Why engage with a lie as a having right to response?

 The framing narrative at lockdown sceptic articles (and many other commentators) plays the game of seeking and finding the same excuses for not looking at what is actually occurring.

'Conspiracy' is very simply the survival instinct of self interest in terms of our current and active conflicting self-definitions. That factions form against others is hardly a theory in terms of our own reactions.

As Laura indicated in an early chinwag with Dellingpole; the more invested in the establishment, the less able or willing to bring it, and therefore one's self, to a critical awareness of recognition that serves the release of a faulty misunderstanding and a better outcome for all.

So for all the gathering of perspectives here - the ongoing effect is to propagate and grow a captured opposition and I don't mean that this need be a result of conspiring to overtly or openly agree to such a role - though there are innumerable ways to signify an 'understanding'. I mean a delaying effect to the acceptance of what is, as the masking assertion of narrative led identity.

This is simply how our world operates, I say our world rather than biological or physical processes, because our world is predicated on the virtual modelling of 'what if' - given priority as a 'reality', over what is actually occurring as a whole.

I felt Sean Walsh's article to be one of the more practical to the recognising of a deeper current running beneath appearances. Whether people are ready for seeing this is perhaps how actively invested in conflicting factions and fictions as an ongoing addiction that provides a masking identity of a seeming protection that demands ongoing sacrifice of wholeness.

So if I am critical here it is not of any person but for a critical awareness of ourselves, without which conditioned or learned patterns operate without due oversight or conscious consent as an unwatched mind.

The whole business running on false presumptions, definitions and parameters is from reacting to perceived and believed appearances or communications FIRST and then bringing in a critical awareness that is already framed in what it can even think.

Is there anything in C19 narrative that can be taken as totally established fact?

The power of narrative or myth, is in casting out meanings through which to see and from which to identify. Yes in practical terms, we know that we age and die and we know respiratory diseases can lead to severe complications that can be fatal - as the manner and means of dying. The assertion of virus as THE causation is very heavily invested in, but a mass of fudge and superstition.

When a Model is seen to be the source of personal power and protection (as the established order), then the Model is protected by the sacrifice of truth - which means the denial of the living for the sake of a fear-invested system of relative personal gain or mitigation of pain, that incrementally ratchets it demands not only on others but on our self.

The hollowing out of life in expression to ghastly and absurd parody, reveals the active devices of attempt to hide a lack of substance.

A lack of substance, is also a lack of relational communication. The dissociation of asserted defence only uses the form of communication to block, disrupt and undermine communication to maintain its face of control.

So why engage with it as if it is a living right to response or sharing anything of worth?

Give only unto Caesar what is due - and free the heart from sacrificing into a destructive futility. 'Don't feed the troll' does not mean attack the troll as a means of claiming moral substance (sic). It means aligning and feeding the truly worthy rather than being split of from what truly moves you into factioned, divisive diversions.

Scepticism can be claimed as virtue in a shoal of gullibility, predated on by cynicism, masking as every kind of self-evasion.

But unwillingness to accept anything as true and act upon it, until research and enquiry uncover evidence of confirmation or otherwise, is the responsibility of free will.

Free will can be sacrificed again, again, and over again as a 'normal' of identifying in masks of convenience. And we can bubble together in self-reinforcing group-think of a seemingly superior judgement over outsiders and others.

But is this truly what we want?

Or do temporary expedients grow a mask we not only cant take off - but are so identified with, that it invisibly structures all that follows as a sort of scripted algorithm of logical inevitability?

There is no way 'back'. There never was a way back, but is there a way to release a false sense of possession and control for a relational honesty of our being.

Regardless whether we think to understand about what is now happening in our thinking, the very basis of what we held to be real is changed. The'stakeholders of the establishment are part of the image and not in command, but invested in control as the flipside to fear as a damning chaos of pain and loss.