Mass pandemic scares are even better than wars for keeping the populace in line. From Thomas DiLorenzo at lewrockwell.com:
One of the most remarkable articles written about the growth of government during the twentieth-century is “War is the Health of the State” by Randolph Bourne. Published in 1918, Bourne’s essay explained how it is human nature to mostly ignore the state because the state during peacetime has “almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions.” War, however, is the all-purpose tool of the state to stir up the public’s emotions in a way that motivates it to hand over to the state virtually unlimited powers, abandoning all constitutional constraints – and to subsequently relinquish most of their supposedly cherished freedoms.
But the state has other tricks up its sleeves in its never-ending quest for totalitarian control of society. And do not delude yourself: All states aspire to become totalitarian by nature – it’s only a matter of time.
Wars are very expensive; they generate antiwar movements, fierce political opposition, and sometimes assassinations. And they can go very, very badly. As both Napoleon and Hitler learned when they foolishly invaded Russia.
Other kinds of less risky (to the state) “emergencies” will often suffice as totalitarianism’s propaganda/brainwashing strategies. As the world has learned in the past year, a “public health emergency” (or the perception of a fabricated and phony one) can do the job just fine without the messiness and expenses of war. The reasons for this can be understood by reading the following passages from Randolph Bourne’s famous essay where I have substituted the words “pandemic” or “public health” (in brackets) for the word “war”:
“The republican state has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions . . . . The moment a [pandemic] is declared, however, the mass of the people . . . with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives . . . . The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to government, identifies himself with its purposes . . . and the state once more walks . . .”
Who knew that so many “public health” officials want to be dictators for life? From Becky Akers at lewrockwell.com:
If we have learned nothing else from COVID19, we finally understand the outrageous authority that “Public Health’s” quacks wield.
Though these bureaucrats now hog the limelight while destroying our country and liberty, they formerly scurried on the fringes of government. There they spewed advice (“Quit smoking: it causes cancer!” “Seat belts save lives, so buckle up!”) that we were free to reject until they could persuade legislatures to codify their opinions as law. That itch to control, to force everyone to heed them, should have warned us of “Public Health’s” threat.
Most Americans are subject to three or four “Public Health” bureaus: a “Department of Public Health” often infests cities and counties, and one curses each state as well as the Feds. The latter’s Department of Health and Human Services harbors such agencies as the CDC, the FDA, the Indian Health Service, and the Surgeon General as well as “an elite group of over 6,000 uniformed officers who are public health professionals.” Just what criminals want in a cop: temperature-guns.
At whatever level of government they lurk, each outpost of “Public Health” boasts an atomic bomb’s power: they can and will raze everything in their path, as they’ve proved since March. Collaborating with politicians, they crushed life as we knew it. They bankrupted companies and kicked employees off payrolls with the ruthless abandon of Mr. Potter; the list of institutions and businesses they thereby destroyed is too lengthy and notorious to recite here. As if such crimes weren’t enough, they ordered us to imperil ourselves with masks and “anti-social distancing.” No wonder rates of suicide and addiction have skyrocketed.
Public health is completely collectivized and many of its practitioners are more interested in politics than medicine. From Allan Stevo at lewrockwell.com:
“Data-driven” is a buzzword even in public health. Public health is the Marxist step-brother of the individualist field of medicine and generally unconcerned with an honest reading of available data. This moment in time makes that abundantly apparent.
Public health offers collectivist plans to address health, which is an individual concept. The medical field is becoming increasingly affected by the same. However, at its core, the medical field is not collectivist. Doctors focus on the individual patient. This can be traced back to the 2,400-year-old Hippocratic Oath and other texts on medical ethics. The public health profession can trace its roots back to the late-1800s in England as ideologies intending to push a supposed collective will on others grew in popularity with some intellectuals.
As such, every single pronouncement from anyone in public health should be given the same skepticism that you would offer a pronouncement from Karl Marx himself.