Doubt is a treacherous path. We must avoid being diverted towards terminal cynicism
JVL Introduction
A measured analysis of the covid crisis and an important contribution to discussion about and understanding of conspiracy theories
Here Jonathan Cook responds to calls from some on the left, berating journalists for not being “outspoken” enough on the covid pandemic.
In response Jonathan Cook offers a mission statement, outlining what he and other journalists can and should do in their reporting.
They need to expose the very real and very visible and structural conspiracies perpetrated by our elites to maintain and expand their power.
But the covid pandemic is not one of those: it is hard to discern any meaningful western narrative about the virus other than an agreement that it is a dangerous disease for some sections of the population and that its rapid spread could overwhelm most countries’ health services.
To sow doubt for its own sake, argues Cook, would be a disaster: if “we see everything as equally a conspiracy, we will be paralysed into inaction and hopelessness…”
This article was originally published by Jonathan Cook's blog on Thu 1 Oct 2020. Read the original here.
Doubt is a treacherous path. We must avoid being diverted towards terminal cynicism
Loading article text…
Excellent article.
I had an exchange with a guy who thought the ‘Covid 19’ pandemic was false and part of a conspiracy to sell vaccines.
The figures just don’t add up though.
If 40 million people were vaccinated in UK, with two doses and an expected price of £20 and manufacturing costs of £10 each, that would generate a pretax revenue of around £800 million, from which say £150 million R&D and clinical trial costs must be deducted. So £650 million net.
The first to market may get the early business but then several more would compete, so this would be shared by several companies over the years. Many would fail.
At the same time the lockdowns may cause a 10% loss of GDP, and that equates to around £100 billion pounds. We need to wait to see the final costs for the Govt., employees and other companies.
But can you imagine all the losers of this £100 billion +, all the scientists and doctors going along with such a conspiracy for the much smaller benefit given to a couple of pharma companies?
Have been making the same arguments, admittedly to a smaller cohort. On a lighter point, I was so pleased to read that J Cook reached a fork in the road. So many writers lazily used crossroads when they’ve actually meant a fork. I have to agree, that our choice is binary.
I have great respect for Jonathan Cook and indeed his critique of the media and government collusion over what he terms “structural conspiracies” in reference to Jeremy Corbyn and Julian Assange have played a decisive role in my own dismaying realisation that this collusion not only exists but on a far greater and more comprehensive scale than I would previously have thought possible, to the extent that more or less the opposite of the truth can become the mainstream consensus. It is therefore disappointing that in this article he sets up a series of straw men to knock down in defence of a “progressive left” that is opposed by a supposedly nihilistic cynical left who believe in a Covid-19 conspiracy that apparently has no structural basis and therefore can’t be revealed by close analysis of media and government collusion, because apparently the medical establishment all agree that Covid-19 was so deadly or virulent that lockdowns were the only answer. What is the difference between this and the argument that most Jews think Jeremy Corbyn made the Labour Party a home for anti-semitism, so it must be true? Firstly, are Jews/the medical establishment not influenced by the same media-government collusion? Secondly, to what degree should we believe in this notional consensus of Jewish/medical opinion, when we learn of it via the same biased and corrupt media (and when there is growing evidence of censorship on social media platforms).
I would recommend reading the following for an overview of issues from a medical perspective that clearly points to a wider conspiracy:
https://docs4opendebate.be/en/open-letter/
Point 9 is extremely bizarre. “People do not want to be locked up. Fear, for themselves or their loved ones, is what makes them compliant.” Er yes, this is why the so-called cynical left spend so much time analysing the ways in which this fear is being promoted and exasperated with those who accept the incoherence and constantly shifting narratives used to sustain this fear we are force-fed by the mainstream media. This is why significant voices outside the mainstream media are important. To write an article purporting to address and refute the arguments made by the cynical left (and to come up with this derogatory name) without even mentioning the case of Sweden (no lockdown, under 6000 deaths from Covid-19, significantly lower excess death, average age of death 83) or the role of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in determining global public health priorities is intellectually dishonest. To fail to see the near-global normalisation of rule by decree under emergency powers which act uniformly to undermine all non-digital forms of economy and society, with devastating consequences for the poorest and most vulnerable (also globally) as not really much to worry about because, you know, climate change, is – coming from someone as intelligent as Jonathan Cook – I suspect something more like denial.
Good to read this, because it is true. There is also a danger that the cynical left may also be encouraging people to inadvertently fall into the hands of the extremely cynical and dangerous far right. I recently looked up a facebook group which seemed at first to be appropriately challenging misuse of the Covid-19 crisis by the British government to hide its incompetence and to take advantage of emergency measures to reduce civil liberties. On further investigation I realised it was just another front for antimaskers and anti-social distancers who don’t seem to be able to recognise that the virus is real. Thank you Jonathan for helping us to recognise where the dividing lines lie.
A measured and thoughtful analysis. Thank you.
Very good article, Jonathan Cook has expressed a lot of my thinking, but much more eloquently & clearly than I could. Thank you
A really welcome analysis
I agree with Charlie, and it’s important for the left to be visible opposing this second wave of restrictions.
The majority are turning towards the opinion that this is not a second wave, but a wave of testing finding more people carrying the virus, an epidemic which is largely asymptomatic, with extremely low rates of mortality or even sickness.
I don’t like the term ‘cynical left’. Not many people think there was really a conspiracy to create a virus scare, that is really a fringe idea.
But, a lot of governments are opportunistically taking advantage :-
* Gilets jaunes off the streets.
* Police everywhere habituated to restrict the 99% from enjoying normal life even keeping them indoors.
* Totally novel systems of monitoring and control to record all our movements through an app promoted with the NHS logo, which may become obligatory.
* Opportunistically Johnson is avoiding public discussion about the trade talks with the US and Europe.
I it is important we recognise that we are now at a crossroads. Children are now in school, the roads are busy. The virus has circulated and we are seeing extremely low numbers of deaths. At the same time new restrictions an threats being rolled out.
The left must be against this, but instead is on track to leave the defence of ‘freedom’ to the far right (again).
Freedom of movement, freedom from government monitoring, freedom to socialise, and, the freedom to go out and earn a living with an employer that has not gone bankrupt and freedom to visit a hospital for cancer treatment.. etc.
The restrictions are not popular, so the left has a huge OPPORTUNITY to win back the ‘red wall’ by being seen in the front line to Get Back to Normality.
Thanks Jonathan Cooke for a clear response to a set of dangerously muddled assumptions. The term “cynical left” is helpful, if depressing, because it points to a larger current than I had discerned when I wrote a Facebook post motivated by a disturbing departure from rationality on the part of erstwhile comrades. Please share this post if you approve of it.
Calling covid deniers, anti vax campaigners and lock down opponents the “cynical left” is a mistake. They have nothing in common with the left and have no interest in discussing how socialists should respond to the economic, health and climate crisis we face. Those with a right wing libertarian agenda support “the law of the jungle”, and an unregulated market economy. They present anything that hinders the pursuit of private profit as an attack on freedom and democracy. This is why they seek to minimise the threat posed by the virus. For them individual freedom trumps social responsibility. The conspiracy theories they promote are dangerous because they undermine social solidarity. Letting the virus rip through society to defend their right
to”go about their business”even if it means infecting others has to be rejected by the left. Our health is more important than the survival of global capitalism. So is the planet. If a shutdown is required to deal with the crisis those responsible for it should be made to pay for it! All this talk about going back to normal to protect the profits of the few is unsustainable. Don’t be taken in right wing conspiracy theorists. Their alternative to the shambolic policies of this Tory government with all this nonsense about the hidden agendas of Bill Gates and the “medical establishment” is a dead end. Campaigning to socialise the pharmaceutical industry and to end the marketisation and privatisation of the NHS is the way forward!
The right wing libertarians and think tanks are running around to find scientists to support a herd immunity strategy to deal with the virus. Living with the virus means letting it rip among the fit and able in the community in the hope that it won’t spread to the vulnerable. What they want the vulnerable to do, is sit at home to avoid contact with those required to carry on as normal to sustain disaster capitalism. In the meantime those who become infected who do survive may suffer long term health problems and there is no guarantee that they won’t catch the virus again.