Lots of prattle about “long Covid” which, if you can be bothered to listen, is a real or imagined aftermath of real Covid. But the real aftermath of the exaggerated ‘flu is the assumption by elites, elected and unelected, that they will be able to take away more of our rights - as we let them do during the pandemic. And most of us have put the Covid atrocities behind us; ‘got over it’ as the elites said we should, as they soften us for their next authoritarian whim and assault on our rights.

You've written a moral fable, Renno (Renord?), not a political analysis.

Your entire argument hinges on one claim: that Covid wasn't messy policy under pressure, it was coordinated bad faith by a corrupt elite. That's a big claim. If you're going to make it, you need more than phrases about "therapeutic priesthoods" and imperial bodies. You'd need evidence that people knowingly lied, not just that they were wrong, overconfident, or heavy-handed.

Cuckoo!

Policies varied dramatically across countries. Courts overturned mandates. Elections reshaped leadership. Scientists openly disagreed in public. That's not what coordinated authoritarian capture looks like. That's just messy pluralism under stress.

You convert trade-offs into sacrilege. Employment mandates become "bodily desecration." Public health restrictions become civilizational rupture. But public health has always involved coercive elements: quarantine, isolation, mandatory vaccination in specific contexts. The debate is proportionality, not metaphysics.

Invoking George Orwell doesn't solve this, either. Orwell opposed totalitarianism, not emergency governance during a pandemic. Equating flawed pandemic policy with totalitarian indecency dilutes the meaning of both.

You also romanticise MAHA as uniquely immune to the lust for power that infects other movements. History offers little support for that optimism. Every insurgent movement claims moral purity. The test is institutional restraint once power is obtained. What safeguards does MAHA support to constrain itself?

If the core grievance is lost trust, say that plainly. Institutional trust did erode. That's a legitimate topic. But moving from "trust was damaged" to "we were ruled by a clerisy engaged in coordinated violation" is a leap that demands proof.

Emotion is not evidence. Dignity is not data. And moral language, however lyrical, is not an argument.

Overall?

3/10: Needs more effort

Here’s the million dollar question:

1. Is “defeating the establishment” even coherent if ruling structures inevitably exist?
2. If a ruling structure is overthrown, what replaces it—and by what force?
3. Why not emulate groups that appear to gain power by leveraging existing institutions (e.g., “Muslim enclaves in the West, and their current combined strategy of imposing their rule by manipulation of existing democratic structures)?

Evidence points to number three, and the need is urgent!

Muslims have offered themselves to the existing elite as a shock force to control the streets, viz a vee, the love affair encouraged by the elite, of Palestinians and their terror groups such as Hamas; the acceptance of bribes paid to the elite by ME terror States such as Qatar through institutional capture, particularly obvious with the University Educational institutions.
The direct capture by bribe, of politicians eg Donald Trump, who is hopelessly mired in the trap.

Dreaming on like this article does, wastes time and effort!