Progress in 2022 is clear from at least one fact. Most informed people are glad Novak Djokovic was blocked from competing in a major tennis tournament on account of being unvaccinated for Covid-19.
This is not just fear of a viral disease, but something far more noble and sophisticated.
Indeed the star’s prior infection is deemed superior to vaccination in conferring immunity, demonstrating that animosity toward him is actually based on deeper philosophical principles.
We know the greater good requires unequivocal promotion of covid vaccines and behave accordingly by opposing all whose actions may work against that undertaking.
Such egalitarian knowledge is affirmed by our institutions of learning and integrated into every reflex of society the world over, along with all manner of relevant mandates and restrictions. Two years of such orthodoxy have forever cemented its validity.
There is thus no reason why anyone should experience cognitive dissonance upon viewing this UK graph, even mindful of the fact that Covid-19 debuted early in 2020 and vaccines a year later.
But more importantly, even if males between the ages of 15 and 44 are personally disadvantaged by the vaccine, its net benefit to society warrants pressure on them to take it.
Recall that a very large fraction of precisely this demographic was compelled to defend freedom at the expense of their lives in the middle of the last century.
The only difference was the form of greater good represented. Personal and national self-determination were more important than global control of people’s bodies at that time. But now and forevermore, it’s quite simply the other way around.
It is not hard to see why either. The infection fatality rate of influenza ranges between 0.01% and 0.1%, with a figure of .04% being typical, whereas Covid19 over the last two years has corresponded to that upper bound, at 0.1%.
This is of course to say nothing of long term effects that may attend severe cases of either illness.
Barely half a million people are projected to die from lockdown measures in Britain. The practical irrelevance of cost/benefit analyses likewise extends to mandatory inoculation, despite unprecedented rates of adverse effects per shot. So it is obvious why personal discretion in public health matters has been relegated to the unhygenic past, along with any serious debate concerning them.
Ours is an age where credible information is exclusively determined and made available where necessary by competent authorities, for the purpose of efficiently managing every aspect of society and by compulsion if necessary.
There will always be some who resist such progress but they are nevertheless included in those manageable aspects, albeit with some initial relative difficulty.
Proven standbys of demonisation and punishment are ratcheted up to take care of them and global success in this is exemplified in the Djokovic affair as well as incoming fines for being unvaccinated, among many other things.
One might argue that any public health benefit gained from embracing totalitarianism is more than offset by the freedom and dignity that it sacrifices. But this is simply to misconstrue what is at issue.
The only freedom or dignity to be sacrificed is an illusory sense of benefits gained by personal determination, whereas all real benefits are actually due to conforming with collectively homogenised expertise, which ultimately only requires resignation and is thus comparatively effortless to boot.
In summary, ignorant compliance is strength, war on dissent is peace and freedom is unwitting slavery, either to the state in proper subjugation, or else to illusion in agitation.
Some may fear there is too much optimism in the view presented here and that, for example, Djokovic was not deported as a result of such collective enlightenment, but only because he was improperly admitted due to some inaccuracy on his application or invalidity of a vaccine exemption.
But this is strictly incorrect. After he initially won in court, the argument for deporting him was revised to the sole claim that his presence in the country might foster sentiments contrary to those which promote vaccine uptake.
Furthermore, this official position of the federal immigration minister was legitimated by consensus of three federal judges who deigned that nothing about it was an exercise of his authority that strictly counted as illegal.
So nevermind any ratified instruments of human rights law, which their judgement accordingly ignored.
But even false and ignorant impressions that he was deported for lying, thinking he was more important than others, or being deplorable in other ways are highly positive developments in themselves.
For bigotry is a key element to the success of totalitarianism and in this case it is so profound and normalised that even those most consumed by it are unsuspecting of its presence.
In reality, they know it isn’t bigotry in any bad sense and is completely justified, so they’re not even fussed to think of it as bigotry at all.
After all, nothing could be clearer than that antivaxxers are the purest essence of moral scum. They are utterly unhinged and project all their derangements onto us, the sensible majority.
Fact checkers have made this clear time and time again. Indeed it is hard to see what else are they for, since their profession has only matured as a result of insurgent pandemic misinformation.
To be sure this is the crux of the whole affair. Truth is no objective reality to be sought through debate that eschews fallacies like inference from authority, but rather an evolving sum of every prestige-weighted assertion within the frame of acceptable discourse.
It is therefore a normative prevalence of feelings about what is right and one that accordingly justifies anything at all, not excluding the ever-purer totalitarianism which is now taking root inmost countries.
Though contentions can often be abortive and sentiments may at times be repugnant, when they rise to the level of collective supremacy all such imperfections are transfigured, at least until history embraces a critical retrospective view.
This is why censorship is the foundation of valid discourse. Only those with authority should be treated as proper adults and just insofar as their power warrants it. To the extent that their nature is inquiring, all else are to be dealt with as children or rogues and in every other regard as cattle.
With that in mind, bigotry, lies, fallacy, propaganda and censorship can at last be embraced wholeheartedly. For any mess they make is part of the necessary cost of managing society and particularly with the vital tool of demonisation.
Furthermore, every stain left to posterity will be cleansed in due course by token repudiation, when those issues are mere historical fodder for a new sociopolitical brawl of sufficient utility to our elites.
Once again, if not agitated slavery to illusion, freedom is docile slavery to power. Such timeless insight is the key to all true glory and so it is with anticipation that we find suitably disguised totalitarianism prevailing worldwide and perfectly set to win the match against liberty on Earth.