I never imagined that when totalitarianism came, it would be possible due to half the population being in favor of it.
Terrorism operates from a base of support in the community. Otherwise it would be starved out, and left without support.
The way in which such support is gained and given can be deceptive.
State terrorism is a puppet or captured state by global financial and corporate interests that regulates and manipulates the community or social narratives in such a way as to starve out a free awareness and support for either open questioning or active challenge to the imposing of a control agenda.
The outrage and indeed grief, within our current narrative identity also blocks our capacity to recognise what is happening - except in reactive terms.
Though I can write to what lies beneath, it is unlikely to be recognisable within our current reaction. The need NOT to know operates below the level or surface awareness that we call 'conscious or waking' life.
If NOT knowing is believed to save your life - then whatever masking narrative is set to limit against (fear of) total loss is invested with all the power fear gives it.
When we are identified in fear-reactive defences we are running on deep patterns of survival strategy (that I associate with separation trauma).
That the UN WHO and countless other fronting organisations for masked control agenda set out such agenda (in doublespeak or PR), and implement it as forms of increasing regulatory capture - that run alongside narratives that are socially engineered - is not the whole operation. Our psychology is the other essential part. (Though I prefer psychic-emotional responsibility to 'psychology' that carries a sense of distantiation set as if in authority over the mind),
Implicit in what I wrote is some acknowledgement of the wish for control - set as if apart from and over the life that we are. We all have it - but would not get anywhere if we bluntly sought to control anyone - and so we are all experts in the masking and manipulation of communication and relationship so as to evade or achieve outcomes that protect a core sense of survival under threat - that in ways we are not aware protect and persist the fear through the very defences, conditionings and 'normal' that then operate autonomously.
I may add that existential threat is not escaped by resorts that became military, medical and other industrial complex of seemingly overwhelming leverage - for what else would drive such a disciplined multi-generational protection racket of private agenda set parasitically over the lives of all? Fear and control are flip sides of each other. When does fear become recognisable as the Call to Love instead of the Call to War?
In Germany there is a movement of resistance that is active through the resort to legal challenges that a commenter indicates as being founded in love, because only love can protect us from the hate and vengeance that would render us immediately manipulatable.
Love's honesty may be anything but comfortable - but then true feedback is not just what we want to see or hear or know - but abides what we actively wanted NOT to know. The word 'love' is devalued by masking in its forms - but that does not mean the underlying virtue is no longer true. Masking in virtue is a theme of our time, and yet reacting against a sense of denial or hypocrisy seen in others is hardly witnessing to the virtues of truth if it merely generates a polarised identity of judgement.
It is said - 'by their light ye shall know them' and more than this - they shall know themselves.
I do not pretend to not be challenged - but the fear has been brought out into the open in ways that is distressing to encounter - and yet whatever the symptoms presented, the patient is not the disease. The capacity to release judgements and look past a personal sense is opening to an impersonal love. This is of a different order to exercising a private sense of personal authority. It is a true calling.
The ability of the wish to set the definition for evils - such as threats that set the call for action in defence - as 'the good' (including the means of diagnosing, testing and treating), is like having access to the source code on which we all depend and run as a socially cohesive order.
It used to be understood that naming was 'spelling' - but we really are operating under the spell of our own investment and adaptation to narratives in which fear and control deny a true significance of shared worth and meaning. I hold the latter to be the practical expression of a true 'Good' - while the narrative capture to lovelessness and fear seeks to mask in the seeming 'good' set against the perceived 'evil' or threat - that actively supports and persists fear - repackaged as control' agenda, under some sense of having mitigated, protected themselves from or escaped a greater terror - against which a bubble of a life must lockstep to armour against and deny - even eradicate!
If surviving as a bubbled and lock-stepped and masked data-unit or asset within a biosecurity state is not worthy of adaptation and allegiance - even with helicopter money and a relocation to screened virtuality - then our bubble itself has to be re-evaluated. And this is what we normally take to be our self. If in some other ways than the one you met, I also have invested identity in mistaken allegiance to presumed 'good' - then no one will be able to tell me or get through - unless perhaps they find me in true sense of shared appreciation in which a shared willingness allows some unselfconscious honesty in which some recognition can stir - without triggering the complex of defences that is running 'autonomously' or subconsciously. This means I have to get past or through my own - at least to a moment of true willingness. Life can just happen. Control is not what it seems.
I appreciate the need to limit fear and fretting - but the blatant incongruity of this government web page - I saw it the day after it went up - was starkly schizophrenic.
My sense was that the legal advisers always seek to ensure indemnity against future claims.
The scare story operates the narrative under which to effect regulatory capture. As soon as this is set, the story is rolled back - but without publicity. So there is a recognisable insider 'science' and mainstreamed narrative of regulations of absurd laws and guidances that are often NOT legally binding and therefore the government is not liable for closing the schools (as was asserted within Simon Dolan's case).
The use of narrative devices and manipulations seeks to hack the democratic ideal. Look around you. People are induced to consent to their own enslavement and destruction by others who seek to gain or profit thereby. If some of those others believe that they save the world by doing so - they will serve as rank and file for 'soft wars' by deceit that are no less destructive than battlefields and blanket bombing.
The corruptions that effect our destruction target key institutions and vectors of influence. I prefer to uncover the underlying fears than project evil conspiracies - but I also see the new economic corporatism as a parasitic infection that operates anti-life agenda in allegiance to a blind 'god' of control set as power or priority over all else.
I have read that since WW2, open challenge to 'germ theory' within the medical profession is effectively penalised or walled out. Power is revealed by what we are not allowed to openly speak of or question.
Settled Science (sic) or institutional consensus is a very dangerous basis from which to operate - because it effectively generates dogma of belief set outside the realm or right to question - regardless the evidence or empirical anomalies - that have to be ignored, smeared or ridiculed - or covered and fudged over by ridiculous or absurd theories given funding and protection BECAUSE they are protecting the funding of a model that serves private agenda over the common good.
Dr Cowan has very steady and clear intent to address certain underlying issues without getting into emotionally reactive conjecture. He also operates outside mainstream allopathic 'standard of care' and so has more freedom to offer critical perspectives - as does Dr Andrew Kaufman - who also offers very calm and clear critical perspective upon many fundamental beliefs that are deeply embedded in our current systems, institutions and corporate investments.
The ability to question 'reality' or the desire to truly understand, is part of who and what we are.
The polarising of defensive controls and the exploration of the More of who and what we are is part of our self-consciousness. We have to integrate what we uncover to our sense of self and world as part of reintegration to a new perspective. Growing pains!