* * *
Problem -> Reaction -> Solution
In other to "sell" us on its proposals, technocracy needs to scare us with some kind of bogeyman, like a sheepdog scares sheep into being herded.
In short, it utilizes the Hegelian Dialectic - also known as "Problem -> Reaction -> Solution".
Whatever changes it wants to make to the world, it orchestrates a way to make us ask for those changes, as a "solution" to some problem... which it invented, specifically for such a purpose.
First, it causes (or fabricates) the problem...
...so that we'll ask for (or at the very least, consent to) the so-called "solutions"...
...which are actually the changes it wanted all along.
The 2020 germ hysteria was quite simply the "problem" in the latest iteration of the dialectic. It's designed to win our consent for full-spectrum dominance of technocracy over the human body and society, in preparation for the planned Fourth Industrial Revolution.
"I'm having trouble understanding this "dialectic" thing. Can you give an example from the past, to show me how it works?"
One of the most famous recent examples was the major wave of militaristic imperialism and individual-rights-stomping known as the "War On Terror."
First, they decided what they wanted:
-An excuse to invade oil-and-mineral-rich countries to take control of their resources
-A military foothold in the Middle East for geopolitical dominance
-Huge profits for defense-contractors
-An excuse to rescind the right to Privacy, and begin bulk-spying on everyone
-An excuse to rescind the right to "habeas corpus", and be able to hold people indefinitely without trial, charges, access to attorneys, etc.
-The social acceptance of torture
But the problem was, these changes would instantly repulse anyone who heard them - if offered "as is."
And therefore, an excuse was needed: Some problem that would make the public reach out and ask for these changes - even to beg for them - or at the very least submit to them when imposed.
And the "problem" invented was "terrorism."
Have you ever noticed that nobody talks about terrorism anymore? It's not on the news. The government never mentions it anymore. We don't see scary silhouettes of heavily-bearded, turban-wearing foreign men on the news reports every night. Not anymore.
What happened to all that?
It never existed in the first place. It was a fairy tale.
"A fairy tale? Are you saying terrorist attacks weren't real? Are you saying 9/11 wasn't real?"
These events were real, of course, and terrorism does exist. ,But it was never the all-encompassing "existential threat" that the elites told us it was. At no point in time did your probability of being blown up by a terrorist eclipse your probability of getting struck by lightning.
But the elites were able to convince you otherwise, by focusing the media cameras intensely on those few incidents, and splashing them all over the news, 24/7.
This is one of the media's oldest tricks, and it's called outlier hyperfocus. By focusing on outliers (rare events), and hyping them with constant, ubiquitous, emotionally charged, and virtually inescapable attention, they're able to make a statistical anomaly look like a commonality. We've covered this process extensively in Covid Part 1 - It's Gonna Be OK.
There was and still remains, violent "jihad" - but it was never a pandemic.
It never posed a threat to most of us the way the news and politicians made us believe. We never needed to duct-tape our effing windows.
Or start wars. Or give up our individual rights.
But therein lies the reason.
Terrorism hysteria was the "Problem" from the dialectic. The bogeyman. The sheep-dog. It was a means to an end.
Its purpose was to elicit the "Reaction" - i.e. fear - and thereby win our consent for the "Solutions" presented by the government: The Patriot Act, the extrajudicial detentions and assassinations, torture programs, international militarization, and the wars.
And as soon as that bogeyman stopped being useful, it stopped appearing, and all of those "scary bearded guy" stories stopped occupying our TV screens.
Once the "Reaction" was elicited and the "Solutions" achieved, the "Problem" was no longer needed!
"But we're still in the wars, and the empire is still expanding under the powers it acquired from back then, and we haven't gotten back any of the rights and civil liberties we surrendered - even after close to 20 years."
Of course! The changes wrought in response to the problem always outlive the problem. Because they're the whole point of it!
"But they told us it was only gonna be temporary. Remember that? They said it would be a short war... and the spying stuff would only be temporary..."
It's meant to be permanent.
It always is.
And this should clue you in... that the changes in response to the 2020 germ hysteria:
-the social distancing
-the travel restrictions
-the economic shutdown
-the treatment of everyone as a walking bio-terror suspect at all times
-the ability of governments to take ownership over the human body
...are all meant to be permanent too.
If they lied about it the last time (and all previous times), why should we trust them this time?
"I get what you're saying... But this time feels different! This time, it's scientists and doctors telling us!"
And last time, it was "security analysts" and "counterterrorism researchers" telling us. Don't you remember? It wasn't just Bush and Cheney, all by themselves. They had an army of "experts" to back up their claims.
The foremost experts in their field.
Just like now.
"But it just... FEELS different this time! It feels real!"
It felt "real" last time, too.
Psy-ops always "feel" real while you're in the midst of them.
Do you think everyone "knew" terrorism was a fake crisis, but still went along with the Bush agenda anyway?
Of course not. People went along because it felt real.
That's how effective the media's outlier hyperfocus is. We covered the process extensively in Part 1.
"I definitely see through the phony "terrorism" bullcrap! I'm smart, and progressive, and I don't believe everything the media says. I'm hip to the tricks, man. I know those other wars were psychological operations. But... I just... don't... think... *THIS* one is! This pandemic... it's a real threat, man! They're not hyping it! It's not another psyop!"
It's easy to see through a previous psyop. One you're not currently in.
Calling bullshit on a previous psyop from yesteryear doesn't make you special.
The question is: Can you call the same on a current one?
It's easy to look back on psyops of the past, and think "Yea, that was totally fake! I can't believe people fell for that!"
It's easy to think to yourself:
"I would have been on the good side."
"I would have been a dissenter."
"I would have seen through it."
"I would not have fallen for it."
It's easy to think that now, looking back on it, after the media has already stopped hyping it, and the collective emotional hysteria faded away years ago. It's easy to laugh at a psyop when you're on the outside of it.
But can you do so while you're still in it?