Until there is proof that SARS-COV-2 exists, estimates of the number of people supposedly infected, or killed by the virus are meaningless. There is no public health rationale for lockdowns; for using the BBC to push novel gene therapies that will be tested on people without their consent.

Civil rights attorney P. Jerome scrutinised the arguments for coercive vaccination and found:

Government scientists admit that the Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus they say causes Covid-19, but many of these same scientists also dishonestly claim the vaccines will somehow prevent the spread of the virus, leading to herd immunity. Such an approach is not only unscientific and dishonest. It’s nonsense.

The ‘roll-out’ of emergency use vaccines has been embraced by left intellectuals and alternative media icons. Here’s Seth Farber illustrating the observation.

As Darren Allen, writing from England, aptly put it, “the entire political left” meaning both the official left (the Democratic Party) and the radical left (he names Noam Chomsky, Caitlin Johnstone, John Pilger and Glenn Greenwald among others) “stood behind the crime of the century wholly and unequivocally.” They all agreed: “We just had to put millions and millions of people out of work then shut them up in a heavily policed panic room.” Allen posed a number of astute questions: “ Did they ask if anything else might have been motivating their leaders than altruistic concern for human life? Did they question the extraordinarily repressive measures governments have taken to contain the problem? Did they sound any alarm bells about rather suspicious proposed solutions such as an express vaccine, contact-tracing and so forth? Did any of these people ask any seriously critical, or even very interesting, questions? The answer to all of these questions was an almost entirely predictable no. Every man jack of them fell straight into line.”

For emphasis we can add former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn who has demanded a ‘Zero Covid’ strategy including a lockdown for as long as it is needed. There are many others and they are not conscientious objectors. Like the eminent Marxist philosopher John McMurtry who claims from the pages of Counterpunch that nobody has disproved the existence of SARS- COV-2, or unicorns for that matter.

Yet the facts of system-wide exploitation of the Covid-19 crisis do not show that the disease itself is fraudulent. No public infectious disease expert anywhere in the world substantiates it. It is a fatal as well as fallacious claim because its consequence is to repudiate the only preventative measures that are known to work against the disease that disables, hospitalizes and kills ever more vulnerable people.

In their 2010 essay, Marxism, Conspiracy, and 9– 11, David MacGregor and Paul Zarembka addressed a similar aversion to interrogating the orthodox account of 9/11.

Distance from the version propagated by the US state is not a
calling card of many “left” US publications. In a 2006 issue, the otherwise critical journal CounterPunch announced that it would not contemplate carrying articles that deny the official story of 9 – 11, and labeled those who questioned the official story “conspiracy nuts.” Thus, an important left periodical made belief in Washington’s account of the fall of the Twin Towers the gold standard for oppositional thought. Rolling Stone dismissed alternative versions of 9 – 11 as “clinically insane”. “Enough of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, already,” admonishes Matthew Rothschild editor of The Progressive. Terry Allen for In These Times, makes an astonishing
comparison to HIV and AIDS: those “who deny that HIV is responsible
for AIDS, for example, have contributed to unnecessary infections and
deaths.” Responding to such presentations, Barrie Zwicker considers the lamentable record of left icon Noam Chomsky, who denies any problems with the standard narrative of the events of 9 – 11. Chomsky’s resistance to alternative perspectives on 9 – 11 recalls his stubborn, decades-long battle against critics of the 1964 Warren Report on the assassination of President Kennedy – an event many compare in its world-historical significance to the 2001aerial attack on New York and Washington. Hostility on the left to research findings regarding 9 – 11 critically weakens the antiwar movement.

The essential thrust of the essay is to show that Marx himself was not constrained by a public/conspiratorial divide that would have put the JFK and 9/11 cover-ups off-limits.

Perhaps most importantly, the fundamental Marxist notion that
the capitalist state is a masked form of bourgeois rule, i.e. a covert
meeting of minds among landed property owners, financiers and
industrialists to monopolize the means of power, is itself an accusation of conspiracy on the grandest of historical scales. Indeed, this understanding is the primary message of Marx’s remarkable classic The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and its earlier companion volume The Class Struggles in France: 1848 – 1850, both of which discuss the means by which landed property, finance and industrial capital conspired (with the critical assistance of the military) to retain their stranglehold on French society during the bloody aftermath of the Revolutions of 1848. Rightly interpreted as an advance warning of the potential for bourgeois democracy to slide into fascist dictatorship, the The Eighteenth Brumaire is much more than this. It
stands as a primer on the conspiratorial and secret devices regularly
employed in times of crisis by the bourgeoisie to maintain its sway
over civil society, even to the extent (in the French case) of foisting
into power a former English police agent and Swiss parvenu named
Louis Bonaparte.

Macgregor and Zarembka suggest that Marxists would have found it easier
to include bourgeois state conspiracy in their analysis and activist agendas if Marx had been more explicit about the phenomenon. This is generous given the reluctance of the left to venture into territory already consecrated by mainstream academia.

For instance John Mueller and Mark Stuart have shown the “domestic terrorism” threat -now being revamped- is largely a state conspiracy. And in 2014 the American Political Science Association published a paper by  Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page dishing the dirt on American democracy.

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Inevitably, as Macgregor and Zarembka observe, the gloves come-off.

For Marx, as we have seen, the secret of bourgeois rule is the state
of emergency. Its democratic facade can only temporarily hide capitalism’s vicious machine of class exploitation. Sooner or later the mask is dropped: prisons, torture chambers, muskets and sabers revealed again. But deadly secrecy and bloody conspiracy are required to effect the transformation, to quiet dissent, and to ensure, among other things, that “the press [is] systematically isolated from the barracks and the barracks from civil society”.

Unlike those who have accepted the official story at face value, Simon Elmer at Architects for Social Housing has rigorously analysed the UK government’s response to the pandemic and found it entirely suspect. It is an immensely valuable body of work, not least for its Marxist orientation, and supports a bleak prognosis. Still, Elmer is haunted by the “conspiracy paradox”, the question of whether we’re being conspired against or are simply victims of capitalism’s laws of motion.

The truth is that capitalism is not being destroyed. Rather, capitalism is going through what Marx called ‘an epoch of social revolution’, when the once dominant but increasingly redundant forms of its political, legal and social superstructure have finally come into direct contradiction with its economic development, and are now being disposed of with a rapidity that has shocked the populations of Western liberal democracies into acceptance. But with that rapid acceptance has come an equally as rapid collusion…What we are undergoing — what we are colluding in producing — are the new political, legal and social forms for a multinational biosecurity state. And no elite, no matter how powerful, is in control of it, for the simple reason that, despite the proliferation of immensely powerful international organisations increasingly divorced from and opposed to the democratic process, capitalism is a dynamic process that develops by conflict and contradiction.

For Matthew Ehret there is no paradox, just the obvious. He quotes Nancy Pelosi’s biographer Molly Ball.

Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream- a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.

This is Ms Ball’s confession to Time Magazine that the 2020 election was rigged. Yet, says Ehret:

If you question World Health Organization narratives on COVID-19, or doubt the use of vaccines produced by organizations like Astra Zeneca due to their ties to eugenics organizations then you are a delusional conspiracy theorist. If you doubt that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide or that implementing the Paris Climate accords may cause more damage to humanity than climate change ever could, then you must be a conspiracy theorist. If you believe that the US government just went through a regime change coordinated by something called “the deep state”, then you run the risk of being labelled a delusional threat to “the general welfare” deserving of the sort of treatment doled out to any typical terrorist.

More broadly ‘conspiracy theory’ is the continuation of a medieval practice of outing heretics and drowning witches. The hysteria has merely intensified as a post-modern scientific priesthood comes of age ahead of the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, pitting adorables against deplorables in a reconfigured class war. Here’s Simon Elmer’s vision of the coming bio-security state in which the cult of the ‘Covid faithful’, in terror of the unvaccinated, worship the ‘R number’.

I’d imagine a system of social credit based on that in China will be implemented on the back of some form of Universal Basic Income. This will essentially be an extension of our current benefits system of Universal Credit, but which will be tied to digital currency and whose ‘awarding’ will be additionally contingent upon our compliance with every demand and requirement of the UK biosecurity state. This will include tracking our every movement, interaction and contact through QR-codes; regularly updating our health status into a centralised data base; annual vaccination made either compulsory or a condition of returning to work; regularly submitting biometric samples for testing; carrying digital health passports at all times in order to access public services like travel, medical care and welfare benefits; the automation and regulation of the home as a quarantine block; mandatory mask-wearing in all public places; payment with blockchain currency programmed with conditions of use and traceable to the behaviour and health status of the user; and, of course, obedient acceptance of whatever new ‘rethink, reskill, reboot’ job the state assigns the millions of unemployed and impoverished workers granted a Universal Basic Income…(that) linked to our digital identities, will be used to control our access to the basic needs of life, such as housing, food, water and healthcare.

Allison McDowell  has mapped out the emerging networks that underpin the transition to the new political economy.

This is not the first pandemic scam although the objectives this time are far more ambitious. Vanessa Beeley provides an excellent guide to the conflicts of interest that beg analysis. UK Column has been perceptive in exploring intensely the UK government’s increasing obsession with psychological manipulation.

Capitalism’s coherence depends on the exchange of equivalents, the appropriation of value that can only be created through human effort, and the ability to express these profits in a form of money adequate to accumulation and eternal preservation. Understanding capitalism’s desperate effort to evade the law of value is imperative. It is in this context that Philip Roddis urges a reading of Elmer’s ‘Cui Bono’ essay.

What follows is a materially grounded account of a ‘revolution in capitalism’ as its only way out of a corner its inner dynamic has painted it into. A way out which breathes new meaning into an old equation: socialism or barbarism. This capitalist revolution, an act of radical re-engineering, has its “battleground, now and for the immediate future, in the coronavirus crisis”.