In the chaotic landscape of the coronavirus pandemic, the unwavering faith in science exhibited by the political class—especially by the left—stands out as curious. Take Joe Biden, who stated he would implement a nationwide lockdown if scientific authorities recommended it. Similarly, Nancy Pelosi recently told Wolf Blitzer, regarding coronavirus relief, that “…the science should call the shot, and when they do, we should all trust it.”
“Trust, but verify,” advised Ronald Reagan, a sentiment he likely never envisioned would meet the absurdities surrounding current coronavirus containment policies.
President Trump, heeding Reagan’s counsel, took matters into his own hands. After experiencing the illness firsthand, he concluded that the science-based policies being put forth are not reliable. He expressed his thoughts in a tweet: “One thing that’s for certain: Don’t let it dominate you. Don’t be afraid of it. You’re going to beat it.”
According to Science magazine, “[Trump’s] repeated public dismissals of scientific expertise, and his disdain for evidence have prompted many researchers to label him the most antiscience president in living memory.”
Perhaps there’s some truth to that. Yet, when science is weaponized by policymakers for ill-conceived and damaging actions—like nationwide lockdowns—challenging such science may be the wise path. Notably, the World Health Organization has now voiced its opposition to lockdowns, advising world leaders to “stop using lockdowns as your primary control method.”
We suspect the science behind lockdowns is only tangentially related to curbing the spread of coronavirus. We’ll elaborate on this shortly, but first, it’s crucial to differentiate between two realms of behavior—private and public.
Private Acts of Madmen
The distinction between private and public lives is vast, with each prone to the eccentricities of madmen. In private spheres, scientific pursuits are often motivated by genuine intentions, sometimes even the quest for profit. In contrast, public applications of science can take on a more disturbing character.
Let’s explore our local context—the Los Angeles Basin—reflecting on its history of eccentricity. This area has long attracted a diverse array of characters, each with their own brand of madness. For example, Howard Hughes, a brilliant yet troubled innovator, would often test flight designs only to see them end in disaster.
Then there’s Simon Rodia, an Italian immigrant who, for reasons known only to him, spent decades crafting elaborate structures in his Watts backyard, now known as the Watts Towers, which have gained recognition as a National Historic Landmark. Rodia disappeared mysteriously after gifting the property to a neighbor.
Likewise, Griffith J. Griffith, a mining tycoon, transformed misfortune into legacy by donating land that became Griffith Park and funding the City’s observatory after serving time for shooting his wife. Such acts of private madness contributed to a period of immense growth in property values.
During this era, even the most unconventional business ideas could thrive. Entrepreneurs like John Clearman turned old boats into profitable restaurants, demonstrating a unique spirit of entrepreneurial freedom—all before regulations began to stifle such creativity.
While we can’t gauge whether life was genuinely better in those times, there’s no doubt it felt freer. Yet, the encroachment of misguided scientific application was only just beginning.
Science for Madmen
Today, that vibrant eccentricity has waned, overshadowed by a public madness tightly guided by so-called scientific protocols. Regardless of the harm inflicted, public policy persists as long as it is sanctioned by experts in science.
Historically, when the Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913, it purported to introduce scientific management of the economy, but, in reality, it established the long-standing practice of monetary debasement and invasive public policy.
Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), represents this era of science-driven public policy. Nearly a decade ago, Schwab took to the stage in Davos, laying out a vision for global governance under the guise of sustainability and equality. The pandemic has offered him a unique opportunity to accelerate this agenda, which he refers to as The Great Reset: “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”
Schwab envisions a post-pandemic future where nations collaborate for societal equality and environmentally sound development. However, this plan raises questions about dismantling century-old political structures in favor of a global policymaking framework.
Curiously, Schwab and his co-author acknowledge in their book “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” that the coronavirus represents “one of the least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years.”
This leads us to a critical understanding: lockdowns appear to serve more as tools for increasing governmental control than as effective measures against the virus. The science behind these lockdowns can, therefore, be seen as the product of misguided reasoning. It is essential to remain skeptical of the narratives spun by politicians, as their measures often come at the expense of freedoms and economic stability.
In closing, the implications of this misguided scientific application are profound. The politicians who leveraged the pandemic to impose restrictions did so under a false pretense of safety, leading to dire consequences for the economy and individual liberties.
Sincerely,
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism
