2020 has shown itself to be the most turbulent year since 1968, for seemingly diverse reasons that all have a common underlying factor. The viral epidemic originating in Wuhan, China. The resulting lockdowns which have in turn resulted in an economic crash. The civil unrest in the cities and states feeble, or lack of response to them.
The rapid spread of the coronavirus around the world following the Chinese New Year was due in large part to the lack of any efforts on the part of Peking to contain the virus within the country. A globalized world economy with so many of the supply lines beginning in China had already set the stage for rapid transmission of the infection. For precisely the same reason, so many prominent figures ran interference for China, ever determined to play down the virus’s origin. It was declared “racist” to suggest that the virus originate in the county or city that it did in fact originate.
The ensuing lockdown that most countries put in place were purportedly for the purpose of slowing the spread of the infection. The notion behind this was to “flatten the curve”, that is to say to ensure that everybody doesn’t get sick all at once and overwhelm the hospitals. After the number of new cases fell and the curve was flattened, however, the rationale changed. That is, if it can be said to be called a rationale at all. It took a hysterical tone that if the economy were opened up again, everybody would die. Those who question the effectiveness of the lockdowns were met the with the sort of moral condemnation that the technocracy typically hurls towards those who disagree with it. Because they did not control the presidency, however, in the US they were only able to keep the lockdowns in place in the areas of the country where they had a firm grip on the state governments.
Later that year, under the pretense of protesting police misconduct, cities cross the US were allowed to burn while police were ordered to stand down. This wasn’t new; it had occurred in a number of different cities sporadically during the later years of the Obama administration. But in those case it was localized where incidents with the police occurred. This year it occurred simultaneously in cities across the country, and in some cases the mobs mobilizing for weeks or months. While the police are typically absent in the the face of these riots, they are able to arrest and prosecute citizens who defend themselves against the mobs.
Superficially, we see the government reacting in diametrically opposite ways in these two situations. In reality these two actions serve the same purpose – the suppression of the middle class. Small business have a measure of economic independence, and provided unwanted competition for, the major companies that are in league with the ruling class. Major corporations, due to their financial resources, are far more resilient than small businesses in the face of these artificial disasters. This is why these BLM rallies are never criticized for potentially spearing the virus.
These factors along with increased efforts by major companies to remove any speech from their platforms that contradicts their decided political line, is an effort by the managerial class to stifle political dissent that in earlier years they would have tolerated, because it was not then seen as a threat. This is the soft totalitarianism manifesting itself beyond isolate cases into general policy. It is more based on feminine relational aggression than the masculine physical aggression employed by the totalitarianism of old, but no less a smothering of the people’s liberty.