Published On: Sun, Nov 29th, 2020

Prohibition and Covid-19; Part Two: the Great Reset is Socialism

It’s very important to talk about those measures taken by UK Government, using the pretext of a hoaxed pandemic, in the correct terms. There is no lockdown in response to a public health emergency. This is a pretence. In actual fact, there is an economic blockade, which is a form of war. The UK Government is waging economic warfare on the British people.

The goal that the UK Government wants to achieve is an adjustment of the debt-for-wealth system that it facilitates in Britain for its City of London ownership. If people think that there is more to the matter than it being purely domestic, knowing about the World Economic Forum’s “The Great Reset”, then they would be right; obviously, many peoples in countries throughout the world are being subjected to the same thing in the name of a hoax, and some governments may be taking advantage for their own ends, but others will be dancing to the tune of a cabal which has had ownership of the superior part of the global economic system that drives the rest of it. (Of course, the author realises some justification for this assertion must be given, and a number of articles have been published at FBEL that are related to the subject – see the list at the foot of the page – while pieces concerned with direct, by name, connection are planned for the future).

UK Government has been trying to achieve its objectives through psychology, on top of a formation of legislation, that prohibits certain activity, or regulates it, but which could not be entirely enforceable if people chose not to obey en masse. Hence, the importance of the psychological element, which is established and inflicted through UK Government’s control of the corporate-media.

In terms of the actual characteristics of the attack, these are to make it difficult for businesses, mainly small and medium sized ones which can’t afford the cost to adjust, to trade. This is done by legislating into existence a necessity for the chronic hinderance of social distancing and its paraphernalia: masks; limited numbers in the stores, and queues outside in the street to get in; limited trading hours and in fact absolute closure for some types of business.

To reiterate the fact of non-compliance, or not, as being at the crux of the matter, the effectiveness of the UK Government’s attack is solely dependent on a business’ decision to obey. For sure, refusal can be met with harassment from local government and police to coerce business owners to volunteer to comply (meaning closing down, in huge numbers of cases); if this doesn’t work, there is the punitive fining for staying open (it’s a different thing all together to agree to pay, and would involve another battle), but for a business owner who would yet resist, the alternative may be permanent closure and complete loss of means to a livelihood.

On top of that, businesses have been the victim of what is essentially a racket, where they feel they have had no choice but to take on unnecessary overheads, at the risk of being repossessed, by buying debt instruments that are ultimately produced by the City of London.  As for the customers of a business, they are made to believe that they must behave in a way that essentially encourages them from not participating in their end of trade, or which makes them highly inefficient for businesses to process. Indeed, people who have been put out of work through the business they owned or worked for succumbing to the blockade will not be in the same financial position even to be customers.

As well as the financial, socio-economic aspect – if it isn’t enough – it becomes clear that Covid-19 is going to be used for implementing socio-political change – or more revolution (as we shall see). The economic adjustment and the socio-political change are inextricably linked because the former which takes wealth away from the financial system to return it to the system’s owners (as they see themselves, and for an explanation, see the “Silent Weapons for Silent Wars” article listed below) engenders unhappiness in the population that have the system inflicted upon them, and brings on the latter: to guard against rebellion, society must be more tightly controlled by government – through regulations, and also by psychology. We are able to see this time and again when UK Government has, in recent previous history, implemented the same sort of drastic changes to the way people live; both the First and Second World Wars served as pretexts towards the very same end in the same way as does Covid-19 – a piece comparing the wearing of masks, nowadays, to collecting scrap metal in the 1940s was published at FBEL, and in it certain regulations for war time behaviour were mentioned as means to obtaining acquiescence, but the ultimate psychological tool deployed by UK Government was prison for conscientious objectors.

The aforementioned Great Reset, which is being marvelled at as if it were a new development, is quickly becoming infamous as being the driving principle for  the economic adjustment and socio-political change on a global scale. It is not, in fact, new. It is an outcome, or a staging post, that is on the same trajectory for society as was initiated and intended by the Victorian ruling elite reacting to Georgian gentrification, and a burgeoning of the middle class (this is why, reader, the title “Mr” should be guarded like the precious, hard won thing it is). The Great Reset is a further instalment in the slow transformation of liberated people back into being slaves. There’s plenty of material in these pages that deal with this (see list below), and while there is also a matter of the philosophy of elitism at the source of the agenda – and the requirement to expose it to serve as a proof – for now, the essential point to make is as follows:

A capitalised society is one where as many people as possible own capital. This is capitalism. A socialised society is one where capital is concentrated in the hands of a few. This is Socialism. When corporations are contracted to act as departments of government so that centralised control of the means to produce is delegated (or licenced out), this is Socialism, not capitalism. When corporations own government so that they can issue themselves such licence, this is Socialism. What is being called the Great Reset will be a development in Socialism, and there is a great deal of confusion and befuddlement – not to be wondered at given Britain’s divide and rule political system, and its shocking system of education  – in many people who would not be without a welfare state, but decry the inevitable slavery which comes out of it.

A centralised planned economy, based in the principle that from each comes that which is according to his ability, and to each goes that according his needs, explicitly means that there is no value for an individual as to what he can produce in terms of capital. It means no individual capital ownership, by definition. And this is the least of it.

To illustrate further, we are going to dip back into the text of Fabian Franklin’s, What Prohibition has done to America, thus making this another part in a series where Prohibition is compared with the lockdown based on the pretext of Covid-19:  both being restrictive of individual liberty, and both being a means to another end. In this extract, Franklin is explaining that Prohibition will serve as acclimatisation for Americans to a socialist system. He wouldn’t have been able to see as well as later observers, from the view point of when he was writing (in the midst of Prohibition), that it would actually lead to intolerable expansion of federal government, and was as much a factor in the march of Socialism in the English-speaking world as was the preceding First World War – a statement that is explained in another FBEL article, if the reader follows a corresponding link at the foot of the page. Examination of other material written much more recently, and that is dedicated to revealing how Prohibition was an important factor in the socialisation of the USA,  is for future articles in this series.

Numerous as are the varieties of Socialism, they all agree in being inherently antagonistic to individualism. It may be pleaded, in criticism if this assertion, that all government is opposed to individualism; that the difference in this respect between Socialism and other forms of civil organisation is only one of degree; that we make a surrender of individuality, as well as liberty, when we consent to live in any organized form of society. It is not worthwhile to dispute the point; the difference may, if one chooses, be regarded as only a difference of degree. But when a difference of degree goes to such a point that what is minor, incidental, exceptional in the one case, is paramount, essential, pervasive in the other, the difference is, for all purposes of thinking, equivalent to a difference of kind.

Socialism is in its very essence opposed to individualism. It makes the collective welfare not an incidental concern of each man’s daily life, but his primary concern. The standard it sets up, the regulations it establishes, are not things that a man must merely take account of as special restraints on his freedom, exceptional limitations on the exercise of his individuality; they constitute the basic conditions of his life…

The essence of Socialism is the suppression of individuality, the exultation of the collective will and the collective interest, the submergence of the individual will and the individual interest. The particular form – even the particular degree – of coercion by which this submergence is brought about varies with the different types of socialism; but they all agree in the essential fact of the submergence.

Socialism may possibly be compatible with prosperity, with contentment; it is not compatible with liberty, not compatible with individuality. I am, of course, not undertaking here to discuss the merits of Socialism; my purpose is only to point out that those who are hostile to Socialism must cherish liberty. And it is vain to cherish liberty in the abstract if you are doing your best to dry up the very source of the love of liberty in the concrete workings of every man’s daily experience. With the plain man – indeed with men in general, plain or otherwise – love of liberty, or of any elemental concept, is strong only if it is instinctive; and it cannot be instinctive if it is jarred everyday by habitual and unresented experience of its opposite.

Prohibition is a restraint of liberty so clearly unrelated to any primary need of the State, so palpably bearing on the most personal aspect of a man’s own conduct, that it is impossible to acquiesce in it and retain genuine and lively feeling of abhorrence for any other threatened invasion of the domain of liberty which can claim the justification of being intended for the benefit of the poor or unfortunate.

So long as Prohibition was a local measure, so long even as it was a measure of State legislation, this effect did not follow; or, if at all, only in a small degree. People did not regard it as a dominant, and above all as a paramount and inescapable, part of the national life. But decreed for the whole nation, and embedded permanently in the Constitution, it will have an immeasurable effect in impairing that instinct of liberty which has been the very heart of the American spirit; and with the loss of that spirit will be lost the one great and enduring defence against Socialism.

The first point for discussion is the correct observation that people consent to live in any society, and in doing so there may be a suspension of certain individual rights for the greater good. A socialised population, by degree, however, calls for complete and permanent denial, and not for a state of being where there can be reactivation of rights when the situation arises for it. Now, a trick has been played on a good deal of well meaning people who are led to believe that a socialised population is beneficial to them and to all others inhabiting it, but this is a deception for building consent.

Consent is the crucial factor for a system of governance that asks for rights to be suspended – which is the one end of a scale where, at the other, rights are permanently denied – in return for a greater good, which is in fact a phantom and only appears to be a substantial thing. And here we find a summarisation of the content at the top of this article regarding psychology being used to have people volunteer into behaviour that will be harmful to them.

So, when we are trying to discern the shape of the future, and how government will shoe horn people into what appears, through overt concern for sustainability, to be a restricted mode of living, where there is less for everybody, irrespective of needs or ability, we can start to distil ideas to give us a clearer picture.

We can expect there to be a system, at the end of a period of inculcation to it (which is what the trauma of the pretend public health emergency is for), that people will be presented with, and then told that there is no choice but to live within its parameters. As such, an important area for thought is one regarding the numbers of people who will choose not to consent to the new system, because this is at the heart of it being viable or not (in terms of its own objectives, not in terms of the individuals in it). This involves a truth here that people probably have trouble imagining: government needs to keep as many people on the plantation – or have as many people consent – as it can; it needs numbers for its system to work, and it needs numbers for the appearance of support for the system, so as to dissuade people from leaving it (and this is what alternative media is for: when people start to think about withdrawing consent, they are guided back to doing it).

Being governed is always a matter of volunteering into it. Being subject to the worst dictatorship is still a matter of volunteering into it. What makes all the difference to the maintenance of a dictatorship is if people know that there is an alternative, or not. Degrees of totalitarianism are reflective of the degrees of the inculcation that are possible to inflict on a population. Where indoctrination is total so that there cannot be awareness of the alternative, then volunteering is a matter of acting by default – it’s not necessarily fear that stops people rebelling, but it is necessarily not being able to gather and process subversive information. Thus, the film, Equals, which has featured in these pages for illustration of that aspect of Covid-19 economic warfare which psychologically prohibits behaviour which otherwise would undermine anti-trading (and anti-economy) measures, depicts an extreme model of society which is yet theoretically achievable through the current medical emergency pretext, and then sustainable by the same means. In this society of “equals”, awareness of an alternative is infrequent and a completely underground phenomenon. Consent is maintained by the threat of a (pretend) disease, and then a curtailment of normality, and inevitably death.

As such in Equals, then, there is a clinical passport which determines how it is possible for an individual to behave within a collective, but this shouldn’t be confused with the denial of freedoms, because there are no such things in the Equals society. Likewise, in a real life society that has a clinical passport that shows proof of being vaccinated, or having tested negative for “Covid-19”, there can’t be an allowance to act in liberty, because there is no real liberty – not least because in such a situation, “freedom” is a thing that has been permitted by Government. This is why a clinical passport should not be keenly desired as a solution to the trauma of interminable “lockdown” (just as the Fake Brexit was accepted as a solution for the apparent never ending threat posed, by Parliament, to any exit from the EU). And it does become plain, as one explores these ideas, that perhaps the trauma of interminable “lockdown” is at least for generating consent for the system that is going to come – whether or not one would need a clinical passport to partake remains debatable. The reverse side of the Equals  clinical passport – or the state of being where one remained intact – as the film ultimately showed, is that its most important purpose was to prevent awareness of the alternative.

Likewise, the new tiered system of “lockdown” in the UK is meant to provoke antagonism so that people in one area look at another in a lower tier and have envy, and blame the dissenters amongst them for their fate. But this is not for vilifying those who will not consent, nor indeed making them vulnerable to persecution. It is for keeping people from becoming dissenters, and non compliers, through personal identification with the collective. If I sin in the eyes of the UK Government, thinks such an individual, then the collective also sins. So, contrary to what your alternative media and fringe corporate-media is telling you, reader, the tiered system is in fact UK Government weakness dressed up as strength – and for more than this reason alone: it isn’t as restrictive, or it doesn’t intend to be as restrictive, as the original incarnation of lockdown.

As just suggested, UK Government doesn’t want to make it easy for people to choose to not consent, because if there are too many doing it, then here is the potential for a viable alternative system, and one that can be made to work through the ingenuity of the creative people in it. Here, then, is an alternative base of power, and thus a threat. Here is a place for a black market to thrive – the bootlegging of the Prohibition era, and in fact, in Prohibition terms, a mode of living that made the Amendment to the Constitution redundant. All this is why the author cannot imagine that a vaccine is going to be used for a clinical passport – if indeed one is at all possible at this time. A testing regime would serve just as well, and more people would perhaps agree to it when it came to a crunch. But the question that we return to is, would enough people agree? Perhaps not, in a country with the tradition of English civil liberty, and so much is at stake.

On the contrary, in the society of Equals, where all at stake has been lost, there is the complete death of individuality, and thus the complete death of liberalism, and the achievement of the final degree of “paramount, essential, pervasive” concern for the collective welfare. Something very similar must be planned for the future in Britain, because when a thing is a matter of degrees, and where more degrees traversed means more power for those hungry for it, it means that the nth degree of the socialisation of a population under that power is never a sufficient place to get to.

Franklin says that Prohibition serves – according to his perspective when he was writing – to inculcate people into treating loss of liberty as a state of being. He is writing about normalcy bias, perhaps without knowing the name of it. A good many Americans, says Franklin, dismissed the possibility of their liberty being submerged by Socialism, because it appeared to be too incredible a prospect. And yet, says Franklin, the actual experiencing restrictions on individualism made the prospect less incredible. In his definitions of Socialism in relation to individuality, he was also saying that Prohibition was indeed Socialism in action. So, he is writing about the progression of a country through those aforementioned degrees, where having established one, there was expectation and conditioning for the next.  Covid-19 restrictions are alike Prohibition in this respect – as well as being alike in many others, but we have this one as a point of our focus.

The lesson that must be learnt is that no degree of Socialism should be consented to if one wants to retain one’s individuality and one’s liberty – and this is a great stumbling block for Britons, who love their (worthlessly) free handouts, and having Government decide and do for them. Avoiding any Great Reset is not just a matter of not consenting to “lockdown”;  if you want to avoid any Great Reset, reader, you must disavow and want to undo the welfare state.


[Additional (added 26/04/21); Please see also the follow-up piece, Prohibition And Covid-19; Part Four: An Historical Context; Social Engineering For Grabbing Power (link)]


With Brexit causing mass loss of confidence in Government, damage limitation begins (with the outright solution never mentioned) – From Behind Enemy Lines

Analysis of “Things to Come”, Part One: Mystery Babylon does all the war – From Behind Enemy Lines

Analysis of “Things to Come”; Part Two: From the same place as “Interstellar” – From Behind Enemy Lines

The First World War and the March of Socialism – From Behind Enemy Lines

In which we observe H G Wells agitating for a New World Order in 1940 – From Behind Enemy Lines

Reflections on a by-election: another charlatan claims to represent the people, this time of Lewisham East – From Behind Enemy Lines

Exiting Babylon: the only way to escape being prey for UK Government in perpetuity – From Behind Enemy Lines

“Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars”; Part One: “Inductance” for economic dominance – From Behind Enemy Lines

The Queen is at economic war with the British people – From Behind Enemy Lines

In the economic carnage of coronahoax fallout, the target is UK Government and administrators of the debt-for-wealth financial system – From Behind Enemy Lines

The UK Government’s £330 billion coronavirus racket – From Behind Enemy Lines

The disease is unsanctioned behaviour; Switched On Syndrome and Covid-19 – From Behind Enemy Lines

Surveying the triangulation of UK Government’s Covid-19 tyranny, Nazism, and the Collective of “Equals” – From Behind Enemy Lines

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 5 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. theguvnor says:

    This is a great piece and is reminiscent of the writing of La Boetie who’s work addressed the idea of the absolute need for consent for a tyrannical system to work:
    What is difficult to understand with the above referenced is why after writing such a piece he decided to side with ‘authority’ as a judge and diplomatic negotiator for the state?

  2. DavidW says:

    “A capitalised society is one where as many people as possible own capital. This is capitalism. A socialised society is one where capital is concentrated in the hands of a few. This is Socialism.”
    Surely you refer to the false Socialism/Communism of USSR? Many commenters consider USSR to be really State Capitalism? My understandingt is that socialism is a means for members of society to take the means of production and distribute it equally? With the likes of Co-operatives being forefront in such an economy. I feel you are shoehorning the definition of socialism to suit your criticism of current actions of Government.

    • P W Laurie says:

      No. The definitions are just true. Socialism is when a few have power through ownership of capital. Capitalism is when many do. The stealing [in a population socialised to any degree (but more socialism means less capitalism)] of capital outcome from citizen producers, or redistribution of wealth, or the sinking it into waste, is to deny them the benefits of capital ownership.

      • DavidW says:

        Hi can I ask you whose definition you are using? True to who? With all due respect who owns capital in this late stage of crony financial capitalism? A true state of socialsim does not need a “state” this idea that you have of socialism seems very biased and skewed. If you take this definition from states that have tried to implement “socialism’ there is a grain of truth in that, although I doubt we have even touched on what true socialism can achieve.

        • P W Laurie says:

          You know what? I think you might be in luck; by the looks of it, we’re going to find out what true Socialism can “achieve” in a bit. If the imperfect Socialism we’ve had so far is anything to go by, it’s going to be awesome*.

          * Additional: I should point out that this word is used sarcastically.

          Plus, please expect an article in the near future that will comprehensively answer the points and questions raised by this commenter.