Dread and the Magic 3%

Here's an interesting article with some reflections on how to fight the tyranny currently being pushed upon us. I don't agree with the author's proposed strategy, though. It's too confrontational for my taste. There's no point in provoking anger. A sense of dread can be installed with much less conflict, and with just as much impact. That being said, I'm not telling anyone not to do as the author proposes if they so wish. It's just not my style to be overly confrontational. I prefer more defensive strategies. However, in one respect, I do prefer an offensive strategy, and that is how I dress when out among random people in the streets. The dandy style I adopted this spring was effective in shutting down hobby fascists, and I believe my don't do drugs campaign is working as intended as well.

My don't do drugs T-shirt has an embroidered emblem of a skull and a syringe. The message is clear. Experimental use of drugs may lead to death. To underscore this message, I use the mask of the beast whenever I feel compelled to mask up.

The embroidery is subtle. One has to look in order to see it, and I've noticed that this has worked as intended. Most people pass me by without seeing it. Only a few see it, and they react by looking extra hard to see if the message really is what it appears to be. Once this is confirmed, they quickly look away. A sense of dread has been installed. They're tossed out of balance, as it were.

This is the big difference between dread and fear. Fear provokes an immediate reaction; often a violent one. Dread, on the other hand, lingers without provoking anger. It installs a lasting unease that's hard to get rid of. Dread spreads through the unconscious. It appears in dreams. It paralyzes. Once dread is installed, the victim will go a long way to avoid the subject altogether, and that's precisely what we want at this stage of our confrontation.

Dread can also be dished out through defensive rhetoric. The defensive nature of it is all the more impactful because the message is actively drawn out of us by our opponents. Having pushed us to the point that we must make a stand, we can bring in dread by the use of the magic 3%. We can tell people that the vaccine shortens people's lives by about 3% on average. Some will not be adversely affected, but a few people will die way sooner than they would have if not vaccinated.

This is a provocative statement that will have people react in horror and anger. But because of the stated 3% we can quickly retreat. It's not like we said 10% or 50%, or something outrageous like 90%. We said 3%. That's borderline insignificant, and we can calm everybody down by saying this.

We can also say that this is our own best guestimate based on what we've read and observed. It's not like there's any science backing our claim. We're simply explaining our position to remain unvaccinated. Surely, every vaccinated person out there must have thought about this and concluded differently. Ours is merely a difference in opinion.

However, most people have not thought very deeply about their decision. The 3% figure sticks. It lingers, and every time these people feel a discomfort of some kind, they cannot help thinking that they may be the unfortunate 3%. They too will want to avoid the whole vaccine debate. With a bit of luck, people will stop watching the pro-vaccine propaganda, and the whole vaccine status thing becomes a non-issue.

The 3% number is not simply pulled out of a hat. Anyone who've paid attention must have noticed that it is a recurring number in propaganda. Together with it's twin, the 97%, 3% appears whenever near certainty is being alluded to. There's no coincidence that climate propaganda talks of 97% consensus. Nor is it a coincidence that 3% of all elderly people hit by the plague end up dead, and that the vaccines were said to be 97% effective when they were rolled out.

3% occupies a place between harmless and dangerous. 3% is the moderate number, just like 97% is the moderate number for certainty. These numbers can be tossed around with a high degree of subjectivity, because the numbers themselves are so moderate. We don't have to have any backing for any of our claims. We're merely defending whatever position we've taken personally, and it happens to be based on a strong but modest gut feel.

Keeping hobby fascists at bay