Democrats Define “Lockdown” and Why That’s Dangerous

The Lockdown Crew is continuing their assault in a sneaky way: by defining the terms. This normalizes lockdown while neutralizing our ability to oppose it.

A Facebook friend recently posted about how we are all tired of being in a pandemic. I responded, “Not me. I am sick and tired of living in tyrannical corrupt lockdown.” At which point he wrote, “You are locked down? Nobody here has been locked down in six months.”

This is gaslighting first of all because he is a statist lover and constantly writes about how Trump and the Republican states have to take it more seriously and handle it as well as Democrat states or even New Zealand. So on the one hand, there is no lockdown, but on the other, Republicans have to lockdown harder otherwise we’re killing people? Um, okay.

The key point is that he is defining lockdown narrowly. He seems to be saying that if there is no stay at home order enforced by military, everything is fine, there is no lockdown.

It’s a savvy if underhanded move because it lets them lock us down but then say there is no lockdown. Good job.

But the real meaning of lockdown, the one I fight to impose on others, is any way in which our daily living differs now from how it was one year ago.

Masks are lockdowns

For the happy serf, maybe masks are no big deal, but for people who enjoy life and want to live, who strive for some modicum of liberty, they are a catastrophic issue.

Yesterday I went to Barnes and Noble. And every five minutes or so the speakers came on saying “Please stay six feet apart for your own safety.” This is lockdown. This bizarre mantra-repetition stuff is not normal.

The owner of the place I play soccer at tells me they are having a hard time staying in business as state health regulators come by and hassle them from time to time. This is an outdoor facility. LOL. Furthermore, this is a place where we used to get 15 vs 15 player games and now only ten people show up to play, if we’re lucky. Now someone might say “that’s just individual choice if some people want to stay at home, that’s not lockdown” – to which I respond: What did you think was going to happen after a non-stop campaign by everyone in positions of power both around the world and in the United States tell us that we must be very afraid? A campaign which continues through today thank you “Doctor” Fauci, and many others.

In sum, I am not looking for government to magnanimously deign to allow us to go to work just so long as we follow bizarre regulations b, c, and d, along with oppressive rules e, f, and g. I seek life to return back to the way it was.

Or, ideally, it should be even better than it was before. Why not use the “dialectic” as an opportunity to gain something out of this situation like strip the “public health” bureaucrats of their tyrannical power. To name but one idea.

No lockdown. Not even the sneaky lockdown.

Leave a Reply

Close Menu