and fascification of everyday life in continuity with trends I have long abhorred. This outbreak of emotional plague has all the hallmarks of a suicidal drive. Society is killing itself

by cutting off social contact. Capitalism is killing its own economy. People like to think they’re

doing this to save lives. But there’s also the possibility that many more could die because of the

sociocide and economicide. And even raising this issue is taboo.

by cutting off social contact. Capitalism is killing its own economy. People like to think they’re doing this to save lives. But there’s also the possibility that many more could die because of the sociocide and economicide. And even raising this issue is taboo. The underlying ideological purpose of the panic is to interpellate people in relation to an image of

the government-as-protector. What the state is seeking is an atomised society which “complies

with” its arbitrary commands, believes what it’s told, and “pulls together” under state leadership.

The state wishes to be the hegemonic class-force in a cross-class historical bloc organised around

the reactive affects of fear and panic.

the government-as-protector. What the state is seeking is an atomised society which “complies with” its arbitrary commands, believes what it’s told, and “pulls together” under state leadership. The state wishes to be the hegemonic class-force in a cross-class historical bloc organised around the reactive affects of fear and panic. This ideology includes both elements of self-interestedness (acting together to protect oneself

from existential threats) and of superego and supposed altruism (a duty to sacrifice for the

community, or for vulnerable others). Both are equally reactionary. It is delusional to misrecognise

the communitarian superego of the latter as a truly solidary imperative, or the dominance of survival

over life of the former with true ego-assertion.

from existential threats) and of superego and supposed altruism (a duty to sacrifice for the community, or for vulnerable others). Both are equally reactionary. It is delusional to misrecognise the communitarian superego of the latter as a truly solidary imperative, or the dominance of survival over life of the former with true ego-assertion. One huge problem with “emergencies” is that they focus on the issue of the moment. They ignore

and take this issue out of all proportion to – the massive everyday issues which affect far more

people, much more of the time. In this case, the state has shut down entire societies and justified it

by the issue of the moment. Yet it has made health cutbacks down the years and supported policies

which put lives at risk. The very idea of states of emergency implies that one vital issue can

override everything else. But in a world of dispersed social practices, this is a fallacy.

people, much more of the time. In this case, the state has shut down entire societies and justified it by the issue of the moment. Yet it has made health cutbacks down the years and supported policies which put lives at risk. The very idea of states of emergency implies that one vital issue can override everything else. But in a world of dispersed social practices, this is a fallacy. Politicians who defy the hegemonic narrative are attacked as dangerously out of touch with

science – even though the experts are divided and their data is dodgy. There may also be a pattern

(used by Johnson in the UK and the centre-left in Spain) of governments “underreacting” at first, so

as then to “overreact” with public, media, and cross-party support. A fascist is more fascist if

antifascists are baying for them to be more fascist.

science – even though the experts are divided and their data is dodgy. There may also be a pattern (used by Johnson in the UK and the centre-left in Spain) of governments “underreacting” at first, so as then to “overreact” with public, media, and cross-party support. A fascist is more fascist if antifascists are baying for them to be more fascist. The panic can be understood through the Maoist concept of primary contradiction, imported from

China.

China. The main blackmail is the demand to treat the disease as the primary contradiction. Groups

like XR, Reprieve, and human rights groups have largely accepted this blackmail. Even the ZAD

are talking about whether mass gatherings will be “possible” in July, not whether they will be

repressed – as if the problem is the disease, not the state.

like XR, Reprieve, and human rights groups have largely accepted this blackmail. Even the ZAD are talking about whether mass gatherings will be “possible” in July, not whether they will be repressed – as if the problem is the disease, not the state. Since the strategy to “beat” the disease rests on reducing connections to the “essential” (not

stopping them entirely), any group which accepts the blackmail also accepts that its own cause

and activities are inessential, and less important than the primary contradiction.

stopping them entirely), any group which accepts the blackmail also accepts that its own cause and activities are inessential, and less important than the primary contradiction. This kind of blackmail has been seen before – mainly in the context of Maoism, but also the

prefigurings of sociocide in counterinsurgency lockdowns.

prefigurings of sociocide in counterinsurgency lockdowns. Anarchist and left responses have generally been those of “fetishism” in Zizek’s sense – they reject

the interpellation in principle – they “know very well” the state is not a protector – but they keep

doing it anyway – they organise around the virus and engage in mutual aid which feeds into the

state-public relation constructed by the ideology. The truly radical gesture is to rupture with the

ideology, to refuse it.

the interpellation in principle – they “know very well” the state is not a protector – but they keep doing it anyway – they organise around the virus and engage in mutual aid which feeds into the state-public relation constructed by the ideology. The truly radical gesture is to rupture with the ideology, to refuse it. This is not to say that mutual aid should be abandoned or even that it should take an overtly

oppositional form. Scottian resistance is a good thing, and it often uses concealment and strategic

opportunities. But it is important to use mutual aid to subvert, not reinforce sociocide.

oppositional form. Scottian resistance is a good thing, and it often uses concealment and strategic opportunities. But it is important to use mutual aid to subvert, not reinforce sociocide. Panic is now infectious. Whatever happened to “keep calm and carry on”?

Securitisation has taken a number of forms. Many of them rely on the myth that threats are

coming to the west from the outside, from “black holes” on the margins. This first involved the

extension of state security discourses focused on enemy states to non-state actors, so-called

“terrorists” (leading to generalised counterinsurgency). These discourses were then extended o a

wide array of non-military issues: refugee and migrant flows, cybercrime, environmental problems,

transnational organised crime, etc.

coming to the west from the outside, from “black holes” on the margins. This first involved the extension of state security discourses focused on enemy states to non-state actors, so-called “terrorists” (leading to generalised counterinsurgency). These discourses were then extended o a wide array of non-military issues: refugee and migrant flows, cybercrime, environmental problems, transnational organised crime, etc. There is an imperial politics to this: problems inherent to neoliberalism are systematically blamed

on those outside it, at its margins, or in its lowest positions. This is used to justify either colonial

occupations or racist exclusions directed at these groups or areas. “Problems” like the global drug

trade, social collapse in marginal areas, transnational armed opposition, and environmental

destruction are blamed on “othered” groups in the most remote areas from the core. In fact, these

processes are rooted mainly in the structures in the capitalist core.

on those outside it, at its margins, or in its lowest positions. This is used to justify either colonial occupations or racist exclusions directed at these groups or areas. “Problems” like the global drug trade, social collapse in marginal areas, transnational armed opposition, and environmental destruction are blamed on “othered” groups in the most remote areas from the core. In fact, these processes are rooted mainly in the structures in the capitalist core. There are political and media factors influencing which issues get securitised. They are not the

issues with the highest mortality, and criteria are never applied consistently.

issues with the highest mortality, and criteria are never applied consistently. Securitisation usually involves the transfer of issues from other domains of (social, welfare,

foreign, diplomatic, medical, educational…) discourse into the sphere of generalised policing. It is

defined by both the Paris and Copenhagen schools as a speech-act used in political ways to shift

issues into different frames.

foreign, diplomatic, medical, educational…) discourse into the sphere of generalised policing. It is defined by both the Paris and Copenhagen schools as a speech-act used in political ways to shift issues into different frames. For Didier Bigo of the Paris school, security discourse is a way to create exceptional powers

outside the normal legal and political processes. It is, by implication, very useful as a path to

dictatorship. Ole Waever of the Copenhagen school similarly argues that securitisation is a way to

get exceptional powers as well as access to money and resources.

outside the normal legal and political processes. It is, by implication, very useful as a path to dictatorship. Ole Waever of the Copenhagen school similarly argues that securitisation is a way to get exceptional powers as well as access to money and resources. Anti-security approaches, such as those of Neocleous, rightly argue that security is a dangerous

depoliticising illusion which distracts people from alienation and exploitation. Security, says

Neocleous, makes us afraid of and alienated from one another, treats us as objects to be governed,

and complicit in the exercise of police powers. Snitching and stasi-style policing of one’s

housemates and neighbours are reaching epidemic proportions today, but were already present in

(for example) the massive use of reporting on social media and the fad for snitching jokes and

throwaway remarks about school shootings in the US. The “anti-social behaviour” industry, which

treats neighbourhood conflicts in a way which favours the first complainant, is also part of the

trend. The invisible presence of a pig between self and other is not only an implied threat; it also

redefines horizontal relationships in alienating and verticalising ways.

depoliticising illusion which distracts people from alienation and exploitation. Security, says Neocleous, makes us afraid of and alienated from one another, treats us as objects to be governed, and complicit in the exercise of police powers. Snitching and stasi-style policing of one’s housemates and neighbours are reaching epidemic proportions today, but were already present in (for example) the massive use of reporting on social media and the fad for snitching jokes and throwaway remarks about school shootings in the US. The “anti-social behaviour” industry, which treats neighbourhood conflicts in a way which favours the first complainant, is also part of the trend. The invisible presence of a pig between self and other is not only an implied threat; it also redefines horizontal relationships in alienating and verticalising ways. Securitisation has been extended by actors deploying a bandwagoning logic, trying to attach the

trendy securitisation discourse to their pet issues of concern in an attempt to “strategically” leverage

money or action on such questions as conflict minerals, rape, climate change, abortion rights, antifascism,

etc. This occasionally (but rarely) achieves victories – but at the cost of entrenching and

expanding the totalitarian discourse.

trendy securitisation discourse to their pet issues of concern in an attempt to “strategically” leverage money or action on such questions as conflict minerals, rape, climate change, abortion rights, antifascism, etc. This occasionally (but rarely) achieves victories – but at the cost of entrenching and expanding the totalitarian discourse. In practice, these discourses are also selective. Terms like “rogue state”, “failed state”, “supporter

of terrorism”, “spoiler”, and so on are reserved exclusively for enemies of the western powers, even

when allies or the western powers themselves are equally within their literal remit.

of terrorism”, “spoiler”, and so on are reserved exclusively for enemies of the western powers, even when allies or the western powers themselves are equally within their literal remit. Securitisation nearly always leads to worse repression than other statist actions. For example,

securitisation of “cybercrime” leads to hackers, who are often vulnerable people, members of a

subculture who see their acts as harmless, and/or conscientiously motivated, being internationally

abducted under the pretext of “extradition” for offences outside America.

securitisation of “cybercrime” leads to hackers, who are often vulnerable people, members of a subculture who see their acts as harmless, and/or conscientiously motivated, being internationally abducted under the pretext of “extradition” for offences outside America. Securitisation of migration leads to thousands of deaths, as states make it as hard as possible to

cross the Mediterranean, the Mexican border, or the English channel. The atrocities committed in

Calais, Lampedusa, Nauru, and the ICE detention centres are too well-known to need repeating:

rapes, beatings, torture, child abductions, etc. In Libya, the EU is literally hiring gangs to hold a

million migrants in camps where they are sold as slaves. More than 1000 people died crossing the

Mediterranean in 2019; in 2016, the figure was 5143. In the SIEV X incident, an Australian

battleship opened fire on a migrant trnsport, sinking it and killing many civilians. One can

counterpose to the securitising discourse a “no borders” position, a refugee rights position, a global

hospitality position, a social-democratic position focused on needs and integration, etc.

cross the Mediterranean, the Mexican border, or the English channel. The atrocities committed in Calais, Lampedusa, Nauru, and the ICE detention centres are too well-known to need repeating: rapes, beatings, torture, child abductions, etc. In Libya, the EU is literally hiring gangs to hold a million migrants in camps where they are sold as slaves. More than 1000 people died crossing the Mediterranean in 2019; in 2016, the figure was 5143. In the SIEV X incident, an Australian battleship opened fire on a migrant trnsport, sinking it and killing many civilians. One can counterpose to the securitising discourse a “no borders” position, a refugee rights position, a global hospitality position, a social-democratic position focused on needs and integration, etc. Another example is the treatment of civil wars. The “new threats” framing treats these wars as

Hobbesian chaos which threatens to engulf the rest of the world. It thus promotes militaristic

responses and statebuilding, which are usually both brutal and ineffective. It also leads to civilians

being held hostage to policy, as aid to particular areas is forbidden in case it incentivises or falls into

the hands of banned groups. Statebuilding often strengthens corrupt and brutal regimes, or sets off

power struggles over the capture of scarce centralised power and the resource flows it brings.

Securitisation often militarises social problems. It renders armed conflicts insoluble by refusing to

address underlying grievances. Often, it denies these grievances exist, confusing the causes of

conflict with the opportunity-structures they exploit.

Hobbesian chaos which threatens to engulf the rest of the world. It thus promotes militaristic responses and statebuilding, which are usually both brutal and ineffective. It also leads to civilians being held hostage to policy, as aid to particular areas is forbidden in case it incentivises or falls into the hands of banned groups. Statebuilding often strengthens corrupt and brutal regimes, or sets off power struggles over the capture of scarce centralised power and the resource flows it brings. Securitisation often militarises social problems. It renders armed conflicts insoluble by refusing to address underlying grievances. Often, it denies these grievances exist, confusing the causes of conflict with the opportunity-structures they exploit. The unequal definition of values is clear in the case of the outcries over police being killed (often

by victims of their atrocities), compared to the disposability of black and poor lives at the hands of

the police.

by victims of their atrocities), compared to the disposability of black and poor lives at the hands of the police. Activists may be more aware of the impact of the securitisation of protest – the deployment of

militarised police and the use of military logistical measures such as “red zones” (the same term

now used for virus hotspots in Italy), pre-emptive arrests, searches, kettling, drones, and police

barricades. Police treat rebellion as a kind of urban warfare, and deploy strategies developed in

counterinsurgency wars to attack protesters.

militarised police and the use of military logistical measures such as “red zones” (the same term now used for virus hotspots in Italy), pre-emptive arrests, searches, kettling, drones, and police barricades. Police treat rebellion as a kind of urban warfare, and deploy strategies developed in counterinsurgency wars to attack protesters. Wikileaks is another example. Security scholars call leaking an attack on state authority, a form of

cyberwar, a threat to global peace (because it undermines diplomacy), or even as a security threat

because it undermines trust in the government! Such fascistic views lead to attacks ranging from the

hounding and torture of Assange to deplatforming attacks on the site. Opponents of this discourse

see leaking as legitimate whistleblowing, civil disobedience, or even democratic participation (not

to mention those for whom corroding state authority is not a bad thing).

cyberwar, a threat to global peace (because it undermines diplomacy), or even as a security threat because it undermines trust in the government! Such fascistic views lead to attacks ranging from the hounding and torture of Assange to deplatforming attacks on the site. Opponents of this discourse see leaking as legitimate whistleblowing, civil disobedience, or even democratic participation (not to mention those for whom corroding state authority is not a bad thing). Mass killings in rich countries are demonstrably tied-up with neoliberalism, and reflect deeprooted

alienation and frustration. However, instead of addressing the causes – rage born of

hopelessness and being pushed-around too much – a range of securitising options have been used:

gun regulation, prison-like school design, harsh prison and death sentences, even the criminalisation

of jokes and the persecution of eccentrics. Anything that reminds a bigot of shootings is stamped on,

as if it is somehow the same as actually committing one. Needless to say, this has done nothing to

slow the rise of such attacks – which have, instead, been made much harder by the closure of public

spaces in the current panic.

alienation and frustration. However, instead of addressing the causes – rage born of hopelessness and being pushed-around too much – a range of securitising options have been used: gun regulation, prison-like school design, harsh prison and death sentences, even the criminalisation of jokes and the persecution of eccentrics. Anything that reminds a bigot of shootings is stamped on, as if it is somehow the same as actually committing one. Needless to say, this has done nothing to slow the rise of such attacks – which have, instead, been made much harder by the closure of public spaces in the current panic. Carol Cohn’s classic study “War, Wimps and Women” shows how macho, militaristic responses

arise not so much as rationally deduced best options, and more as a kind of signalling of the ethos

(in the Aristotelian sense) of protagonists. Only “tough” options are considered because proposing

other options makes the proposer seem “weak”, a “pussy” or a “wimp”.

arise not so much as rationally deduced best options, and more as a kind of signalling of the ethos (in the Aristotelian sense) of protagonists. Only “tough” options are considered because proposing other options makes the proposer seem “weak”, a “pussy” or a “wimp”. The idea of “new threats” is a central form of securitisation – bringing a wide range of issues

under the security rubric.

under the security rubric. Most of the “new threats” are not in fact new. They are just newly securitised.

Anything which encourages the “new threats” frame, subtly reinforces all the barbarisms it

renders as equivalent. It must be rejected in its totality.

renders as equivalent. It must be rejected in its totality. War is the health of the state. States define themselves through the security threats they combat. It

is no coincidence that securitisation and “new threats” discourse kicked off in earnest after the end

of the Cold War.

is no coincidence that securitisation and “new threats” discourse kicked off in earnest after the end of the Cold War. Panics are connected to securitisation – the transferral of issues into the “security” field and their

treatment by particular means from this field.

treatment by particular means from this field. Panics do more harm than good – because they foreground lesser risks at the expense of major, but

less politically salient or newsworthy ones. 9/11 killed perhaps 2000 people, but the resultant wars

killed millions. In Canada, “you’re more likely to be killed by a moose than a terrorist” – yet still,

draconian measures were introduced. US cops kill 1500 a year, up from less than a dozen in the

1950s. This is due to securitisation and militarisation.

less politically salient or newsworthy ones. 9/11 killed perhaps 2000 people, but the resultant wars killed millions. In Canada, “you’re more likely to be killed by a moose than a terrorist” – yet still, draconian measures were introduced. US cops kill 1500 a year, up from less than a dozen in the 1950s. This is due to securitisation and militarisation. Securitisation also contributes to recurring “soul wounding” and resultant deaths.

This is an updated version of the old Aztec practice: when there’s a plague or floods are bad, carry

out human sacrifices. Today, instead of killing directly, the state devivifies. This either kills people

or makes them living dead by shutting down their life-force.

out human sacrifices. Today, instead of killing directly, the state devivifies. This either kills people or makes them living dead by shutting down their life-force. We see this logic in the way moral panic have crept, from serious (though exaggerated) so-called

crimes with real harms attached, through various forms of minor deviance, to mere nuisance – and

now, at the end of the road, to the media demonisation and criminalisation of people going about

entirely normal activities (drinking on St Patrick’s Day, partying on the beach, having a picnic,

rambling in the wild…) Running out of foreign “others” to sacrifice, the system is eating its own tail,

chewing up the “good subjects” it formerly relied upon.

crimes with real harms attached, through various forms of minor deviance, to mere nuisance – and now, at the end of the road, to the media demonisation and criminalisation of people going about entirely normal activities (drinking on St Patrick’s Day, partying on the beach, having a picnic, rambling in the wild…) Running out of foreign “others” to sacrifice, the system is eating its own tail, chewing up the “good subjects” it formerly relied upon. In societies which use human sacrifice, a social crisis leads to intensified killing, on the

assumption the gods are angry. In montheist societies, a social crisis leads to intensified praying,

flagellation, and other familiar religous practices. It is revealing that, during this crisis, many

governments have stopped such public activities – because they’re resorting, instead, to the Aztec

approach.

assumption the gods are angry. In montheist societies, a social crisis leads to intensified praying, flagellation, and other familiar religous practices. It is revealing that, during this crisis, many governments have stopped such public activities – because they’re resorting, instead, to the Aztec approach. Totalitarianism seeks a monopoly on the production of emotions. Regimes seek to suppress other

sources of emotional states so as to carefully programme emotions in the regime-controlled rituals

(historically, mass rallies, radio, and so on). These regimes also tended to culminate in mass murder.

sources of emotional states so as to carefully programme emotions in the regime-controlled rituals (historically, mass rallies, radio, and so on). These regimes also tended to culminate in mass murder. I’m generally annoyed with those looking for plus sides. Yes, Mussolini made the trains run on

time – these kinds of statements do more harm than good. But there are a few plus sides. This crisis

could be the end of neoliberalism. This might lead to the end of capitalism, and it might lead to a

new social-democratic phase (it might also lead to permanent fascism). States are being more

interventionist – providing one-off basic incomes, homes for the homeless, more healthcare and so

on. Having to homeschool for months or years might increase the acceptability of homeschooling;

this might even be the beginning of the end for schooling. The crisis, which is strongest in the cities,

might prefigure ruralisation and rewilding. More people might turn to self-sufficiency and go off the

radar. It might lead to disillusionment with the state, as people face martial law for the first time –

the world in 30 years might be where Greece was in the 2000s. If the lockdown persists, it might

lose support, and give rise to dispersed insurgency similar to the Resistance against the Nazis. Also,

the cessation of human activity has reduced pollution and other environmental damage. In some

areas, animals are re-establishing themselves because humans are absent (c.f. Chernobyl). Also, it is

reassuring to think that animals are carrying on as if there’s nothing wrong. If only humans were

more like animals.

time – these kinds of statements do more harm than good. But there are a few plus sides. This crisis could be the end of neoliberalism. This might lead to the end of capitalism, and it might lead to a new social-democratic phase (it might also lead to permanent fascism). States are being more interventionist – providing one-off basic incomes, homes for the homeless, more healthcare and so on. Having to homeschool for months or years might increase the acceptability of homeschooling; this might even be the beginning of the end for schooling. The crisis, which is strongest in the cities, might prefigure ruralisation and rewilding. More people might turn to self-sufficiency and go off the radar. It might lead to disillusionment with the state, as people face martial law for the first time – the world in 30 years might be where Greece was in the 2000s. If the lockdown persists, it might lose support, and give rise to dispersed insurgency similar to the Resistance against the Nazis. Also, the cessation of human activity has reduced pollution and other environmental damage. In some areas, animals are re-establishing themselves because humans are absent (c.f. Chernobyl). Also, it is reassuring to think that animals are carrying on as if there’s nothing wrong. If only humans were more like animals. All of this is medium-term speculation. The imperative problem today is to fight state fascism.

It is too early to tell if this is the final, decisive crackdown or just a trial run for the response to

global insurrection. The last crisis of this kind – World War 2 – lasted six years. It was the decisive

crisis. After it, the system rebuilt on a new basis.

global insurrection. The last crisis of this kind – World War 2 – lasted six years. It was the decisive crisis. After it, the system rebuilt on a new basis. A response of this kind would not have been possible ten, twenty, forty, or a hundred years ago.

We can see this from H1N1, AIDS, swine flu and other crises. The health situation or the nature of

the virus have nothing to do with why this response happens now and not before. Public health

ideologues have always used draconian measures (such as compulsory detention, property

destruction, forced vaccination) targeted at the sick. And the fantasy of total lockdowns in plague

conditions have been around since early modernity. But it is only the political context which allow

the entire population to be “quarantined”.

We can see this from H1N1, AIDS, swine flu and other crises. The health situation or the nature of the virus have nothing to do with why this response happens now and not before. Public health ideologues have always used draconian measures (such as compulsory detention, property destruction, forced vaccination) targeted at the sick. And the fantasy of total lockdowns in plague conditions have been around since early modernity. But it is only the political context which allow the entire population to be “quarantined”. We have got to this point because people have accepted, or failed to successfully fight, swathes of

worsening repression and police-state conditions from the 1980s onwards. In particular, the failure

to generate a backlash against the Bush-era extension of fascism cut the legs out from under social

movements. And large swathes of the public have been captured by an ideology of crisis-of-themoment,

as documented in Bowling for Columbine in the 1990s.

worsening repression and police-state conditions from the 1980s onwards. In particular, the failure to generate a backlash against the Bush-era extension of fascism cut the legs out from under social movements. And large swathes of the public have been captured by an ideology of crisis-of-themoment, as documented in Bowling for Columbine in the 1990s. The similarities to the general lockdowns in Xinjiang and Kashmir – both explicitly

counterinsurgency lockdowns – show that the response is not primarily medical. It involves a

toolbox created for other reasons.

counterinsurgency lockdowns – show that the response is not primarily medical. It involves a toolbox created for other reasons. A lot is unknown in the situation. Is the panic deliberate, an act on a pretext to impose martial law

and replace neoliberalism with Chinese-style cybernetic capitalism? Or is it a path-dependency built

into securitisation, which will recede when the disease declines?

and replace neoliberalism with Chinese-style cybernetic capitalism? Or is it a path-dependency built into securitisation, which will recede when the disease declines? The next stage – if there is one – is throwing people in camps. China eventually escalated to

doing house-to-house breath tests and sending symptomatic people to detention centres. There,

some recovered, but many received inadequate treatment and died. The nightmares of FEMA death

camps touted by the conspiratorial right-wing in the 2000s may be coming true, just as these

rightists sell-out and rally to the “war effort”. There are already rumblings in the media that this

might be why the Chinese lockdown was more “effective” than the Italian or Spanish. Isolated

people, pinned to a home address, lacking their usual support networks, are far easier to register and

round-up than mobile populations. Of course, there is also little to stop the inclusion of lockdownresisters,

“rumour-spreaders”, and political undesirables in general in the roundup.

doing house-to-house breath tests and sending symptomatic people to detention centres. There, some recovered, but many received inadequate treatment and died. The nightmares of FEMA death camps touted by the conspiratorial right-wing in the 2000s may be coming true, just as these rightists sell-out and rally to the “war effort”. There are already rumblings in the media that this might be why the Chinese lockdown was more “effective” than the Italian or Spanish. Isolated people, pinned to a home address, lacking their usual support networks, are far easier to register and round-up than mobile populations. Of course, there is also little to stop the inclusion of lockdownresisters, “rumour-spreaders”, and political undesirables in general in the roundup. Remember that, in Auschwitz, people were gassed for being sick. “Instructor come separate the

healthy from the sick” (RATM). The double-bind was, in the conditions of such a camp, it was

impossible to stay healthy.

healthy from the sick” (RATM). The double-bind was, in the conditions of such a camp, it was impossible to stay healthy. Not even in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia could people be arrested for having picnics.

It is only last year that people were being convicted of terrorism offences for shutting down

flights. Now the state is doing it itself.

flights. Now the state is doing it itself. The arguments offered here may seem inconsistent. Sometimes I argue against healthcare

institutions, sometimes for them. Sometimes I argue against capitalist “normality”, sometimes for it.

The reason is that I’m providing scattered reflections and arguments from a position which is rather

obscure in my own mind. I know fascism is evil and must be fought. I know this crackdown will

kill more than it saves, because of the existential and economic effects. I know the lockdown

violates the primacy of life-force and is an exercise in devivification and social decomposition. I

know that psychological impacts are being underestimated and that so-called mental health

responses are glib and ineffective. But I’m not so sure how serious the virus is, whether economic

crashes are good or bad, and how far I accord with the Illichian critique of healthcare (as opposed to

the syndicalist critique of top-down healthcare). Bear in mind that there are better and worse

scenarios – a statist society with a well-funded health system is better than one in permanent

lockdown, even if the former is also bad.

institutions, sometimes for them. Sometimes I argue against capitalist “normality”, sometimes for it. The reason is that I’m providing scattered reflections and arguments from a position which is rather obscure in my own mind. I know fascism is evil and must be fought. I know this crackdown will kill more than it saves, because of the existential and economic effects. I know the lockdown violates the primacy of life-force and is an exercise in devivification and social decomposition. I know that psychological impacts are being underestimated and that so-called mental health responses are glib and ineffective. But I’m not so sure how serious the virus is, whether economic crashes are good or bad, and how far I accord with the Illichian critique of healthcare (as opposed to the syndicalist critique of top-down healthcare). Bear in mind that there are better and worse scenarios – a statist society with a well-funded health system is better than one in permanent lockdown, even if the former is also bad. I both use and criticise consequentialist and public health logics. The reason for this: I believe the

crisis is a pretext, and that rebutting its supposed justifications shows this. I also contrast the current

regime disfavourably with social-democracy, neoliberalism, etc. The reason for this: the current

regime is even worse in terms of the space for autonomy.

crisis is a pretext, and that rebutting its supposed justifications shows this. I also contrast the current regime disfavourably with social-democracy, neoliberalism, etc. The reason for this: the current regime is even worse in terms of the space for autonomy. There will be a lot of things we don’t know yet – not just about the virus, but about the response.

For instance, we don’t know how far governments deliberately deceived publics about the

seriousness of the disease (either hyping or downplaying it), the effectiveness of lockdowns, the

ineffectiveness or masks, the preparedness of health systems, etc; whether, rather, leaders were

wilfully ignoring scientific advice; or whether the scientists themselves were confused and

misguided. It is quite possible that leaders who downplayed the virus and carried on as usual were

simply trying to “manage” the public, to head off panic; it is also possible that they were trying to

generate public pressure, so they do not appear to be acting in “draconian” ways, or that they were

deliberately sabotaging voluntary measures to justify compulsory ones. We may well not be hearing

about some of the revolts in prisons, about widespread nonobservance of lockdowns or the

widespread use of so-called “loopholes” (or what these are), or about other forms of resistance and

the extent to which the government views them as threatening or recuperable. Nobody is releasing

figures on suicides and other deaths caused by the lockdown; reliable figures on domestic violence

are also hard to come by.

For instance, we don’t know how far governments deliberately deceived publics about the seriousness of the disease (either hyping or downplaying it), the effectiveness of lockdowns, the ineffectiveness or masks, the preparedness of health systems, etc; whether, rather, leaders were wilfully ignoring scientific advice; or whether the scientists themselves were confused and misguided. It is quite possible that leaders who downplayed the virus and carried on as usual were simply trying to “manage” the public, to head off panic; it is also possible that they were trying to generate public pressure, so they do not appear to be acting in “draconian” ways, or that they were deliberately sabotaging voluntary measures to justify compulsory ones. We may well not be hearing about some of the revolts in prisons, about widespread nonobservance of lockdowns or the widespread use of so-called “loopholes” (or what these are), or about other forms of resistance and the extent to which the government views them as threatening or recuperable. Nobody is releasing figures on suicides and other deaths caused by the lockdown; reliable figures on domestic violence are also hard to come by. Also, a lot of this isn’t mine. I’ve drawn promiscuously on a great many kinds of sources: regime

and rightist media, liberal media, doctors, authoritarian left and libertarian right sources, identity

politicians, etc. This does not imply that I endorse any particular source as “trustworthy” or wrongly

consider it “anarchist”. And it does not mean I’m being inconsistent when I elsewhere criticise

similar sources (public health discourse as fascistic, left and green groups as selling-out, etc). I take

a general semanticist view of the relationship between claims and reality: each frame selects from

and perceives aspects of an event-level of reality which is ultimately much bigger, selecting

particular “dots” and “joining” them in particular ways, sometimes with a few fake dots thrown in

for good measure. I’m trying to “mine” the sources – from as many angles as I can humanly handle –

for the basic facts, or event-level realities, hidden beneath the always-selected and always-framed

stories – so as to “join the dots” in different ways. So far as possible, I’ve split sources up into claims

or clusters of claims. Usually the context shows whether I endorse the content of a particular claim

or not. I’ve usually taken claims about revolts and resistance, and those about state atrocities, at face

value; and on issues like health statistics, I’ve quoted sources which throw doubt on the prolockdown

narrative. I’ve also included a lot of snippets from other anarchist texts on the crisis.

and rightist media, liberal media, doctors, authoritarian left and libertarian right sources, identity politicians, etc. This does not imply that I endorse any particular source as “trustworthy” or wrongly consider it “anarchist”. And it does not mean I’m being inconsistent when I elsewhere criticise similar sources (public health discourse as fascistic, left and green groups as selling-out, etc). I take a general semanticist view of the relationship between claims and reality: each frame selects from and perceives aspects of an event-level of reality which is ultimately much bigger, selecting particular “dots” and “joining” them in particular ways, sometimes with a few fake dots thrown in for good measure. I’m trying to “mine” the sources – from as many angles as I can humanly handle – for the basic facts, or event-level realities, hidden beneath the always-selected and always-framed stories – so as to “join the dots” in different ways. So far as possible, I’ve split sources up into claims or clusters of claims. Usually the context shows whether I endorse the content of a particular claim or not. I’ve usually taken claims about revolts and resistance, and those about state atrocities, at face value; and on issues like health statistics, I’ve quoted sources which throw doubt on the prolockdown narrative. I’ve also included a lot of snippets from other anarchist texts on the crisis. I’m also trying to construct an argument which others can use in their own ways, pick and choose

from depending on their theoretical orientation – and which is useful alike to nihilists, eco-warriors,

anarcho-syndicalists, Stirnerians, and also socialists, social-democrats, human and civil rights

activists, libertarians, and liberals who find themselves on the right side of the lockdown issue.

Some people will be more interested in the argument that lockdowns don’t work, others in the

critique of public health; some in virus-oriented “policy” alternatives like ruralisation and masking,

others in practical ways to resist a creeping fascism which is using the virus as a pretext.

A Note on Democracy

from depending on their theoretical orientation – and which is useful alike to nihilists, eco-warriors, anarcho-syndicalists, Stirnerians, and also socialists, social-democrats, human and civil rights activists, libertarians, and liberals who find themselves on the right side of the lockdown issue. Some people will be more interested in the argument that lockdowns don’t work, others in the critique of public health; some in virus-oriented “policy” alternatives like ruralisation and masking, others in practical ways to resist a creeping fascism which is using the virus as a pretext. A Note on Democracy Usually someone with anarchic views like my own will denounce democracy on principle (as,

indeed, I have in the past). Readers might thus be surprised to find me criticising the undemocratic

nature of lockdowns. The reasoning here is simple. In my view, democracy is a statist system and

thus a bad system. However, it contains a higher dose of anarchy – the social principle – than other

kinds of statism. I’d hesitantly propose that democracy involves an alliance of the state (the political

principle) with particular included social forces (usually the middle-class and the organised

working-class). To maintain the alliance, it subjects the political principle to four mechanisms of

constraint: elections and circulation of parties, and the corresponding need for leaders not to seem

too dictatorial; the existence (some of the time) of constitutional rights; the so-called rule of law, or

limitation (some of the time) of the vagueness and arbitrariness of laws, with use of standardised

procedures and avoidance of state impunity and arbitrary command; and the operation of unions and

NGOs as conveyor-belts “representing” social sectors within the state. All of these are actualised in

practice to varying degrees, leading to “more” and “less” democratic kinds of supposed democracy

(in particular, the “fair value” of these rights is often not enjoyed by excluded groups or unpopular

minorities in practice). None of this brings us close to anarchy, but anyone active in (say) the 1990s

will realise the importance of these four “public transcript” barriers, both in creating spaces for

everyday anarchy in the Wardian sense, and for optimising the space for anarchist resistance.

indeed, I have in the past). Readers might thus be surprised to find me criticising the undemocratic nature of lockdowns. The reasoning here is simple. In my view, democracy is a statist system and thus a bad system. However, it contains a higher dose of anarchy – the social principle – than other kinds of statism. I’d hesitantly propose that democracy involves an alliance of the state (the political principle) with particular included social forces (usually the middle-class and the organised working-class). To maintain the alliance, it subjects the political principle to four mechanisms of constraint: elections and circulation of parties, and the corresponding need for leaders not to seem too dictatorial; the existence (some of the time) of constitutional rights; the so-called rule of law, or limitation (some of the time) of the vagueness and arbitrariness of laws, with use of standardised procedures and avoidance of state impunity and arbitrary command; and the operation of unions and NGOs as conveyor-belts “representing” social sectors within the state. All of these are actualised in practice to varying degrees, leading to “more” and “less” democratic kinds of supposed democracy (in particular, the “fair value” of these rights is often not enjoyed by excluded groups or unpopular minorities in practice). None of this brings us close to anarchy, but anyone active in (say) the 1990s will realise the importance of these four “public transcript” barriers, both in creating spaces for everyday anarchy in the Wardian sense, and for optimising the space for anarchist resistance. Democracy has been corroded from the 1970s onwards (beginning, perhaps, in Italy) in a new

form which, as Negri argues, manages to be constitutionalist and totalitarian at the same time. This

is a new phenomenon. It arises from cybernetic control and the Spectacle, with its delusional

consensus. Democracy relies on the constraint of the state by the “people” – the middle-class or the

majority. This requires that the “people” exist as a group or aggregate prior to and distinct from the

state. This has never truly been the case, especially since the state decides who counts as part of the

“people” (excluding children and youths, migrants, prisoners, but including expats, pigs, the

elderly…), arranges them in arbitrary units (gerrymandering), manipulates them through the media

and patronage, and restricts their participation to elections (often breaking its so-called “mandate” in

a way which would be breach of contract were it a corporation). Still, this provides some limits and

boundaries on the state: it must “keep up appearances”, add axioms, etc. This is the difference

between democratic (and also left-populist) states on the one hand, and rightist totalitarian states on

the other.

form which, as Negri argues, manages to be constitutionalist and totalitarian at the same time. This is a new phenomenon. It arises from cybernetic control and the Spectacle, with its delusional consensus. Democracy relies on the constraint of the state by the “people” – the middle-class or the majority. This requires that the “people” exist as a group or aggregate prior to and distinct from the state. This has never truly been the case, especially since the state decides who counts as part of the “people” (excluding children and youths, migrants, prisoners, but including expats, pigs, the elderly…), arranges them in arbitrary units (gerrymandering), manipulates them through the media and patronage, and restricts their participation to elections (often breaking its so-called “mandate” in a way which would be breach of contract were it a corporation). Still, this provides some limits and boundaries on the state: it must “keep up appearances”, add axioms, etc. This is the difference between democratic (and also left-populist) states on the one hand, and rightist totalitarian states on the other. Today this difference is lost. Cybernetic power allows a kind of circularity – the state, as an East

German Stalinist once proposed, chooses its own people. The means of doing this have been

gradually refined since the 1970s, and rely mainly on emotional participation (particularly by bigots

and communitarians). The state, or factions within it (e.g. the police), generate moral panics and

fascistic framings which are promoted by the media and then crowdsourced and amplified on social

media, producing an “ecstatic media event” as defined by Chouliaraki. The media then induces the

public to militate (lobby, campaign, vote, snitch…) for the very things the state has fed into it. It

receives back from “the people” the very signal it puts in. When the process works (and it doesn’t

always), this two-way process functions as a closed signal loop without “noise” – the ideal of

cybernetics (and probably the source of the phrase “kept in the loop”). Hence one has a closed,

homeostatic loop: state -> media -> hivemind -> people -> state. And the “people” has no substance;

it changes constantly in response to the signals it receives. In this context, there is no real difference

between a regime in which the “people” have some nominal power over the state, and one in which

they do not. The only difference (and even here, this is also true of China!) is that the state’s

homeostatic reproduction must flow through the people.

Sociocide

German Stalinist once proposed, chooses its own people. The means of doing this have been gradually refined since the 1970s, and rely mainly on emotional participation (particularly by bigots and communitarians). The state, or factions within it (e.g. the police), generate moral panics and fascistic framings which are promoted by the media and then crowdsourced and amplified on social media, producing an “ecstatic media event” as defined by Chouliaraki. The media then induces the public to militate (lobby, campaign, vote, snitch…) for the very things the state has fed into it. It receives back from “the people” the very signal it puts in. When the process works (and it doesn’t always), this two-way process functions as a closed signal loop without “noise” – the ideal of cybernetics (and probably the source of the phrase “kept in the loop”). Hence one has a closed, homeostatic loop: state -> media -> hivemind -> people -> state. And the “people” has no substance; it changes constantly in response to the signals it receives. In this context, there is no real difference between a regime in which the “people” have some nominal power over the state, and one in which they do not. The only difference (and even here, this is also true of China!) is that the state’s homeostatic reproduction must flow through the people. Sociocide Society is nothing more than the totality of social relationships, of contacts with other people.

Lockdowns and social distancing are nothing short of sociocide – the murder of society by the state.

Lockdowns and social distancing are nothing short of sociocide – the murder of society by the state. Kropotkin long ago posited a distinction between the social and political principles. The social

principle connected things horizontally, for mutual aid or coexistence. The political principle

constructed hierarchical dyads. Kropotkin portrayed the two as being in contradiction. The political

principle always tries to suppress the social principle. The virus provides a handy pretext to

suppress the political principle.

principle connected things horizontally, for mutual aid or coexistence. The political principle constructed hierarchical dyads. Kropotkin portrayed the two as being in contradiction. The political principle always tries to suppress the social principle. The virus provides a handy pretext to suppress the political principle. “To struggle to come together every Monday night (or whatever), in the teeth of the gale of

busyness, or family, or invitations to stupid parties—that struggle is already Immediatism itself.

Succeed in actually physically meeting face-to-face with a group which is not your spouse-&-kids,

or the “guys from my job,” or your 12-Step Program—& you have already achieved virtually

everything Immediatism yearns for.” (Hakim Bey, Immediatism versus Capitalism)

busyness, or family, or invitations to stupid parties—that struggle is already Immediatism itself. Succeed in actually physically meeting face-to-face with a group which is not your spouse-&-kids, or the “guys from my job,” or your 12-Step Program—& you have already achieved virtually everything Immediatism yearns for.” (Hakim Bey, Immediatism versus Capitalism) If one endorses the relational ontology common in poststructuralism, posthumanism,

postcolonialism, neo-Marxism, and communitarianism – individuals are simply effects of

aggregates of social relations – then the situation is even worse. Sociocide is also the destruction of

all pre-existing individuals.

postcolonialism, neo-Marxism, and communitarianism – individuals are simply effects of aggregates of social relations – then the situation is even worse. Sociocide is also the destruction of all pre-existing individuals. Sociocide is a war, not just on autonomous social movements, but on the everyday autonomy on

which they build.

which they build. Sociocide is both what autonomists call “decomposition”, and what Theweleit calls

“devivification”.

“devivification”. In its most extreme forms, social distancing turns the basis of culture and social life upside-down,

for the crisis-of-the-moment.

for the crisis-of-the-moment. Scholars generally reject Kropotkin’s sharp separation. Usually, states operate “in” society. They

consult and cooperate with some social forces, encourage some forms of connection, overlap with

shadowy elite networks. This makes sense since, like capital, the state depends on the vital force it

suppresses. But what if the state is at war with the social principle in the last instance – and the last

instance has now come?

consult and cooperate with some social forces, encourage some forms of connection, overlap with shadowy elite networks. This makes sense since, like capital, the state depends on the vital force it suppresses. But what if the state is at war with the social principle in the last instance – and the last instance has now come? The World Wars were also processes of massive devivification. Many routine activities were

cancelled. Economic life was disrupted. Barbaric conscription systems were established. But

sociocide was never so widespread during the wars. The state relied on and encouraged a spirit of

camaraderie, both in the army and the “home front”. The point was to keep one’s own side alive,

while devivifying the enemy.

cancelled. Economic life was disrupted. Barbaric conscription systems were established. But sociocide was never so widespread during the wars. The state relied on and encouraged a spirit of camaraderie, both in the army and the “home front”. The point was to keep one’s own side alive, while devivifying the enemy. People are re-establishing camaraderie today, and the state usually encourages this. There are

sing-alongs between neighbours, window displays, virtual solidarity, volunteer groups to help the

vulnerable. This is progressive to the extent that it keeps the social principle alive. But it is

decisively contaminated by the subordination of the social to the political principle: it serves as the

human face of devivification.

sing-alongs between neighbours, window displays, virtual solidarity, volunteer groups to help the vulnerable. This is progressive to the extent that it keeps the social principle alive. But it is decisively contaminated by the subordination of the social to the political principle: it serves as the human face of devivification. If people use mutual aid groups as a way to break isolation and continue to come together for their

own purposes, they mitigate sociocide somewhat. This is important, regardless of what else they

achieve.

Chapter 1: Public Health as Microfascism

own purposes, they mitigate sociocide somewhat. This is important, regardless of what else they achieve. Chapter 1: Public Health as Microfascism Public health is not a fact or a good. It’s a discourse. The totalitarian, inhuman nature of this

discourse must not be obscured by the relief that the state is taking the health of the population

seriously at last. Public health is not the health of the individual members of the public.

discourse must not be obscured by the relief that the state is taking the health of the population seriously at last. Public health is not the health of the individual members of the public. Public health modellers are engaged in mathematically-scaffolded guesswork. Algorithmic

modelling based on arbitrary premises is a game of let’s pretend (whether or not it turns out to be a

good guess).

modelling based on arbitrary premises is a game of let’s pretend (whether or not it turns out to be a good guess). Public health scholars are not medical researchers in the sense familiar from randomised clinical

trials or from biology or anatomy. They belong to the same class of scholars as opinion pollsters,

market researchers and other bean-counters.

trials or from biology or anatomy. They belong to the same class of scholars as opinion pollsters, market researchers and other bean-counters. Public health discourse is irreducibly inhuman. It weighs up (say) the benefits of exercise versus

the risk of contagion, not for each human being, but on aggregate. As a result, anyone who is an

outlier from the aggregate is treated as disposable.

the risk of contagion, not for each human being, but on aggregate. As a result, anyone who is an outlier from the aggregate is treated as disposable. Public health ideology has fascistic roots. The earliest form was the ‘plague city’ analysed by

Foucault. Ineffective in terms of health outcomes, this model of total lockdown still managed to

provide the inspiration for prisons, asylums, factories – and concentration camps. The horrors of

modernity stem from the ideology of public health.

Foucault. Ineffective in terms of health outcomes, this model of total lockdown still managed to provide the inspiration for prisons, asylums, factories – and concentration camps. The horrors of modernity stem from the ideology of public health. In the 1930s it was common for “public health” to be linked to eugenics. People with congenital

“diseases” would be murdered, locked-up or sterilised to “protect public health”. There is also a

long history of “public health” laws being used to criminalise, genitally inspect, or force registration

on sex workers.

“diseases” would be murdered, locked-up or sterilised to “protect public health”. There is also a long history of “public health” laws being used to criminalise, genitally inspect, or force registration on sex workers. Public health recognises only bare life. It does not recognise quality of life.

Today’s public health “experts” are slaves of the ideology of cybernetic control – the use of

nudges and feedback to direct the “behaviour” of multitudes. They know nothing about real

humans. Their empirical models are drawn from “peacetime” and their predictions depend on real

humans fulfilling expectations.

nudges and feedback to direct the “behaviour” of multitudes. They know nothing about real humans. Their empirical models are drawn from “peacetime” and their predictions depend on real humans fulfilling expectations. The mistake here is the idea that one can and should produce outcomes through manipulating

“behaviour” on an aggregate level – that manipulation and coercion are valid means to achieve topdown

“policy goals”.

“behaviour” on an aggregate level – that manipulation and coercion are valid means to achieve topdown “policy goals”. Facts are relative. Ignoring for now the problems with incomplete and fabricated data, and the

distortions involved in treating unique individuals as aggregates – even true facts are results of

social contexts. If lockdowns turn out to “work” now when they never did in the past, this is only

because modern technology gives the state a far greater capacity for repressive control, panicmongering,

and cybernetic soft control. The moment this control is lost, lockdowns will cease to

“work”.

distortions involved in treating unique individuals as aggregates – even true facts are results of social contexts. If lockdowns turn out to “work” now when they never did in the past, this is only because modern technology gives the state a far greater capacity for repressive control, panicmongering, and cybernetic soft control. The moment this control is lost, lockdowns will cease to “work”. Facts cannot lead to “necessities” in terms of action – because it’s not possible to derive “ought”

from “should”. The idea of a necessary act, when it isn’t just slang for an impulsive or

unintentional act, is an existential shirking. There is always an addition of desire or ethos to a fact,

to make it into a necessity.

from “should”. The idea of a necessary act, when it isn’t just slang for an impulsive or unintentional act, is an existential shirking. There is always an addition of desire or ethos to a fact, to make it into a necessity. By the same token, what doesn’t “work” now would “work” with different circumstances. A

population who trusted medical “experts” or knew medicine themselves would be more likely to

follow optional guidance. A syndicalist society or one with widespread 3D printing might be able to

produce medical equipment more rapidly. A more decentralised, eco-anarchist society would have

lower transmission to begin with, but be utterly unsusceptible to lockdowns.

population who trusted medical “experts” or knew medicine themselves would be more likely to follow optional guidance. A syndicalist society or one with widespread 3D printing might be able to produce medical equipment more rapidly. A more decentralised, eco-anarchist society would have lower transmission to begin with, but be utterly unsusceptible to lockdowns. Global power relations embodied in “facts” are also at play here. What is novel about the

situation is how Chinese “expertise” has come to hegemonise or dominate America and

Europe. What is not novel, is that “facts” gleaned from the North are being applied in the South.

Countries like India, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa, Venezuela, and Colombia are implementing

lockdowns, in full knowledge that the shanty-town poor cannot afford to obey. They know, or

should know, that more will die from starvation and routine disease if they do observe the

lockdowns. Yet still, they apply the “global” orthodoxy and imitate the North.

situation is how Chinese “expertise” has come to hegemonise or dominate America and Europe. What is not novel, is that “facts” gleaned from the North are being applied in the South. Countries like India, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa, Venezuela, and Colombia are implementing lockdowns, in full knowledge that the shanty-town poor cannot afford to obey. They know, or should know, that more will die from starvation and routine disease if they do observe the lockdowns. Yet still, they apply the “global” orthodoxy and imitate the North. Public health theory is almost certainly the wrong method to study illnesses. It is too impersonal

and aggregative, too scarcity-mongering, too “problem-solving” rather than “critical” (a la Cox), too

consistently threatening to freedom. It does not recognise the need for health solutions to health

problems, rather than police-states.

and aggregative, too scarcity-mongering, too “problem-solving” rather than “critical” (a la Cox), too consistently threatening to freedom. It does not recognise the need for health solutions to health problems, rather than police-states. Epistemologically, abstract facts are collections of large numbers of empirical observations. They

are claims about the dispersed, barely knowable event-level of reality which draw together traces of

many different experiential contacts with this reality. They are thus several degrees more abstract

than these contacts themselves (which are themselves always mediated).

are claims about the dispersed, barely knowable event-level of reality which draw together traces of many different experiential contacts with this reality. They are thus several degrees more abstract than these contacts themselves (which are themselves always mediated). The quality of academic research, already questionable for reasons of bias and epistemology, has

declined sharply with neoliberalism. Most scholars now take short-cuts or outright cheat, to perform

well in the citation and impact algorithms.

declined sharply with neoliberalism. Most scholars now take short-cuts or outright cheat, to perform well in the citation and impact algorithms. A quick look at the website Retraction Watch will show how common academic fraud is. Papers

on coronavirus have already been retracted by the journal JAMA for unethically reusing the same

data as if it were new. “In other words, if you’re doing a meta-analysis — aka a “study of studies”

— to figure out the fatality rate, or how a particular drug works against the virus, but some people

are being counted twice, your estimates are going to be off. ” The site also reports that “Coronavirus

researchers “were reluctant to share data with others before publication in a prestigious medical

journal” and some journals “go down the food chain to people with lesser experience or no

experience in coronaviruses” so as to publish on this now-fashionable topic.

on coronavirus have already been retracted by the journal JAMA for unethically reusing the same data as if it were new. “In other words, if you’re doing a meta-analysis — aka a “study of studies” — to figure out the fatality rate, or how a particular drug works against the virus, but some people are being counted twice, your estimates are going to be off. ” The site also reports that “Coronavirus researchers “were reluctant to share data with others before publication in a prestigious medical journal” and some journals “go down the food chain to people with lesser experience or no experience in coronaviruses” so as to publish on this now-fashionable topic. “Much of the research that emerges in the coming weeks will be turn out to be unreliable, even

wrong. We’ll be OK if we remember that.” Our Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky in WIRED.

“[M]any of the purported breakthroughs around the virus are being shared in spaces that are

unfamiliar to many civilians, and mostly unvetted.” Ivan speaks to On The Media.

wrong. We’ll be OK if we remember that.” Our Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky in WIRED. “[M]any of the purported breakthroughs around the virus are being shared in spaces that are unfamiliar to many civilians, and mostly unvetted.” Ivan speaks to On The Media. “In Defense Of Coronavirus Testing Strategy, [Trump] Administration Cited Retracted Study.”

Other posts report: “Researchers in Singapore have lost a 2011 paper in Gene Therapyafter an

institutional investigation found that some of their data had been fabricated by a PhD student on the

project”; “The journal Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology has attached expressions

of concern to 13 papers published in 2019 that a group of sleuths have flagged for potentially being

from a paper mill”; and “A team of heart researchers at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio has received

expressions of concern for two papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, which says the

images in the articles appear suspect. The papers, both of which appeared in 2004, come from the

lab of Subha Sen, a highly-funded scientist who has received millions in NIH grants over the past

decade.” One of the strangest reads: “This retraction was submitted after Dr Qiu, one of the

purported authors of the article in question, contacted us to declare that none of the listed authors

had any notion of the submission and subsequent publication of the paper. “. Another researcher

admits to writing several papers “no-one should ever read or cite”.

institutional investigation found that some of their data had been fabricated by a PhD student on the project”; “The journal Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology has attached expressions of concern to 13 papers published in 2019 that a group of sleuths have flagged for potentially being from a paper mill”; and “A team of heart researchers at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio has received expressions of concern for two papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, which says the images in the articles appear suspect. The papers, both of which appeared in 2004, come from the lab of Subha Sen, a highly-funded scientist who has received millions in NIH grants over the past decade.” One of the strangest reads: “This retraction was submitted after Dr Qiu, one of the purported authors of the article in question, contacted us to declare that none of the listed authors had any notion of the submission and subsequent publication of the paper. “. Another researcher admits to writing several papers “no-one should ever read or cite”. We all know this happens in low-prestige, qualitative fields like critical theory (the “Sokal Hoax”)

and identity politics (the “Grievance Studies Hoax”). But it’s apparently also endemic in the hard

sciences and medicine – especially where pharmaceutical interests are at stake.

and identity politics (the “Grievance Studies Hoax”). But it’s apparently also endemic in the hard sciences and medicine – especially where pharmaceutical interests are at stake. The corruption of academia has worsened under neoliberalism, with the corrosion of autonomy,

encouragement of “policy relevance” and “impact”, and use of cybernetic performance metrics. This

regime encourages a cybernetic/control bias both directly (via government funding preferences) and

indirectly (by normalising cybernetic methods). This creates a situation where scientists will not

decisively challenge political lies and half-truths. It is unlikely lockdowns could have been

normalised if scientists had more autonomy – or if they were connected to the popular strata.

encouragement of “policy relevance” and “impact”, and use of cybernetic performance metrics. This regime encourages a cybernetic/control bias both directly (via government funding preferences) and indirectly (by normalising cybernetic methods). This creates a situation where scientists will not decisively challenge political lies and half-truths. It is unlikely lockdowns could have been normalised if scientists had more autonomy – or if they were connected to the popular strata. By the same token, journalists have failed to do their job exposing and challenging lies which

serve as nudges. For example, they rarely challenged whether lockdowns work once they were in

place, and did not raise the issue of masking until governments shifted. They are either extremely

slack in their research and dependent on government press releases for most of their content, or else

overtly complicit in the nudging system.

serve as nudges. For example, they rarely challenged whether lockdowns work once they were in place, and did not raise the issue of masking until governments shifted. They are either extremely slack in their research and dependent on government press releases for most of their content, or else overtly complicit in the nudging system. Quantitative research can only see general patterns, not individual facts. It encourages

bulldozer approaches which override individual circumstances with generalities irrelevant to the

case at hand.

bulldozer approaches which override individual circumstances with generalities irrelevant to the case at hand. With the crisis growing, in April the British government brings in more cybernetic modellers to

either modify or manage the effects of the lockdown. Hiring arsonists to put out fires?

either modify or manage the effects of the lockdown. Hiring arsonists to put out fires? These modellers replace the planners of former times – the difference being, they are computeraided

guessers (like the current stock market speculators) and avoid taking on government

responsibility for provision.

guessers (like the current stock market speculators) and avoid taking on government responsibility for provision. Some examples of nudges: lying about the effectiveness of masks, the possible existence of

effective antivirals, the degree of health service preparedness, and the threat of food shortages;

downplaying the virus to manage panic; pretending they have no intent to call a lockdown, and

concealing any plans to lift one; concealing the contents of emergency laws, or lying about how

they will be implemented; giving orders which sound legally binding but aren’t; threats and blame

(such as the British government threatening to ban exercise, when its existing measures have been

found legally unenforceable, and displacing responsibility for this onto a supposed “small

minority”); suppression of opposing views (including true ones) on social media and in the press, on

the basis that they are fake news or rumours. All of these acts involve apparent truth-claims which

are actually strategic gestures designed to produce effects. Useful lies.

effective antivirals, the degree of health service preparedness, and the threat of food shortages; downplaying the virus to manage panic; pretending they have no intent to call a lockdown, and concealing any plans to lift one; concealing the contents of emergency laws, or lying about how they will be implemented; giving orders which sound legally binding but aren’t; threats and blame (such as the British government threatening to ban exercise, when its existing measures have been found legally unenforceable, and displacing responsibility for this onto a supposed “small minority”); suppression of opposing views (including true ones) on social media and in the press, on the basis that they are fake news or rumours. All of these acts involve apparent truth-claims which are actually strategic gestures designed to produce effects. Useful lies. The British minister’s threat to ban exercise if a “small minority” don’t start behaving (by not

sunbathing, picnicking, etc) – later qualified as not a government proposal to alter the lockdown –

seems designed not so much to scare the defiers, as to scare the conformists by threatening to take

away one of their last “privileges”. The idea is to turn them against the defiers, relying on the affects

of the lockdown itself.

sunbathing, picnicking, etc) – later qualified as not a government proposal to alter the lockdown – seems designed not so much to scare the defiers, as to scare the conformists by threatening to take away one of their last “privileges”. The idea is to turn them against the defiers, relying on the affects of the lockdown itself. Nudge theory is based on false assumptions about human nature. It wrongly assumes that people

are outward-directed nodes who easily “change behaviour”. It ignores dynamics of meaning, belief,

trust, desire, and the unconscious.

are outward-directed nodes who easily “change behaviour”. It ignores dynamics of meaning, belief, trust, desire, and the unconscious. Public health measures rely on nudge theory for their supposed effectiveness.

In a culture of nudges (most of them dishonest or fact-neutral), people know they are being lied to

and respond accordingly.

and respond accordingly. Aggregates are dangerous partly because individual actions rarely have any great impact on them;

people have to have a very strong sense of self-sacrifice and self-abasement to care about the impact

their own actions have, when the percentage chance of it making any difference whatsoever is so

small.

people have to have a very strong sense of self-sacrifice and self-abasement to care about the impact their own actions have, when the percentage chance of it making any difference whatsoever is so small. In many cases, lockdowns have been initiated by an unelected public-health cabal,

transnationally networked through the WHO much as economists are through the WTO and World

Bank, acting as a type of nascent (and especially undemocratic) global state, and overriding

resistance from governments much as their economic brethren do.

transnationally networked through the WHO much as economists are through the WTO and World Bank, acting as a type of nascent (and especially undemocratic) global state, and overriding resistance from governments much as their economic brethren do. In retrospect, we need to realise that left/anarchist demonisation of those who distrust experts

(anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, etc) has laid some of the groundwork for fascism. The exclusion

of such views from mainstream sites paves the way for the “consensus” around lockdowns. In the

1960s-90s, it would have been the New Left questioning experts (c.f. “Strip the Experts”, Illich,

etc).

*Sartre is right: change the advisors and you change the advice. If the advisors were anti-cybernetic,

aware of mass psychology and the unconscious, pessimistic about “behaviour change”, and focused

on social causes and medical responses, they would give completely different advice. Cybernetic

expertocracy OUT.

(anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, etc) has laid some of the groundwork for fascism. The exclusion of such views from mainstream sites paves the way for the “consensus” around lockdowns. In the 1960s-90s, it would have been the New Left questioning experts (c.f. “Strip the Experts”, Illich, etc). *Sartre is right: change the advisors and you change the advice. If the advisors were anti-cybernetic, aware of mass psychology and the unconscious, pessimistic about “behaviour change”, and focused on social causes and medical responses, they would give completely different advice. Cybernetic expertocracy OUT. It is not even elected politicians making these decisions. They are accepting what is posited as

“necessary” by public health officials. These are not primarily doctors, but statisticians and

technocrats. Their models are dubious because the disease is new and the data is mangled. But they

are being trusted as “experts”. They are not specialists in medical responses to disease, in rushbuilding

hospitals, in psychological or economic impacts of lockdowns, or in having innovative

ideas.

“necessary” by public health officials. These are not primarily doctors, but statisticians and technocrats. Their models are dubious because the disease is new and the data is mangled. But they are being trusted as “experts”. They are not specialists in medical responses to disease, in rushbuilding hospitals, in psychological or economic impacts of lockdowns, or in having innovative ideas. The currently hegemonic public health model is favoured by a subset of “experts” in the field.

They are opposed by another group of “experts”. The alternative approach would have prevented

the disastrous effects of the lockdown.

They are opposed by another group of “experts”. The alternative approach would have prevented the disastrous effects of the lockdown. This panic involves a very clear case of “experts” validated as holders of truth, gaining authority

to create strong moral imperatives turning life upside-down… with little protest from the

Foucauldians, postcolonials, etc who are normally obsessed with “who gets to speak”.

to create strong moral imperatives turning life upside-down… with little protest from the Foucauldians, postcolonials, etc who are normally obsessed with “who gets to speak”. The lockdown model involves instructions which embed moral principles as pseudo-objective,

which are unrealistic for the poor artificially restrict the range of options (eg no communes or

masking), and bulldoze over countervailing effects (eg life disruption leads to suicide).

which are unrealistic for the poor artificially restrict the range of options (eg no communes or masking), and bulldoze over countervailing effects (eg life disruption leads to suicide). This is the moment when epistemic perspectivism is most needed – when people need to insist on

their right to determine their own lives, their risk-perceptions and how to respond autonomously –

instead of submitting to the tyranny of experts… but it is the moment when the perspectivists

suddenly decide that the experts’ facts were “real” all along, since this accords so closely with

superego responsibilities to sacrifice for the “more vulnerable”, and since one must not allow

oneself to be perceived as a Trump-supporting conspiracy theorist.

their right to determine their own lives, their risk-perceptions and how to respond autonomously – instead of submitting to the tyranny of experts… but it is the moment when the perspectivists suddenly decide that the experts’ facts were “real” all along, since this accords so closely with superego responsibilities to sacrifice for the “more vulnerable”, and since one must not allow oneself to be perceived as a Trump-supporting conspiracy theorist. Ideas from outside the public health orthodoxy – even those coming from epidemiologists,

doctors, and public health “experts” – are being silenced and ignored. Rushed production of medical

equipment, masking, ruralisation, mutual aid, bribing people to self-isolate, are not even considered

in many countries.

doctors, and public health “experts” – are being silenced and ignored. Rushed production of medical equipment, masking, ruralisation, mutual aid, bribing people to self-isolate, are not even considered in many countries. The lockdown fad has stuck – even though it has failed – because it fits with the existing biases of

bigots and statists. This is something they wanted anyway – and something they are enjoying.

bigots and statists. This is something they wanted anyway – and something they are enjoying. Years earlier, a leading medical journal published an article on effects of CS gas, which it declares

to be “medically unacceptable”. This led to rapid rebukes from other medical scholars, who argue

that scientists can declare the effects of different approaches, but cannot legislate on their political

jusifiability. How different it is today, as political fascism is justified as medical necessity!

to be “medically unacceptable”. This led to rapid rebukes from other medical scholars, who argue that scientists can declare the effects of different approaches, but cannot legislate on their political jusifiability. How different it is today, as political fascism is justified as medical necessity! It might be better if lockdowns do fail to save lives – because then, they might be dropped or

discredited, and not used next time. This would also lead to more focus on health services or other

alternatives. This assumes, of course, that the virus isn’t just a pretext.

discredited, and not used next time. This would also lead to more focus on health services or other alternatives. This assumes, of course, that the virus isn’t just a pretext. If governments get away with compensating for underfunding healthcare by using policing

methods, this provides an incentive for them to continue underfunding healthcare – and costs lives

in the future.

methods, this provides an incentive for them to continue underfunding healthcare – and costs lives in the future. If governments get away with blaming individuals for defying restrictions, instead of themselves

for underfunding healthcare, this also lets them keep underfunding healthcare.

for underfunding healthcare, this also lets them keep underfunding healthcare. Political oppositions are failing to politicise the issue of underfunding of healthcare, and thus

contributing to the likelihood that capacity will not be increased before the next crisis, because they

are focused on scoring points over who can implement policing measures the most fascistically.

contributing to the likelihood that capacity will not be increased before the next crisis, because they are focused on scoring points over who can implement policing measures the most fascistically. Change the experts, change the outcomes. If the government was listening to sociologists of

medicine who have knowledge of how poor people live, the measures proposed would be very

different. Similarly if they were listening primarily to people interested in medical (not public

health) responses. The choice of experts determines the decision they make. As Sartre puts it, we

usually ask advice from people who will give us the advice we want to hear.

medicine who have knowledge of how poor people live, the measures proposed would be very different. Similarly if they were listening primarily to people interested in medical (not public health) responses. The choice of experts determines the decision they make. As Sartre puts it, we usually ask advice from people who will give us the advice we want to hear. From “Against Social Distancing: “These measures have been based around a general

preventative principle: social distancing. Social distancing has, in the span of a month, gone from

tactic to unquestionable dogma, and I believe it is worthwhile to unpack how it functions

ideologically and why it needs to be subjected to a critique.”

preventative principle: social distancing. Social distancing has, in the span of a month, gone from tactic to unquestionable dogma, and I believe it is worthwhile to unpack how it functions ideologically and why it needs to be subjected to a critique.” “Shame is not epidemiology: In a distinctly American way, our crises have brought out the Puritan

core of our national psyche. Social distancing has been predictably utilized as a form of control and

shunning; you are a bad person if you go out or meet other people because you are putting your

needs above that of the group. You are being bad because you are helping spread the disease. Good

people stay inside and follow orders. Trying to shame people for going outside is more pathological

than the disease itself because it completely fails to grasp the current situation. As hard as it is for

some people to hear this, diseases aren’t spread by bad people… People seek to perform certain selfcongratulating

rituals in order to protect themselves from contagion, sealing themselves away in

hermetically sealed apartment units from the contagion of selfish and bad people on the outside.

The underlying Protestantism of it all shines through as people care more about shaming those they

see as disobedient or lazy, trying to berate others into submitting to their personal rituals because

they identify personal moral failure with biological contagion. This was true long before any

disease broke out; this crisis just helped make this all the more explicit… The reaction against social

isolation is a reaction against social control… There is no concept of community solutions, but

rather a top-down command economy of disaster capitalism with UBI characteristics. Failures of

the centralized state are taken to be a lack of strong leadership or lack of obedience by the populace.

People just need to listen to the experts, damn it! Social isolation is a catechism and public health

experts are its clergy. Their word here is law and ordinary people apparently have no idea

that coming into contact with sick people spreads disease. Young Americans are medieval peasants

ignorant of modern medicine, rather than people taking calculated risks about exposure and

treatment. It is up to the quarantine state apparatus to make these decisions for them.

There is no room for debate or discussion, only obedience. Don’t think, just act; otherwise people

will die… The isolationist impulse produces scared, obedient, and atomized individuals. Freedom is

selfish, autonomy is a contagion.

Healing doesn’t happen through isolation; isolation is a way to shut off and hide away the sick and

dying. Rather than threaten the already buckling and incompetent health infrastructure, the

contagious are told to stay home or risk being shipped off to somewhere even more isolated and

inhospitable… The ideology of isolation is a presumption of guilt before innocence, of a hidden sin

that you carry with you that can unknowingly seep into the ones you live and drain them of life

before your very eyes. The point of social isolation is to make you fear yourself as a carrier, one

with an impure seed that you cannot know until it’s too late… All measures can become a new

normal. If the state has its way, the pandemic will never break.”

[the author, Dabtara, is later bullied into retracting parts of the critique on the basis that “social

distancing saves lives” – proving the original point].

core of our national psyche. Social distancing has been predictably utilized as a form of control and shunning; you are a bad person if you go out or meet other people because you are putting your needs above that of the group. You are being bad because you are helping spread the disease. Good people stay inside and follow orders. Trying to shame people for going outside is more pathological than the disease itself because it completely fails to grasp the current situation. As hard as it is for some people to hear this, diseases aren’t spread by bad people… People seek to perform certain selfcongratulating rituals in order to protect themselves from contagion, sealing themselves away in hermetically sealed apartment units from the contagion of selfish and bad people on the outside. The underlying Protestantism of it all shines through as people care more about shaming those they see as disobedient or lazy, trying to berate others into submitting to their personal rituals because they identify personal moral failure with biological contagion. This was true long before any disease broke out; this crisis just helped make this all the more explicit… The reaction against social isolation is a reaction against social control… There is no concept of community solutions, but rather a top-down command economy of disaster capitalism with UBI characteristics. Failures of the centralized state are taken to be a lack of strong leadership or lack of obedience by the populace. People just need to listen to the experts, damn it! Social isolation is a catechism and public health experts are its clergy. Their word here is law and ordinary people apparently have no idea that coming into contact with sick people spreads disease. Young Americans are medieval peasants ignorant of modern medicine, rather than people taking calculated risks about exposure and treatment. It is up to the quarantine state apparatus to make these decisions for them. There is no room for debate or discussion, only obedience. Don’t think, just act; otherwise people will die… The isolationist impulse produces scared, obedient, and atomized individuals. Freedom is selfish, autonomy is a contagion. Healing doesn’t happen through isolation; isolation is a way to shut off and hide away the sick and dying. Rather than threaten the already buckling and incompetent health infrastructure, the contagious are told to stay home or risk being shipped off to somewhere even more isolated and inhospitable… The ideology of isolation is a presumption of guilt before innocence, of a hidden sin that you carry with you that can unknowingly seep into the ones you live and drain them of life before your very eyes. The point of social isolation is to make you fear yourself as a carrier, one with an impure seed that you cannot know until it’s too late… All measures can become a new normal. If the state has its way, the pandemic will never break.” [the author, Dabtara, is later bullied into retracting parts of the critique on the basis that “social distancing saves lives” – proving the original point]. An anarchist position (from “Ask a Different Question”): “It can feel like there is only a single

crisis whose facts are objective, allowing only one single path, one that involves separation,

enclosure, obedience, control. The state and its appendages become the only ones legitimate to act,

and the mainstream media narrative with the mass fear it produces swamps our ability for

independent action. Some anarchists though have pointed out that there are two crises playing out in

parallel — one is a pandemic that is spreading rapdily and causing serious harm and even death for

thousands. The other iscrisis management strategy imposed by the the state. The state claims to be

acting in the interest of everyone’s health — it wants us to see its response as objective and

inevitable. But its crisis management is also a way of determining what conditions will be like

when the crisis resolves, letting it pick winners and losers along predictable lines. Recognizing the

inequality baked into these supposedly neutral measures means acknowledging that certain people

being asked to pay a much higher cost than others for what the powerful are claiming as a collective

good. I want to recover some autonomy and freedom of action in this moment, and to do this, we

need to break free of the narrative we are given. When we let the state control the narrative, the

questions that are asked about this moment, we also let them control the answers. If we want a

different outcome than the powerful are preparing, we need to be able to ask a different question.”

crisis whose facts are objective, allowing only one single path, one that involves separation, enclosure, obedience, control. The state and its appendages become the only ones legitimate to act, and the mainstream media narrative with the mass fear it produces swamps our ability for independent action. Some anarchists though have pointed out that there are two crises playing out in parallel — one is a pandemic that is spreading rapdily and causing serious harm and even death for thousands. The other iscrisis management strategy imposed by the the state. The state claims to be acting in the interest of everyone’s health — it wants us to see its response as objective and inevitable. But its crisis management is also a way of determining what conditions will be like when the crisis resolves, letting it pick winners and losers along predictable lines. Recognizing the inequality baked into these supposedly neutral measures means acknowledging that certain people being asked to pay a much higher cost than others for what the powerful are claiming as a collective good. I want to recover some autonomy and freedom of action in this moment, and to do this, we need to break free of the narrative we are given. When we let the state control the narrative, the questions that are asked about this moment, we also let them control the answers. If we want a different outcome than the powerful are preparing, we need to be able to ask a different question.” “It’s not that I don’t want to hear from experts or don’t want there to be individuals with deep

knowledge in specific fields — it’s that I think the way problems are framed already anticipate

their solution. The response to the virus in China gives us a vision of what technocracy and

authoritarianism are capable of. The virus slows to a stop, and the checkpoints, lockdowns, facial

recognition technology, and mobilized labour can be turned to other ends. If you don’t want this

answer, you’d better ask a different question.”

knowledge in specific fields — it’s that I think the way problems are framed already anticipate their solution. The response to the virus in China gives us a vision of what technocracy and authoritarianism are capable of. The virus slows to a stop, and the checkpoints, lockdowns, facial recognition technology, and mobilized labour can be turned to other ends. If you don’t want this answer, you’d better ask a different question.” There are different views in radical theory about medical science. Some people are sceptical of

“modern reason” and “objective” research as such. It relies on particular views of the world and

rules out others. It expresses a desire to know and control. It is disconnected from the body, “lived

experience”, and communities. It treats the observer as separate from nature rather than embedded

in it. It’s therefore very different from approaches to health in “indigenous knowledge” or “local

knowledge”. There’s a lot of cases where indigenous knowledge knows best about local conditions.

“modern reason” and “objective” research as such. It relies on particular views of the world and rules out others. It expresses a desire to know and control. It is disconnected from the body, “lived experience”, and communities. It treats the observer as separate from nature rather than embedded in it. It’s therefore very different from approaches to health in “indigenous knowledge” or “local knowledge”. There’s a lot of cases where indigenous knowledge knows best about local conditions. For instance, Ivan Illich sees modern medicine as a kind of addiction. People become committed

to longer lives without quality of living. They entrust this goal to experts who produce packaged

commodities. But the experts’ power depends on their scarcity. The commodities they provide

become more and more expensive. Everyone d