Fear is the steam in the emotional engine.

This chilling assertion was made by Laura Dodsworth, a respected researcher and author of the book "A State of Fear." In a recent explosive interview, Dodsworth shed light on a controversial subject that is stirring the minds of millions globally - the use of fear in governing the masses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As you might have noticed, a global health crisis has a way of unnerving the populace, pushing them into a state of fear. Governments have traditionally capitalized on these natural reactions, using them to impose measures designed to protect public health. But when does this approach tip over from benevolent guidance to manipulation and control? This conversation unravels these complexities, providing a gripping exposé on COVID propaganda.

The Origin of Fear

Let's start at the beginning, the moment when we first heard about this novel coronavirus. The pandemic crept into our lives in a sinister, silent manner. One day, we were living our lives, unsuspecting of the lurking danger. The next, we were confined to our homes, bombarded with statistics of soaring infection rates and death tolls, and subjected to a barrage of media coverage that painted a terrifying picture.

Dodsworth argues that the sense of fear instilled by these measures was not a by-product but a strategic tool used by governments for compliance. This argument is not entirely baseless. One of the advisors to SPI-B, the UK's scientific pandemic influenza group on behaviors, confessed that they intentionally used fear as a control mechanism.

The question that springs to mind then is: Was it ethical?

Ethics and Fear

Is the use of fear an ethical breach? The answer, Dodsworth suggests, is not black and white. It depends on where one stands ideologically. Fear is a potent force that compels obedience. It's the emotional equivalent of holding a burning stick over a box of fireworks – highly effective but perilous if mishandled.

Governments may argue that their use of fear was a necessary evil. That during an unprecedented crisis, such tactics were essential to ensure public compliance. However, Dodsworth contends that using fear to control people is fundamentally unethical. She equates it to a psychological experiment, one that we didn't sign up for, and one that had no exit strategy.

The Spiral of Fear

According to Dodsworth, the fear-based approach not only persisted but escalated. We were no longer dealing with a temporary state of emergency but a perpetual fear-mongering mechanism. The advisors she interviewed expressed no interest in de-escalating fear. Instead, they saw fear as a tool to transition from one crisis to the next, from the pandemic to climate change.

This is where the line between public health guidance and manipulation blurs. While fear can be an effective motivator for behavioral change, when it's used to shut down debate and bypass legislative processes, it transforms into a covert tool of control.

The Hidden Agenda

So, what is the hidden agenda? Dodsworth's revelations suggest a troubling pattern. Governments' emphasis on using behavioral psychology and propaganda methods points to a wider strategy to capitalize on moments of crisis for further policy changes. The COVID pandemic, with its "window of malleability," provided the perfect pretext to subtly influence society's habits, setting the stage for pushing broader agendas like Net Zero goals, all under the guise of necessary pandemic response.

The Mechanism of Covert Control

The mechanism by which this covert control was exerted is a topic that Dodsworth explores in depth. The government, guided by the SPi-B, devised a slew of strategies aimed at amplifying the perceived threat of COVID-19. Mass quarantine, despite its unprecedented nature, was implemented using the justification of public safety.

Yet, as Dodsworth highlights, not everyone faced the same level of risk. Instead of targeting public health campaigns to the most vulnerable, governments engaged in a blanket operation to make everyone frightened. The fear was democratized, irrespective of actual risk profiles, which were, by the time of the first lockdown, well understood to be stratified according to age and clinical status.

It's also noteworthy to consider the significant amounts spent on advertisements to propagate fear. In the UK alone, Dodsworth reveals that nearly a billion pounds were spent on COVID-related advertisements across 11 government departments over three years. Many of these ads adopted a 'horror film' aesthetic, designed to guilt individuals into compliance, pushing the narrative that any breach of rules could lead to the death of a loved one.

Is Fear the New Normal?

What's particularly disconcerting about Dodsworth's revelations is the normalization of fear as a governing tool. Her interviewees didn't express any remorse or intention to backpedal on their fear-inducing strategies. Instead, they hinted at continuing the same for future crises, such as climate change.

This sets a dangerous precedent. The threat of climate change, much like the pandemic, is real. But should it be handled with the same fear-inducing tactics? There's a clear risk here. Using fear as a psychological cudgel could lead to desensitization over time, potentially undermining the public's response to genuine threats.

An Awakening Call

Dodsworth's interview concludes with a call for awakening. It's a reminder of our duty to question, to understand, and not simply to comply. This does not mean denying the reality of the pandemic or other global crises, but to critically evaluate the way we're manipulated by messaging and fear tactics.

In an age where AI and technological advancements make it easier for information to be manipulated, this call to stay awake, to stay aware, could not be more timely.

Conclusion

Laura Dodsworth's revelations provide a chilling insight into the machinery of power, the function of propaganda, and how our behaviors are shaped by intentional messaging. It brings into focus a debate that is as old as governance itself – the thin line between leadership and manipulation.

It forces us to question how we have been led during this pandemic, the tactics employed, the decisions made, and the underlying intentions. More importantly, it urges us to consider what this means for our future. Will fear continue to be a tool of compliance, or can we break free from this 'state of fear'?

While this discussion might be uncomfortable, it is one we need to have. After all, as George Orwell famously said, "In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."