Eli Vieira published alarming information in this Gazeta: the scientific knowledge of psychology was used by governments in this pandemic to foster fear, which increases obedience. Not that our psychology candidates are producing knowledge – none of that. The discovery took place in England, a country where research in psychology is much more advanced than in Brazil.
Whatever it was in England. In this pandemic, we saw the same stories being told by governments uniformly, and the same measures being uniformly adopted, despite the very same questions that were raised around the world by citizens who used their common sense: “What is the point of reducing the fleet if Will the buses get more crowded? What’s the point of opening a mall and closing a park? Before adopting such a drastic measure as the lockdowns, isn’t it good to be very sure of its effectiveness?” The authorities turned a deaf ear. Across the world, handfuls of scientific sub-celebrities were swarming whose job it was to ensure that the representatives were absolutely correct. More daring, some even pointed out the superiority of China in relation to democracies when it comes to managing the pandemic. The “necessary authoritarianism” imposes false imprisonment and does not allow them to leave the house to buy food. The West saw the clandestine images of frantic people screaming, trapped in their apartments in Wuhan, and did not imagine that this would soon be a model for their countries.
Descartes said that common sense, that is, the reason, is the best thing in the world shared. The insults to those who dared to doubt were also well shared. We were all denialists.
Genocide?
The term “denialist” became current in politics during the post-World War II period. It was used to refer to those who denied the existence of the Holocaust. In fact, the version was that genocide had not occurred and the Allies would have, with the terrible bombing of Dresden, killed more than the Nazis. All physical evidence would be Soviet setup.
Fundamentally, therefore, the term “denialism” was put in the political arena to refer to a genocide. The people who put it to use again know this, because the thesis they want to shove us down our throats is that “covid denialism” (in the gringa) or “scientific denialism” (in these regions) is directly responsible for the death of millions of people around the world. In other words: if you do not adhere to universal fear and express your merely subjective non-adherence (since it is possible to ask questions while staying at home and if you will gladly receive Pfizer injections), you are the Hitler of the 21st century. Genocide has not only been socialized, it can be committed as a thought crime. It became a kind of sin, something intimate. The difference is that there is no longer a God to judge, but tweeters, bureaucrats and journalists. That pass through “the whole world”, in this world perceived by manipulable algorithms.
There is no lack of those who speculate that a true genocide is underway. If we take into account that substances of very little known technology were developed in less than a year and inoculated into large populations, and that the authorities not only show no interest in investigating the side effects of these substances, but also constrain citizens to be inoculated , it is legitimate to speculate that there is a genocide in progress. The European Union had 447 million inhabitants in 447. If experimental vaccines kill just 1.3% of those inoculated, Europe will have killed 6 million people again. And with much greater discretion than the Nazis, since the dead are precisely those who are not discriminated against.
In any case, it has already been found that the population in Europe has decreased in absolute numbers during the year in 2020. In 2021 there were 321 one thousand fewer inhabitants. The probable cause indicated by the European statistics office is the “impact of the Covid pandemic”.
Suicide
This expression – impact of the pandemic – is vague enough for anyone to understand what they want. A neo-hypochondriac will interpret it as synonymous with the SARS-COV-2 virus. The “pandemic impacts” were so great that the European population shrank. Data and more data from corrupt governments will show millions of deaths from or with covid, which will corroborate your impression.
But, however, however, however, one data that does not appear is the suicides of 2020. Every year the WHO released a report with the number of suicides from the previous year. The latest WHO report is relative 2019. In 2021 there was no report from 2020, and we do not have data from 2021.
Suicide is a taboo subject because of the Werther effect, which is named after an epistolary novel by Goethe that was all the rage among European youth in the 19th century. Young Werther, in love and unrequited, commits suicide. Young people began to wear the same clothes as Werther and to kill themselves too. Given this curious fact that suicide is socially contagious, there are a thousand protocols for newspapers to deal with. One is to avoid the news, so that Werthers doesn’t pop up around. Do what? The human being is a really weird animal.
However, this peculiarity of suicide may be being used to stifle an unprecedented number of suicides. The forced confinements of healthy people are also unprecedented. No one would be a Sherlock Holmes if he said that both things are associated.
If we add this to the information that governments acted deliberately to cause fear in the population, we can say that authoritarian social experimentation caused a great number of deaths greatly suffered. It is unreasonable to deprive people of their social lives and their work at the same time, and expect their mental health to remain the same. Locking people in the house for months on end is asking them to be depressed. When they become depressed, it is no wonder that a portion kills themselves. (It is worth remembering that the European lockdown was much tougher than the Brazilian one.)
Which will have killed more in : the virus or depression? It is absurd that there are no suicide data available. It is essential to have them on hand to discuss the work of our governments.
