Not A Virus, Not A Movement

Nihilism and Denialism

Until a couple of months ago, censored spaces faced an infestation of trolls, promoting the idea that the very concept of a virus was pure fiction, a shoddy concoction of impossibly bad science and sustained error. This “not-a-virus” meme made a loud boom and clouds of smoke, but was essentially a magic trick of language and deflection.

At first, these ideas seemed to offer some insights. Maybe there was something to it. Science is often fraudulent and prone to circular reasoning; maybe all of virology was somehow part of this? But it was hard to imagine. At what point did a virologist learn that everything they studied was fantasmal? Was there a surprise party, where the truth was revealed? “Say, about that degree you just got…well, it lets you in for forty years of playing make-believe with test-tubes and publishing bunk research. Don’t worry, we’ve all got your back.”

It was a lesson in obfuscation and bad-faith arguments. Every fallacy was deployed in service to the intense, evangelistic virus atheism that swept through the comments section. This was, to a certain extent, an organized psyop whose true origin makes an intriguing riddle; but there was also an organic element. People actually believed these convoluted representations, because they appeal to a nihilistic urge we probably all feel at one time or another. Why not toss the baby out with the bathwater? After all, what made the bathwater dirty in the first place?

The key to the trick is simple: redefine toward impossible standards.

-“Viruses have never been isolated.”

-“Well, yes, here they have, here are their methods.”

-“That’s not isolation! They use test tubes and cells!”

-“Did you want that they isolate it without some kind of container?”

The arguments fell back, until it was down to quibbling about controls. First, the widespread claims that no controls were done in cell culture. Sounds great, until you look at the protocols and realize: cell culture is always done with controls. It’s in the protocol. Of course it is. This is science, not theater.

Then, the revised argument went, these weren’t the right kind of controls. Yeah, right. Unfortunately, it’s enough to show that the core theory of “not-a-virus” is totally fraudulent, and that claims about cell cultures not being controlled were categorically untrue. If there were controls, really, done at any point, they would reveal that the observed results were not from the cell culture process itself, but from some property of the tested substance.

Now, it’s possible that there really is no such thing as a virus, and that something else explains the observed phenomena. But the “not-a-virus” crowd didn’t prove it, and their arguments rely on holding the power of definition.

Having vanquished “not-a-virus”, some nihilist/denialist/contrarian digital text mills have landed on “not-a-movement.” We briefly touched on how this has been influencing our thinking here.

This is a catchy, edgy-sounding reality tunnel, and *WE* are always intrigued by these. But you can’t really get something from nothing this way. What people really mean, when they deny the existence of a “virus” or a “movement,” is that they don’t want to be bothered with the complexity of meaning that comes along with perceptual eigenstates.

It’s a reality-status declaration, and it’s a fun game until you try to take it seriously.

There are some valuable insights contained inside all this nihilism, or, really, denialism. It’s kind of dada. But it’s not terribly self-aware.

Of course there is a movement, if you stop to define what that movement might be. It’s not too hard, actually, to put a clear and concise definition to the term, and with a swift premise to work with, “not-a-movement” irrevocably becomes a not only a movement, but growing one, if not exactly thriving.

If the “movement” is defined descriptively, rather than by some subjective metric of how it ought to be, than it’s pretty obvious that there is and always has been a movement.

The movement is the increasing tendency toward disbelieving the official propaganda narrative. It is a movement composed of those who write, speak, and think in terms which are censored and suppressed by the dominant power structure.

WE, to whom this description applies, constitute this movement. We exist along gradients of perspective and disagree with each other about critical key details. Even, and perhaps especially, those who claim with stomping feet that there is Not A Movement.

We aren’t necessarily an effective movement, or up to the high standards of historical myths, but *WE* who commit thoughtcrime in this age of weapons-grade propaganda are unified by our disbelief of it, to whatever degree.

This is the movement that some would have you believe does not exist.

That’s what the “Not a Movement” paradigm is. Of course there’s a movement, a global movement that provides the basis for even opining that it does not exist.

It may be a poorly defined and ineffective movement. It may lack power and cohesion. Leadership, such as it, is inadequate. The entire concept of leadership is inadequate.

But it’s a movement, nonetheless, a cultural movement of resistance to the official propaganda. There. It’s defined. And like a virus, it exists. Even if nearly every statement made about it is manifestly untrue.

Are you in, or more committed to a reality tunnel that goes nowhere at all? It doesn’t really matter, any more than it matters that a raindrop denies being part of the storm.