Part 23: Saint Fauci Meets Oliver Cromwell
Covid-mania resembles the Puritan mania of the mid-1600s
Earlier posts »Intro:About »1:Born Of Lockdown »2:Need For Naturalism »3:Equivalence Of God & Nature »4:Special Role Of Science »5:Right & Wrong Tech »6:Smartphones & Covid Vaccines »7:Irredeemable Tech »8:Tower Of Babel »9:Eden & The Fall »10:Mary Shelley: Prophet? »11:Naturalist Congregation »12:First Three Beliefs »13:Natural Health »14:Trinity & Six Freedoms »15:Importance of Continuity »16:Chicken Little »17:New Fundamentalism »18:Obstacles to Naturalism »19:Mr. Bean, Proto-Naturalist »20:Body Modification »21:Probioticists & Antibioticists »22:Puritans Of Environment & Public Health
In Part 21, I outlined how “antibioticism” and “probioticism” developed as unconscious philosophies, beginning in the 1990s. To summarize, an antibiotic attitude is averse to nature and often seeks to eradicate some component of it, whereas a probiotic outlook values nature and seeks to work with it. Which do you generally dislike more on your hands: chemical cleaners or dirt? If you answer “dirt” you’re likely more of an antibioticist, concerned about germs. If you answered “chemical cleaners”, you’re likely more of a probioticist, concerned about the health consequences of tech products. As a Naturalist, I certainly lean to the probiotic side, though I must admit to some lapses.
In Part 22 I described that, in recent decades, antibioticism has morphed into a more methodical outlook, a new Puritanism. Antibiotic proponents of today resemble Puritans of centuries ago in their zealous efforts to eradicate what they view as evil. In modern times, this means not only the eradication of dirt and germs from your hands, but also the removal of other things in the environment that are considered bad, things like “invasive” blackberry bushes, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, bacteria in wild falcon nests, and “dangerous” mosquitoes (all of which I have used as examples).
With such eradication activities, antibiotic Puritans demonstrate that they are being virtuous because their efforts appear to be in support of civic efforts such as environmental stewardship or public health.
Often, the ideas of guilt and atonement figure strongly in Puritanical beliefs. In today’s Puritanism, human guilt is a crucial theme in climate change. For example, this 2024 study found that human breath itself is a measurable contributor to climate change. Thus we are all guilty, killing the planet through our very act of breathing.
The latest—and so far the largest—manifestation of modern Puritanism involves the human microbiome: Covid Puritanism follows the same three-point logic as the earlier “blackberry scares” and climate-change Puritanism that I described in Part 22.
A problem is noted which has been caused by human activity. In this case, the problem was a covid pandemic caused either by eating pangolins at the Wuhan Wet Market (as some may still assert), or by the release of investigational viruses at the Wuhan Institute. According to this doctrine, we all shared the guilt of potentially passing the virus on to others around us through our normal daily activities.
“Enlightened” humans have the ability to design solutions for the problem, solutions which usually involve the eradication of something present in nature. In this case, public health officials at the CDC and the WHO promoted lockdowns, masks, and genetic-therapy jabs, all of which promised to eradicate the covid virus.
The general population is assumed to have a moral obligation to atone for the problem by complying with this solutions created by the enlightened leaders. During covid, most of us lined up for the jabs, and many people pressured others to get the jabs and wear masks. The population generally complied with closure orders, sacrificing their own welfare for the sake of the effort.
The mania of Covid Puritanism more-or-less held sway in all the developed world from 2020 through 2022, and is still with us to some extent. It has some very interesting parallels with the brief Puritan regime of Oliver Cromwell, after he took control in England, during the years 1653 till 1658. The obvious parallels include lockdowns, business closures, banning of gatherings, cancellation of holidays, closing of many churches, censorship, etc:
“Pointless enjoyment was frowned upon. Cromwell shut many inns and the theatres were all closed down. Most sports were banned. Boys caught playing football on a Sunday could be whipped as a punishment. Swearing was punished by a fine, though those who kept swearing could be sent to prison…. Most forms of [Sunday] work were banned. Women caught doing unnecessary work on the Holy Day could be put in the stocks. Simply going for a Sunday walk... could lead to a hefty fine. To keep the population’s mind on religion, instead of having feast days to celebrate the saints... one day in every month was a fast day–you did not eat all day.” (see Life In England Under Cromwell)
Of course, Cromwell was not trying to eradicate a virus—the concept of a virus wasn’t even known at the time. Instead, his stated aim was to eradicate Catholic, Anglican, and non-Biblical influences in English society. Given the huge gap in both time and purpose between Cromwell’s rules and the pandemic rules of the CDC or the WHO, it’s amazing how much these “solutions” overlap. Both essentially are geared toward regulating and minimizing social contact in the population. In Cromwell’s regime, people were allowed to go to Puritan churches. During the covid regime, we were allowed to meet in Zoom. It seems that the underlying purpose of both efforts were the same: minimizing popular opposition and maximizing surveillance and control.
The efficient beauty of such control is that, once the ball of Puritanism is rolling, it doesn’t take much effort to maintain control, at least initially. Many in the population adopt the prevalent ideology and make it their inward mission. Many Englanders during Cromwell’s time believed that they could purify and sanctify themselves through self-denying practices. Similarly, many citizens of developed countries in 2020-2022 felt that they were morally superior by masking, getting the vaccines, and isolating. During both eras, this core of true believers could be depended on to reinforce the ideology whenever doubt, opposition, or “incorrect” behaviors surfaced. These true believers became a sort of informal, vigilante police squad, making sure that others were pressured to follow the rules too.
Predictably, Cromwell’s ideology unraveled. It became known that he himself held lavish parties for his own social circle and participated in his own favorite sports, while denying such activities to others. Hatred toward him multiplied. Does any of that sound familiar? Remember the parties and trysts held by lockdown-supporting leaders such as Deborah Birx, Obama, Newsom, British PM Boris Johnson, Neil Ferguson—and others—while they were telling us to skip or minimize our own social gatherings?
Briefly after Cromwell’s death came a change of regime, and Cromwell’s body was exhumed from an honorable gravesite. His cadaver was put on trial, found guilty of treason, and symbolically executed by hanging. His head was publicly displayed for years afterward, and his body disposed of. The pendulum of history certainly can swing. As of this writing in mid-2024, the pendulum has not swung back as far with respect to covid ideology, but a counter-swing has certainly begun. Politicians that were critical of covid policy are gaining traction. “Saint Fauci” himself has even endured a bit of public shaming in public hearings. What will eventually happen to Fauci and other architects of Covid Puritanism? How will they be remembered 20 years from now?
The mistake of both cults—the modern Covidians and the Cromwellians of yore—is most obviously simple overreach. Both had an unrealistic faith in their ability to change human nature. The natural human penchant for social contact and enjoyment can’t be denied for long periods, so imposition of anti-social policies—no matter how idealistic and good the arguments for them might seem—can’t be maintained forever. Another problem is the inevitable selfishness that develops with such leaders. The longer that such regimes persist, the more it becomes apparent that the leaders are not even themselves following their own rules. Morale and communication fails. The tower collapses (see Part 8 )
Naturalists, with simple insights, can resist the temptation to fall into the self-destructive delusions of Puritanism. One such delusion is that humans can truly eradicate anything in nature or culture. Whatever the “evil” thing is, it, or its successors will return. A smart Naturalist will steer clear of anyone who asserts that “eradication” is a good solution for any problem.
A related delusion of the Covid Puritans is that enlightened public health experts are stewards of nature, more powerful and wiser than nature itself. Covid Puritans grant these experts the mandate to manipulate the essentials of nature, and to “repair” nature with inventions such as mRNA vaccines. In contrast, a Naturalist correctly sees this delusion as upside-down and arrogant. A Naturalist instead reveres nature because nature is God. Naturalism sees that it is not our place to manipulate God by violating the inherent wholeness and uniqueness of natural genetics or of our own intact immune systems (see Part 13).
A Naturalist’s duty is rather to cease meddling with the essentials of nature when he/she becomes aware of doing that (Part 9). In so doing, a Naturalist remains humble toward nature, and avoids participation in building a Tower of Babel.
For its part, nature is forgiving, and is quite capable of repairing itself from any harms that we cause to it, intentionally or unintentionally. All it takes is time. Nature—whose essence is limitless—has an unending supply of time. We need only to be properly in awe of its power and persistence.