What JAIME said (31 Oct 2020 2.56 pm):
There is no direct evidence of ‘malicious intent’ in this government’s or any other government’s actions. If such existed, they’re hardly likely to leave it lying around are they? What there is is evidence of motive to lock down major economies, forcing a very convenient global ‘reset’ post Covid. What there is is abundant evidence of malign and coordinated activity on the part of governments – the deliberate creation of alarm by wholly immoral behaviour modification techniques, the massaging of statistics to create a false sense of alarm, direct lies from government officials, relentless, tiresome and ultimately corrosive propaganda and advertising, evidence of planning for lockdowns weeks before they happened, deliberate censorship of opposing views, culpable ignorance of opposing views in order to perpetuate the preferred narrative and policy and, lastly but not leastly, a knowledge that the preferred policy is killing and will kill many thousands of people regardless of its supposed effectiveness in saving lives, yet a dogged pursuance of that policy even in the face of this evidence and proposed sensible alternatives. It cannot be argued that ministers are unaware of the huge potential and actual harms that their policies inflict upon the nation and its economy, yet they persist in doing what they do, refusing to listen to reasoned argument as to why they should desist. That is definitely malign. I look at what’s happening and I see the immense human suffering caused by governments and I consider it is ‘evil’. I have suggested motive which might explain the intent.
[I’d like to quote JOHN RIDGWAY’s reply (31 Oct 2020 5.32 pm) but the length of the thread and the number of embedded tweets etc is more than my Mac can handle. It copied and pasted the above and then gave up.]
Disagreement about malicious intent, hyperbole, and the wisdom of Nazi analogies seems secondary in importance to the questions raised about the basis of government policy. (My own feeling about the Nazi analogy is that it’s unfair to the Germans, only 30% of whom were persuaded by that particular brand of nonsense, whereas approval for government policies on Covid is nearer 70%. Techniques of mass persuasion have come a long way since the thirties. A Twitter ban is so much more efficient than a book burning, and less messy.)
The bit I’ve bolded in Jaime’s comment above can be applied directly to climate and energy policy. Furthermore, there is absolutely no doubt that scientists and their allies in the media have been lying knowingly for a decade or more. Anyone who says “e-mails were taken out of context” or “five independent enquiries showed that the scientists did nothing wrong” is lying deliberately with the sole aim of suppressing debate. And it’s been hugely successful.
It’s early yet in the Covid saga to know whether our rulers are mad or bad or a bit of both. The question hinges very largely on how much they know, how much they should know, or could know if they wanted to, and what are the pressures on them to admit or ignore what they know. We know quite a lot about what’s going on in science and in the media, because in both cases the livelihoods of its practitioners depends on them publishing their results. We know less about what’s going on behind the scenes in Whitehall and at Number Ten. Does it matter much?