A Matter of Style

It amazes me that so many people still believe that Boris Johnson went into intensive during Easter, only to be released from hospital on Easter Sunday. It's one of these weird things that prove to me that most people don't think. They listen to experts, and they believe whatever they are told, even when evidence to the contrary are right in front of us.

Intensive care would normally cause major fatigue to a person. Yet, not a single journalist seemed at all sceptical to the official story. It was all about Boris and his epic journey to the underworld and back. Even more astonishing was the complete lack of scepticism in the general public. Everybody, including most self proclaimed sceptics seemed convinced that the story was genuine, and this appears to be the case to this day. Only the truly paranoid appear to be sceptical to the story.

With any scepticism to this story immediately placing us in the crank category of sceptics, it may at first seem impossible to poke a hole in the official narrative. However, this is not the case. All that's required is to activate the network effect at opportune moments. If properly delivered, our message will spread far and wide.

With most people believing the official narrative, it's important to avoid any direct confrontation. Stating the obvious in a blunt and humourless way will only serve to entrench listeners. Far better is a light and non-confrontational message that opens the possibility for listeners to pretend that the stated truth is something that they always knew. There should be ambiguity in the way our message is formed, allowing for consideration by the listeners. No-one likes to be told that they have been fooled. Let them therefore claim that they never fully believed the false narrative.

I had the opportunity to try this strategy last night when someone on Facebook used Boris Johnson as an example of someone who've suffered tremendously from Covid. Instead of telling him how gullible he is for believing this, I commented by recanting the events surrounding Johnson's illness with the natural conclusion that Johnson's recovery was nothing short of a miracle. I was in this way simply expanding on the idea that the commentator was holding to be true, siding with him in his naïve belief. I did not reveal whether I was ironic or truthful, allowing him to skip along to a better example, which he promptly did.

My message was thus delivered and understood without offending anyone. The fact that the original commentator chose to veer away from his original example suggests that my message was as successful as it could possibly be. Normally, people don't change their minds when confronted. However, with this somewhat humorous and non-confrontational style, the response indicates at least some budding scepticism to the official narrative. To allow for this scepticism to set, I made a point of not addressing any of his other remarks. My goal was not to make a big statement. My goal was simply to challenge the idea that Boris Johnson is a Covid survivor. 

I also received a number of likes by people who were following the thread, indicating that many may have been prompted into scepticism from my statement. Subtle humour has the quality that it requires a moment of reflection in order to be understood, which is all that's needed in order to poke hole in a false narrative.

What happens next is that the network effect kicks in. Those realizing the unlikelihood of the official narrative will at the very least be reluctant to use Boris Johnson as an example of a Covid survivor. Some may even vent their disbelief. This will in turn propagate through the network until it becomes the majority view. It may not happen right away. A few more gentle pushes may be required, but it's virtually impossible for the official narrative to remain unchallenged for much longer. Some stories are simply too good to be true, and Johnson's epic journey to the underworld and back is definitely in that category.

Boris Johnson

By Ben Shread / Cabinet Office, OGL 3, Link