Constant manipulation of the masses by the minority
Covid, gender identity, climate change and armed conflicts
Covid
Like it or not, Covid as a disease is a minority issue. The WHO itself admits as much.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death
Irrespective of what people who don’t cite evidence “feel” or wish to present as “fact”, or whatever bots, 77th brigade and all other such mechanisms including lockstep media propaganda wish to have people accept as primary evidence, the following is undeniable and baked into all forms of dodgy Covid data, globally:
The number of otherwise healthy people who have died directly and solely from Covid is incredibly low, as indicated by FOI requests from various sources that show, under this strict definition, almost no such deaths have occurred. By this strict definition, deaths directly and solely from Covid are less than 10% of published death figures. Covid survivability has always been extremely high, above 99.8%, even though successful early treatment has been denied by the authorities to most of the Western world.
The number of people, globally, who have died from any expansive definition of a Covid death is now technically a WHO leading cause of global death but only when such a loose and indefensible definition is employed. By the WHO’s own figures and garbage definitions, 6.3m deaths have occurred globally in 2.5 years, which would place the loosest form of death “with” Covid into sixth position on its own global leading causes of death, based on 2019 numbers. Strip Covid deaths down to a strict definition and it would disappear from the WHO table of medical causes of death.
Regarding definitions, the WHO still maintains the following definitions of a Covid case.
From this table, the WHO claims that 571m confirmed cases of Covid have occurred. Case numbers hinge on a minimum of a test, irrespective of symptoms, and fails to account for myriad flaws in the tests, testing process and strategy. These are all minority numbers.
Minority x minority = mass influence
In Covid, an ultra minority of power players have politically exploited circumstances that have provably, mathematically, affected only a small minority of the global population in order to get the unaffected majority to do what the ultra minority wanted.
Covid policy as expressed and enforced by the ultra minority fundamentally demands the ongoing use of specific medical interventions in the form of gene therapies that have now proven near zero benefit - and likely pure harm - the payment for which is the imposed burden on society by the ultra minority.
Gender identity
At some point in recent history, some unknown minority began to assert that there are more than two “genders”.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=list+of+genders&t=brave&ia=web
While political “discussions” based upon this assertions now “rage”, no one is asking where the increasing list of genders came from and why it is suddenly legitimate.
Why not? What degree of legitimate scrutiny has that list been subjected to? Zero. What is the scale of the transgender problem in society? It is an absolutely minority issue that is garnering disproportionate political and policy attention.
GB News’ Dan Wootton is hosting “debates” around both gender and racial politics that are nonsensically idiotic. One speaker claimed that this poster:
is acceptable, but one that said “hey, gay men, hand over the [insert thing here]” isn’t because straight white men are not a minority. That was the speaker’s entire response. A minority can effectively do more and say more (irrespective of justification) because it is a minority. This makes absolutely zero sense and could be used as a justification for practically anything, including the defence of Anders Breivik’s actions of mass murder in that he was some form of minority in his beliefs and on that basis alone, he is legitimised in the absence of any other scrutiny. This dearth of intelligence is being given air time which in itself legitimises such low brow “conversation”.
A minority of adults are now seeking to influence not just adult society but other people’s children via all information transmission channels, including direct communication through Tik Tok and other forms of social media to which children have direct access and are directly influenced by.
The basic justification for any of this phenomenon is the notion that literally a person personally “feels” or “thinks” about themselves and their gender identity in a particular way at a particular time, however they arrived at that point. From there, a minority are now seeking to radically amplify these concepts into whole of society policies without any form of rational analysis, evidence and debate. There may be no other more subjective and minority issue in my lifetime.
Interestingly, gender reassignment requires both surgery and long term drug use. So too would conventional medical notions of mental health care that might be associated with gender identity issues, including the consequences of re-transition.
Climate change
The prevailing “long term” narrative around man made climate change is, we are to believe, unassailable, irrespective of counter-narrative data, evidence or behavioural contradictions. This is compounded by a total lack of education of the masses around a very simple concept of what “climate” actually is and how good the human race is at understanding it.
If the human race adequately understands “climate” in totality, it would be able to accurately predict it. No human prediction of climate change has been proven correct, beyond saying that in a very short time frame of less than 50 years, global temperatures may rise. The shortcomings of any such vague predictions are totally whitewashed.
Corporate behaviours and that of the minority rich are totally at odds with what is being commanded upon the masses.
Energy production and consumption is the dead giveaway in all of this, along with the money trail that, as always, leads straight from the public purse and citizens’ pay cheques to the coffers of corporations and their owners.
“Climate” as Jordan Peterson points out, is everything. “Climate modelling” is the modelling of everything. We can’t model everything, so the models are wrong. This is borne out by the failure of climate predictions, including sea level rises.
Man made climate change is, it is said, driven by population level and its corollary in the form of energy and resource production and consumption. Within that is pollution in all forms and the associated environmental costs. Within this big picture paradigm, corporate behaviour is another dead giveaway.
The production, sale and consumption of two things - bottled water and children’s toys - are the absolute antithesis of the climate change model. Both require major resource extraction in the form of energy, oil, and water and more, throughout the entire supply and demand paradigm. There is literally zero need for bottled water, which is shipped across the globe in plastic. All that is required is for money to be invested to raise the global standard of water supply at the tap to reach a certified standard and for the distribution networks to be expanded to an adequate scale. Tap water in the UK is fully available so anyone with a thirst can have that thirst sated. Whether they wish to carry a container with them is personal choice. Were adequate investment made across just the UK, the entire nation’s supply of bottled water and all of the associated full spectrum costs could be eradicated, including the energy and resource requirements. Children’s toys are predominantly plastic, made in and shipped from many countries. They have an extremely short lifespan and are not specifically reprocessed. Why not simply ban the import of children’s toys and enforce the mass recycling of all plastic children’s toys in country to manufacture new ones? If any children’s toys end up in the waste i.e. landfill cycle, then there is an open pollution loop. There are enough children’s toys in the UK to recycle on an ongoing basis to meet the “need” for such things.
What the climate change narrative does is command and set the masses on to predictable patterns of enforced consumption and behaviours, which are the optimum conditions for predictable business planning.
Armed conflict
No war in my lifetime that was prosecuted by the West has been legitimate or provably beneficial to the mass populations where those wars were prosecuted. Further, they cannot be convincingly shown to have benefitted mass populations across the globe. Increasingly, they can all be shown to be a simple form of business and wealth transfer initiated by a minority who have the power to commence the transfer of public money into the hands of an ultra minority of stakeholders in the military industrial security complex. No private corporation involved in the business of war ever funded the wars their business interests were served by.
The full spectrum of the war business is probably the top contributor to climate change in terms of energy, resources and pollution, yet the anti-war movement is a minority affair.
The business of war is at total odds with the notion of man made climate change, yet no climate change strategy cites the cessation of the arms industry and armed conflict itself.
Opinion is an echo chamber
Mass populations allow themselves to be manipulated consciously and unconsciously. The reasons why and the methods by which this is achieved range from the simple to the complex.
I would argue that a fundamental starting point is the minds of the individuals themselves.
When it comes to the big ticket items above, there should surely be a fundamental mental realisation in the minds of the masses: if I don’t know anything about these topics, why should I arbitrarily believe anything anyone tells me?
Being aware of one’s ignorance, accepting it and then deciding whether or not to address that ignorance for some reason (that will largely be selfish before anything else) is fundamental. So too is the realisation of choices made in forming an opinion and how that is done. Evaluation of the validity of one’s own opinion is a form of self-critique that, I believe, is fundamental to the process of critical thinking, which is demonstrably absent from large parts of society when it comes to big ticket items that can be measured in tangible individual behaviours and opinions.
“Belief” is convenient. The delivery of other’s opinions into your mind for you to emotively accept or reject is a direct and convenient circumvention of the process of learning and critical thinking. This, for me, partially explains why easily accessible information takes the form it does: uniform, repetitive and simplified, irrespective of the real complexity of the issues at hand.
If one were to consider why GB News is presenting the type and form of “debate” around any of the above the topics that it does, one would immediately run into major questions of intellectual inadequacy and justifiable and proportionate relevance.
Watching Dan Wootton’s show in order to sample its contents has literally made me more stupid than I was before watching it. No one engaged in the “debate” on gender politics or Tory leadership, for example, has presented anything other than generalised, bite sized and incoherent assertions and opinions with reference to practically no evidence. Under such circumstances, what is the value of such “debate”? If the topic is complex and no speaker can talk for more than 15 seconds, that’s all you need to know about the value of such a debate.
Wootton’s show has, wilfully, engaged in “debate” regarding the “Tory party leadership contest” as though the process and the people in it are somehow meaningfully legitimate. It has in no way raised questions about what exactly politics and political processes such as a “leadership contest” actually are in reality. It is simply, like all other media, trapping viewers in a grossly superficial noise box that perpetuates the false notion that who and what is being discussed is important or of real meaning.
Another GB News show I saw whose presenter’s name I never knew and therefore can’t forget, covered with two nameless pundits monkeypox, covid, Ukraine and other things. All that was spouted were superficial opinions that none of the people speaking had sufficient knowledge in to challenge shortcomings in the others’ opinions. What purpose does this serve? Even amongst these three people, occasionally one would talk themselves into a corner or quickly be put in one with no requirement to argue out of it before the subject was changed.
Another punditry show flagged this Daily Mail headline:
Tory donor Rami Ranger claims that Britain will be seen as “racist” if Conservative members fail to elect Rishi Sunak as the party’s and the country’s first non-white leader.
None of the three people on the show attacked directly or rejected the fundamental construct of the headline. Instead, they pandered to it as though there was enough legitimacy in the headline to deserve superficial contextualisation and legitimacy. None of them had the gumption to point out that if the statement was worth anyone’s time then it would mean that based on the entire course of British politics, Britain is already proven to be and considered undeniably racist, by Ranger’s own standards.
Further, what that headline also means is that a political leadership position can and should be given to someone based on their apparent ethnic background relative to the other candidates, irrespective of their acculturalisation. Apart from being born of Hindu parents of Punjabi descent, Sunak is as British as any other British citizen and of a far more privileged educational background than almost all others. In order for his cultural and racial heritage to matter, one would have to somehow evaluate the primacy of it over his entire existence as a British citizen, where Britain is a significantly multi-cultural society. What this headline suggests is that Sunak is effectively entitled to the PM job because he is non-white and the other candidates aren’t, and that characteristic is the defining means of entitlement to the job in question for fear of a nation being labeled racist by non specific entities for whom Ranger can in no way claim to have the ability to speak. From this, one could surmise that leadership candidate strategy can be played by simply inserting a tactical minority then playing the race card either implicitly or explicitly. Over time, this would manifest in increasingly minority heavy candidates, with the most minority jamming to be picked each time until things came full circle and a white male was sufficiently minority of race, gender or time since last in office to then deserve the position. Clearly, such a set up is utter nonsense.
None of the people discussing this headline went anywhere near these two issues. One of them mentioned that there will always be bad faith actors who try to crowbar in some aspect of identity politics into politics itself.
The puerility of the headline and their conversation is mind-numbing. It is directly comparable to the idea that Hilary Clinton should have been voted in “because she is a woman” or that Obama should have been voted in because he would be “the first black president”. Both of these things, looked at through some lenses, are sexist and racist respectively, because they distinguish a person on the grounds of their biological sex or skin colour, and they discriminate against the competition on the same grounds. I defy anyone to attribute Clinton’s or Obama’s historic performance to either their gender or race and show proof that justifies such attribution.
Job applications can and should pay zero attention to gender or race and focus solely on a defensible, rational skills-based selection process to put a person with suitable capability and hopefully acceptable potential (howsoever judged) into a position where they are tested and judged on an ongoing basis without reference to their gender or race. Obviously, none of this applies to politics, least of all the “defensible, rational skills-based selection process to put a person with suitable capability and hopefully acceptable potential (howsoever judged) into a position” bit.
The masses have next to no ability to counter the mechanisms that the ultra minority use to construct and maintain all of the above in order to effect meaningful changes in the systems of control, power and resource allocation.
The masses are incapable of effectively forming the kinds of power that would meaningfully re-engineer such systems because they are led to believe and participate in the very system that robs them of such power.
On that basis, selfish apathy focussed on existing in a coffin shaped box that is made tighter and tighter by the ultra minority is, arguably, what modern life has become. This concept manifests directly in rising property prices.
Recent events in Sri Lanka prove this. If the uprising was genuine but it only achieved the installation of another WEF actor into a leadership position and it did not stop the use of a digital identity system to buy goods and services, then it had no meaning or impact on the ultra minority and no net benefit for the masses. It was a theatrical exchange or a single wave crashing against rocks.
The scale of change required is phenomenal. A key measure of whether the masses get close to achieving anything like meaningful change is the degree of counterforce that is deployed against them by the ultra minority, before you ever start looking at which other ultra minorities are involved, and how, in the changes in question.
Is there a chart which indicates where C19 is compared to other 'killer' diseases?
Search engine?