Taking Back Our Stolen History
Social Distancing
Social Distancing

Social Distancing

Part of the new normal where people are suggested, required, or demanded (depending on local & regional authorities) to not come within 6 feet of each other during the COVID-19 pandemic. The unscientific protocol was first introduced to the masses in March 2020 to flatten the curve of the COVID-19 coronavirus that was falsely estimated to kill tens or hundreds of millions, but even after the much smaller curve showed a decline (in spite of increased testing) the globalists insisted social distancing become a permanent part of our lives… for the greater good. Truth be told, like masks and lockdowns, social distancing is a form of isolation which is a necessity in techniques used to brainwash.

Sadly, “social distancing” was pounded into everyones heads so relentlessly by the mainstream media that a big chunk of the population became big believers in it. Democratic and republican cities sought to enforce social distancing as everything that wasn’t deemed essential (abortion clinics essential, but most small businesses, churches, parks, and beaches were non-essential) however things quickly changed for the left.

It was only after months of CDC and mainstream media propaganda that on 21 Sept 2020, the CDC quietly backtracked on warning that coronavirus is airborne. This came after the CDC had warned that the virus spreads most commonly through the air and was highly contagious to keep us all in fear with lockdowns, masks, and social distancing. We know now that there may not even be a virus as it has never been isolated and purified, and was computer generated from snippets just like the Nebraska man and Piltdown man hoaxes were fabricated from a tiny part (a pigs tooth and an orangutan jaw respectively) to assume the whole and sell us on evolution. Dr. Tom Cowan breaks down another CDC report on how the virus was invented:

First, in the section titled ‘Whole Genome Sequencing,’ we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.

Using the ASSUMED new virus, in an UN-ISOLATED STATE, the researchers try to prove it is harmful by injecting it on to several different types of cells in the lab.

…using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this ‘new coronavirus’ is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.”

Well how and why are so many people dying you ask? The Disease rename game. They’ve been playing it for years. Take a look at the data where flu and pneumonia deaths tanked as soon as the COVID-19 plandemic arrived in February. 94% of deaths had a an average of 2.6 comorbidities according to some studies. And if there was a worldwide pandemic as we are programmed to believe by the mainstream media, why are 2020 deaths lower in every week of 2020 than in 2019 except the first 2 weeks of January before the China virus arrived? In fact, CDC data, according to a mid-August report (now redacted but used the CDC’s own week-by-week death numbers) by Dr. Colleen Huber at PrimaryDoctor.org, 2020 has the lowest weekly death rate in a decade  – so far, and the 2nd lowest annual US deaths in the last 21 years.

How Forced Isolation Makes Huge Power Grabs Possible

So, why then are we being forced to social distance, or even wear masks when the imaginary, unproven virus

Stella Morabito explains in an article on The Federalist that today’s wannabe social controllers are clearly using the virus as a sort of obedience school where we can be conditioned through isolation to conform to their demands.

She begins her excellent article with this quote:

“Terror can rule absolutely only over men who are isolated against each other… Therefore, one of the primary concerns of all tyrannical government is to bring this isolation about.” — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

She then wisely points out:

Pick a dictator, any dictator—Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Jim Jones (dictator of his own realm)—and you’ll find a common pattern of imposing aloneness and the terror of it on their prey. You can probably name more examples from the world stage as well as from smaller domains. They may vary in their methods and territories, but all use social pressure to live out the ancient principle of divide-and-conquer. As political philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, totalitarians must first get people isolated against one other in order to rule over them.

Tactics for grabbing power always involve some form of imposed isolation through social pressures: mob swarming, forced false confessions; struggle sessions; hostility towards family, religion, and history; snitch culture; censorship; constant propaganda; and more. “Cancel culture” is just a new term for an old custom of tyrants who use social pressures to go after the raw power they crave. Former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss aptly described cancel culture as social murder.

So what is America to do?

We Need to Build Immunity Against Social Pressure, Stella proposes:

Imposed social isolation is unnatural for human beings. It’s torture that makes us highly vulnerable to any social pressures that suggest some relief from it. Whatever their motives, today’s wannabe social controllers are clearly using the virus as a sort of obedience school where we can be conditioned through isolation to conform to their demands.

Many likely comply in hopes of being rewarded—maybe we’ll get to go for a walk someday if we’re good dogs. The irony is that mindless conformity creates even more isolation and even more vulnerability, even as we believe we’re escaping it through compliance.

But what if enough good people were immune to social pressure? Or resistant enough to it that they spread some immunity to others? Well, then, our power-mongering elites would be disarmed. Game over.

In this light, here’s a fascinating question to ponder: What exactly do they hate most about President Trump? Doubtless they hate him mostly because he seems immune to their social pressures.

That’s the bottom line. They can’t control him the way they do other Republican leaders who are so fearful of being called mean names. Worse for these power elites is that they can’t seem to isolate Trump’s supporters from him.

No matter what you think of Trump or his tweets, we should all meditate on the power of that sort of immunity from social pressures. We should find ways to develop it in ourselves. Because if tyrants had less ability to instill social isolation, they’d be less able to induce the fears that allow them to control people’s lives.

In other words, it starts with YOU, and me, and spreads.

Source: ConservativeDailyNews reporting on this TheFederalist article

A number of police departments around the country used drones manufactured by a company with ties to the Chinese government in order to enforce COVID-19-related lockdowns, prompting concerns from experts who say the drones may serve as a way for the east Asian communist regime to spy on the United States. “Should people be concerned? Yes. Everyone should always be concerned,” says Brett Velicovich, former Army intelligence worker and author of the book Drone Warrior. While DIJ denies it has any motives beyond altruism in its donation of drone technology to U.S. law-enforcement agencies, many — from lawmakers to watchdog groups to drone experts — say America’s reliance on Chinese technology to monitor its own citizens could lead to disastrous national security consequences.

After demonizing protestors anxious to get back to work, end tyrannical lockdown policing by dictator governors, mayors, etc, suddenly protests were praised and social distancing forgotten when it was politically convenient following the George Floyd Riots sponsored by George Soros and other democrats to flame the race war. (See video below by Laura Ingraham…)

9-1-1 lines became flooded with calls from people concerned that someone wasn’t following social distancing protocol.

The term was mentioned in a movie about a virus pandemic called “Contagion” (2011). In the scene, Laurence Fishburne’s character, who plays a CDC medical doctor, advises, “Our best defense has been social distancing… staying home when you’re sick, washing your hands frequently.

The first time it appeared in the New York Times was February 12, 2006:

If the avian flu goes pandemic while Tamiflu and vaccines are still in short supply, experts say, the only protection most Americans will have is “social distancing,” which is the new politically correct way of saying “quarantine.”

But distancing also encompasses less drastic measures, like wearing face masks, staying out of elevators — and the [elbow] bump. Such stratagems, those experts say, will rewrite the ways we interact, at least during the weeks when the waves of influenza are washing over us.

The New York Times (April 22, 2020) tells the story of how George Bush, in 2006 during the H5N1 avian flu pandemic that resulted in very few deaths, asked experts to submit plans on how to best deal with the next pandemic. Drs. Hatchett and Mecher proposed that Americans in some places might have to self-isolate.

“That this idea became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis. It required the key proponents — Dr. Mecher, a Department of Veterans Affairs physician, and Dr. Hatchett, an oncologist turned White House adviser — to overcome intense initial opposition.

The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible.”

In the course of this planning, neither legal nor economic experts were brought in to consult and advise. Instead it fell to Mecher (formerly of Chicago and an intensive care doctor with no previous expertise in pandemics) and the oncologist Hatchett.

The article also mentions the 14-yr.-old daughter of a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories, Laura M. Glass, who declined to be interviewed when the Albuquerque Journal did a deep dive of this history.

Laura, with some guidance from her dad, devised a computer simulation that showed how people – family members, co-workers, students in schools, people in social situations – interact. What she discovered was that school kids come in contact with about 140 people a day, more than any other group. Based on that finding, her program showed that in a hypothetical town of 10,000 people, 5,000 would be infected during a pandemic if no measures were taken, but only 500 would be infected if the schools were closed.

Laura’s name appears on the foundational paper arguing for lockdowns and forced human separation. That paper is Targeted Social Distancing Designs for Pandemic Influenza (2006). It set out a model for forced separation and applied it with good results backwards in time to 1957. They conclude with a chilling call for what amounts to a totalitarian lockdown, all stated very matter-of-factly.

Implementation of social distancing strategies is challenging. They likely must be imposed for the duration of the local epidemic and possibly until a strain-specific vaccine is developed and distributed. If compliance with the strategy is high over this period, an epidemic within a community can be averted. However, if neighboring communities do not also use these interventions, infected neighbors will continue to introduce influenza and prolong the local epidemic, albeit at a depressed level more easily accommodated by healthcare systems.

In other words, it was a high-school science experiment that eventually became law of the land, and through a circuitous route propelled not by science but politics.  The primary author of this paper was Robert J. Glass, a complex-systems analyst with Sandia National Laboratories. He had no medical training, much less an expertise in immunology or epidemiology. That explains why Dr. D.A. Henderson, “who had been the leader of the international effort to eradicate smallpox,” completely rejected the whole scheme.1

Scott Gottlieb, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), admitted during an interview on Face the Nation that the six foot social distancing rule recommended by public health officials for months on end was actually “arbitrary in and of itself,” and he noted that “nobody knows where it came from.”1

There’s a reason that “social distancing” wasn’t a buzzword common to the American lexicon prior to 2020.  There’s very little science behind “social distancing” at all.

“It turns out,” Julie Kelly writes at American Greatness, “as I wrote last month, “social distancing” is untested pseudoscience particularly as it relates to halting the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On its website, the CDC provides no links to any peer-reviewed social distancing studies that bolster its official guidance.” 

There’s a reason for the lack of peer-reviewed studies on the CDC website.  She continues:

The alarming reality is that social distancing never has been tested on a massive scale in the modern age; its current formula was conceived during George W. Bush’s administration and met with much-deserved skepticism.

“People could not believe that the strategy would be effective or even feasible,” one scientist told the New York Times last month. A high school science project—no, I am not joking—added more weight to the concept.

“Social distancing” is very much a newfangled experiment, not settled science.  And, Kelley writes, the results are suggesting that our “Great Social Distancing Experiment of 2020” will be “near the top of the list” of “bad experiments gone horribly wrong.”

You also don’t have to be a scientist to also instinctively know that “two weeks to flatten the curve” becoming “America must lock down until a vaccine is created” is more social experimentation than science.  But what the data have fleshed out, beyond the point of argument, is that the proximity of one human being to another has proven to be a very small factor in determining the impact of Covid-19 infections. What’s far more important is which human beings happen to be in close proximity of one another.

According to Dr. Steven Shapiro and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center:

Crowded indoor conditions can be devastating in nursing homes, while on the USS Theodore Roosevelt 1,102 sailors were infected, but only 7 required hospitalization, with 1 death. This contrast has significant implications that we have not embraced. Epidemiologic prediction models have performed poorly, often neglecting critical variables.

Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York said that it’s “shocking” to discover that 66 percent of new hospitalizations appear to have been among people “largely sheltering at home.” 

“We thought maybe they were taking public transportation, but actually no, because these people were literally at home.”

“Much of this comes down to what you do to protect yourself,” he continues.  “Everything closed down, government has done everything it could, society has done everything it could.”

It’s your fault, he says to the hospitalized New Yorkers who loyally complied with his government directive.  But here’s an interesting alternative theory as to why, mostly, old people who are staying at home are being hospitalized.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt had a crew of 4,800.  Given the acute sample, testing was holistic.  This yields an actual infection rate of roughly 23 percent, and among those infected, the fatality rate is 0.09 percent.  Among the Roosevelt’s entire crew of assumedly healthy and able-bodied sailors, on a floating Petri dish, during the thick of viral outbreak that shut down all schools and placed healthy citizens across America under house-arrest, the fatality rate was .002 percent.

It seems more than obvious that there is little sense in quarantining the young and healthy.  As Dr. Shapiro also observes:

Our outcomes are similar to the state of Pennsylvania, where the median age of death from COVID-19 is 84 years old.  The few younger patients who died all had significant preexisting conditions.  Very few children were infected and none died.  Minorities in our communities fared equally well as others, but we know that this is not the case nationally.  In sum, this is a disease of the elderly, sick, and poor.

Here’s another thing you likely already know.  Politicians and the media are committing to damage control to hide all of these facts from you.  In fact, finding any news relating to Dr. Shapiro’s somewhat revelatory comments online is, so far, quite difficult.

That’s because, for the people who pushed “social distancing” and destroying the economy as an absolutely necessary evil, this is a matter of self-preservation.  If this information were widely known, citizens might be more inclined to demand that schools and parks and restaurants and malls be opened.  But if schools had reopened immediately, without testing, and there was not a surge in hospitalizations or deaths, then the obvious question is why the schools closed in the first place.  If restaurants and other shuttered businesses open without a spike in hospitalizations and deaths, then why did they ever close?

There’s value in the media and government officials maintaining the public perception that the costs of “social distancing” have been offset by its benefits.  But while those benefits are elusive in the data, and require mountains of presumption to imagine that they even exist at all, the costs of “social distancing” couldn’t be clearer.

As Dr. Steven Shapiro concludes:

What we cannot do, is extended social isolation. Humans are social beings, and we are already seeing the adverse mental health consequences of loneliness, and that is before the much greater effects of economic devastation take hold on the human condition…

In this particular case, the problem we’re not going to be able to fix in the short term is the complete eradication of the virus. The problem we can fix is to serve and protect our seniors, especially those in nursing homes. If we do that, we can reopen society, and though infectious cases may rise as in the Theodore Roosevelt, the death rate will not, providing time for the development of treatments and vaccines.

An international research team led by Erin Schuman from the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research discovered a brain molecule that functions as a “thermometer” for the presence of others in an animal’s environment. Zebrafish “feel” the presence of others via mechanosensation and water movements—which turns the brain hormone on. The scientists used RNA sequencing to measure the expression levels of thousands of neuronal genes.

They “found a consistent change in expression for a handful of genes in fish that were raised in . One of them was parathyroid hormone 2 (pth2), coding for a relatively unknown peptide in the brain. Curiously, pth2 expression tracked not just the presence of others, but also their density. Surprisingly, when zebrafish were isolated, pth2 disappeared in the brain, but its  rapidly rose, like a thermometer reading, when other fish were added to the tank,” explains Anneser.”

Thrilled by this discovery, the scientists tested if the effects of isolation could be reversed by putting the previously isolated fish into a social setting. “After just 30 minutes swimming with their kin, there was a significant recovery of the pth2 levels. After 12 hours with kin the pth2 levels were indistinguishable from those seen in socially-raised animals,” says Anneser. “This really strong and fast regulation was unexpected and indicated a very tight link between gene expression and the environment.”3

At this point, this is little more than common sense, and the truth can’t continue to be suppressed for much longer.  It’s becoming more and more obvious that it’s well past time to take a more tactical approach to mitigation, as Dr. Katz suggested back on March 20, allocating resources and efforts toward protecting and caring for those most at-risk, and ending this soul-crushing and economy-crashing experiment with holistic “social distancing.”2

Even into mid-June and July, leftist politicians were clinging to social distancing. Writing for The Telegraph, Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, from the University of Oxford, said there is little evidence to support the restriction and called for an end to the “formalised rules”. The University of Dundee also said there was no indication that distancing at two metres (6 ft.) is safer than one metre.

Examining the current evidence for the two-metre rule, Prof Heneghan and Prof Jefferson looked at 172 studies cited in a recent review in The Lancet and found just five had dealt explicitly with coronavirus infection in relation to distance. Only one mentioned coming within six feet of a patient, and that paper showed proximity had no impact. Read full story here…

Professor Robert Dingwall, a sociologist at Nottingham Trent University and a member of government advisory group NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group), said the 2 meter distance was unnecessary. “The distance may be a non-scientific estimate that just caught on in countries around the world, as top researchers say there is not solid evidence to back it up,” reports the Daily Mail. Former Conservative Party Cabinet minister Iain Duncan-Smith also warned that the 2 meter rule could cripple the hospitality sector.

What if the government directive to close everything down and mandate “social distancing” actually made the problem worse?

Dr. David Katz predicted precisely this outcome on March 20, in an article that is proving every bit as correct in its predictions and sober policy recommendations as Dr. Anthony Fauci has been proven incorrect — which is another way of saying that the article has proven flawless, so far. Dr. Katz writes:

[I]n more and more places we are limiting gatherings uniformly, a tactic I call “horizontal interdiction” — when containment policies are applied to the entire population without consideration of their risk for severe infection.

But as the work force is laid off en masse (our family has one adult child home for that reason already), and colleges close (we have another two young adults back home for this reason), young people of indeterminate infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or 80-something grandparents. If there are any clear guidelines for behavior within families — what I call “vertical interdiction” — I have not seen them.

One might be inclined to simply accept this as an unintended consequence of “social distancing,” but accepting that would require there to be some kind of benefit to “social distancing” that would make it worth the cost. 

Is there?

Very likely, you already instinctively know that the guidelines suggesting that it’s somehow helpful to keep a six-foot space between healthy people, even outdoors, is not based on science, but just an arbitrary suggestion we’ve been conditioned to accept without evidence.

As social distancing was pushed as the ‘new normal’, businesses and gyms came up with ways (signs, distancing tables, even hats, etc.) to enforce the unscientific method, while some cities used draconian measures to enforce distancing such as one-way sidewalks.3

Just as 9/11 greatly altered our society on a permanent basis, many of our social engineers intend to make “social distancing” a permanent part of our lives.  If they have their way, there will be written or unwritten rules about how close you can get to other people virtually everywhere that you go. Can you imagine a world where you have to constantly be concerned about walking, standing or sitting too close to someone else?

Hong Kong, Thailand, Israel, and the US tried to track and monitor “patients” under house arrest that have tested positive for COVID-19, scrape travel history, and spy on your violations of gathering and even being closer to others than their “social distancing” mandates. The plan was to label violators of social distancing as terrorists, but the plan may have been foiled by many who were supposed to be enforcing the draconian measures but were caught violating their own rules such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo and Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan.

And then there’s contact tracing where they will track your every move to see if you came into contact with someone with the virus, but it’s for your own good! Read the CDC guidelines on contact tracing. Read HR 6666 and the new Hero Bill. Try to figure out EXACTLY how the tracing program works. Count how many holes there are in the Swiss Cheese. The bottom line is: they’ll do what they can get away with. They’ll make up reasons for doing it. Contact tracing is just the forward edge of a MUCH larger program of surveillance.

In March 2021, former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a member of the board of directors of Pfizer and Illumina, dropped some serious truth bombs (which were mysteriously edited out of CNBC’s clip covering his comments) saying that within a few weeks, it could be “obvious” that masks may be safely removed, and even more significantly, following CDC’s flip-flopping and confusing rules this week on distancing in schools:

This six-foot distancing requirement has probably been the single costliest mitigation tactic that we’ve employed in response to COVID… and it really wasn’t based on clear science… we should have readjucated this much earlier.


  1. https://www.aier.org/article/the-2006-origins-of-the-lockdown-idea/
  2. ZeroHedge
  3. Infowars

The video below by Paul Joseph Watson brilliantly highlights the “new normal” insanity of social distancing that is creating a society so pedantic and cringeworthy, it’s almost like it’s a tactic to make us want to stay indoors forever. (Warning for some offensive language)