Much of the public space is taken up by people "reacting" - especially to news and current affairs; including a wide rage of stuff from celebrity gossip to (what are presented as) Serious Analysis of the Big Issues of our day.
I have, myself, done a lot of this - over the decades.
AT the trivial end of the spectrum; this kind of reaction material is dealing with obviously (aggressively!) trivial distractions from mundane living - as when YouTubers film themselves acting their emotions on "unboxing" consumer items.
The Trouble Is at the other end, the would-be serious analysis of the Big issues and events of the times; because that is where people are trying to reflect and to work-out their own basic stance on Life and how we ought to lead it.
Take for instance the 2020 Birdemic and the multi-million-person Peck - a subject about which I wrote a great deal at the time, and since.
The Trouble Is that we don't really know what was going on - even at the most basic level. We know (it is not a secret) that the 2020 global lockdown event in "response" was in some sense planned - and probably that is all we do know.
The response was planned - including the peck (which was many agents, seemingly), because it had had already been made; but what the Birdemic event itself was is something about which I don't think anybody is at all sure.
I don't doubt there was a plan, and that there was some kind of deliberate "seeding" of the environment with some-thing, some modified-agent that was intended to be highly infectious and highly lethal and lead to a real "emic".
But if so, it seems that the plan did not work; because there was no highly-lethal agent - and it is possible that the "cases" (including deaths) were nearly-all (or in some times and places literally All) a combination of other agents and no agent.
These can easily be explained in terms of false attributions of causes to symptoms and death; and false positives from signs and tests that were wrongly and dishonestly deployed and interpreted
This "nothing-burger" understanding is quite possible.
But so also are many other scenarios, at more and more "superficial" levels; where various parts of the official story, some of the official data, are factually correct (even when the implications of these facts are false and manipulative).
Maybe there was a real new agent that spread around the world infectiously, but just didn't have a high mortality.
And exactly where did this putative new agent comes from, was it natural or contrived, how and why released?
How was the media coverage managed - how much was completely fake (did not happen) and enacted; how much did happen but was done deliberately? How much was spontaneously happening, but distorted and amplified by reportage?
Then the actual human pathology; aside from how many of the attributions of causality were lies or mistaken; there is the Huge question regarding how much suffering and death was caused by the putative agent, and how much by the "response" (lockdowns, distancing, masking, swabbing etc).
The response (which we know was pre-planned) was claimed to be working against suffering and death - but it may have caused (indeed certainly must have caused) some or perhaps most of the suffering and death.
And if the response caused most of the suffering and death, then was this strategically intended?
And if the suffering and death was indeed strategically intended - then did the strategy succeed? Did actual amount of extra suffering and death match up to what was planned?
My point here is to emphasise just some of the uncertainties that surround "reacting" to current affairs; and the implication that some of the reactions that are intended to be sceptical - and intend (or claim to intend) to oppose the Establishment agenda will actually support it.
For instance; analysis and scepticism regarding the official story of the origins and mode of spread of the Birdemic; usually accepts (or takes for granted) that the Birdemic the official story that there was indeed a highly lethal and infectious agent whose genetic sequence is known.
Dissent over the nature and effectiveness of lockdowns or distancing, often accepts the assumption atht some kind of general government-imposed societal response to the Birdemic was necessary (despite no evidence from official data of unusually-high mortality rates before the lockdown/ distancing).
So dissent, opposition, analysis - may quite easily end-up supporting and sustaining the very agenda it tries (or appears to try) to oppose.
In a nutshell; when we react to anything we know of, or think we understand, only or mainly via officialdom and the mass media; we need to bear in mind that there are a vast range of possible realities, and in reacting to one, we are always assuming another.
And the range extends from nothing at all happening, through levels such as the event being staged or permitted, to the event being factually (more or less) as-described but the interpretation being manipulative.
All we can ever know for sure is that (as of 2026) the official story is always false - but we can seldom know in what way false, so our reactions may manipulated in ways we do not detect, and may therefore do more harm than good.
No comments:
Post a Comment