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 (indeed aggressively!) trivial distractions from mundane living - as when YouTubers film themselves acting their emotions on "unboxing" consumer items.
(Indeed; my YouTube feed shows that "so-and-so Reacts To such-and-such" is a large and popular genre on this platform - and no doubt others.)
The Trouble Is at the other end; 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 subsequent multi-million-person Peck - a subject about which I "reacted" and 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 (and never shall).
We know (at least, I feel that I know, because it is not a secret) that the 2020 global lockdown event in "response" was in some general sense planned. But probably that is all we do know, for sure.
More exactly the response was definitely planned - including the Peck (which was several or many agents, seemingly), because the Peck 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, something was launched, 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 as-planned; because there was no highly-lethal and highly-transmissible agent (or, perhaps, only a very little of it) - 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.
The observed and reported data 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 of the Birdemic itself (as distinct from the response it it) 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 it just didn't have a high mortality.
And (if so) exactly then some possible questions (much discussed!) include: where did this putative new agent come-from; was it natural or contrived; how and why was it released?
How was the media coverage managed? How much reportage was completely fake (did not happen IRL) and was instead enacted; how much did happen but was done deliberately?
And, on top; how much was indeed spontaneously happening (as reported), but distorted and amplified and misrepresented by reportage?
Then the questions of actual human pathology - sickness and mortality.
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 (i.e. by "the Birdemic"), and how much by the "response" to the Birdemic (i.e. lockdowns, distancing, masking, swabbing, gross neglect etc).
The response (which we know was pre-planned) was claimed to be working against suffering and death - but the response certainly must have caused some, much, or perhaps most of the suffering and deaths attributed to the Birdemic-itself.
And if the response caused most of the suffering and death, then was this s&d an accidental (deluded or incompetent) by-product, or was mass s&d strategically intended as part of "the plan"?
And if the suffering and death was indeed strategically intended - then did the strategy succeed?... Did the 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 instead actually support the Establishment agenda.
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) the reality of the Birdemic: i.e. it implicitly believes the official story that there was indeed a highly lethal and infectious agent whose genetic sequence is known.
Or; dissent over the nature and effectiveness of lockdowns or distancing, often accepts the assumption that 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).
Whereas, if there was no significant reality to the Birdemic in the first place; then no response was ever necessary in the first place; which means that a response was actively contra-indicated (given that the scale and nature of a social (indeed international) response in terms of major social change; was itself inevitably itself bound to become a significant cause of disease and death.
So dissent, opposition, analysis - may quite easily end-up supporting and sustaining the very agenda it tries (or appears to try) to oppose.
Especially when the nature or reality of The Problem is not-really-known, and perhaps unknowable.
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 absolutely 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 of possible realities extends from nothing at all having happened (total fakery), through levels such as the event being real but staged or permitted, to the event being factually (more or less) as-described - but the interpretation of that event being dishonestly 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 be being manipulated in ways we do not detect, and may therefore do more harm than good.
No comments:
Post a Comment