Polarising Reaction as a Contagious Identity in Conflict

 Polarising Reaction as a Contagious

 Identity in Conflict 

 

I wrote this into Mike Stone's Viroliegy site with regard for the schism opening along the claim of 'no virus' and the denigration and denial of such as worthy or meaningful. As I make clear the issue is of the freedom to question bent & bought science, as is used to usurp and lockstep social institutions under regulatory capture on pretexts of risk modelling set on false premises.

https://mikestone.substack.com/p/on-notice/

 

Having returned from a freedom festival in which Robin Monotti participated as a 'panel speaker' ergo spokesperson. He had some interesting cultural inputs, but in the same event I saw the 'virus question' being denigrated as a divisive distraction by Tess Lawrie.
Patrick Henningson was there - very present and alive - but didn't as far as I recall engage this issue.
I had a distinct sense of a shared decision to suppress the 'virus' issue - which in terms of grass roots there was 'hot' - that is many felt it was a vital part of freedom to a new paradigm not regaining an old normal. We cant go back to unsee what we now see.

However Robin's tweet was a shock to read. Its as if he is identified within Operation Covid from the first while protesting against political measures & bad actors. I engaged many of his points. he doesn't engage or respond. I was not attacking his person but reaching to a meeting of minds.

But there is something I have some sympathy with in those who denigrate the 'no virus' and which frames Monotti's response; the shoutdown of "There is No Virus!" as a stock attack on anyone and anything NOT aligning in that view - often without any real engagement or support.
Frankly, if I was Pharma - nothing would serve to disrupt the virus questioning more than to polarise in a battle of wills from a virus-woke sense of moral superiority. But I don't think they need pay anyone to do this as polarising emotionally reactive identity is  a contagion that cares not what side or whatever conflict is involved. Heowever I also feel the emotional pain involved is deep and disturbing so I understand that anger leaks out and hopefully reveals that attacking the 'wrong' in others is not the way to undo the cultural beliefs that are more complex than 'being right' or limiting to a single issue as THE leading or determining basis for 'freedom'.

As I have said more than once - making a counterclaim to the virus claim is setting up an identity to defend, (& thus to double down in its terms when attacked), that can be easily and diversely engaged in false, diversionary and resource exhausting obfuscation and smear by those with enough resources to overwhelm & cast out not just the questioner but to bury the question - as in 'Wakefielded'.

So I invite refining our stance in terms of  holding and clearly communicating the rich perspective of lack of factual verification for the basis of virology and its spin off pharma & biologicals.
In my own 'furrow' I am always weaving tis within its larger context - because that  is what 'terrain' is - the larger context of which the specific event is an expression of.

Being 'right' is dangerous if it makes us blind or uncompassionate and reactive. Such as to leave no way for those defined 'wrong' to transition. But exactly that mindset is as tangible in the woke and in those claiming to be awake and no less in the agenda pushing of the top-down control mob.

I hold that love of truth opens to the truth of love and vice versa.
Robin sets great store by his 'lived experience' as a covid sufferer along with 'millions of others'.
This phrase is part of woke or disruptive ideology in setting interpretations of our reality over the right to question them. The protected or securitized narrative identity is the means for both masking loveless or manipulative agenda as well as claiming immunity from consequence. It is the necessary basis for tyranny by which a diversity of perspectives are reduced to a monoculture - that of course becomes unfit for life in its own term.

The right to question bent and bought science is the core factor that I hold the virus questions along with many other no less heavily invested and thus defended dogmas, models and applications for social and economic control.

The phrase Too Big To Fail was applied to Banksters - but is applicable to the entirety of a corrupted 'science' and manipulated currencies of thought that are shaped by 'the science' or rather by a technologism set in marketising and weaponising goals.

Is it possible to grow a movement of the freedom to question without being suppressed and denied - not necessarily by 'THEM' but by our own peers or brothers in a shared love of freedom from tyranny?
I don't know - but I live the movement of a reintegration of a mind of judgements to a felt discernment within life. Heart and mind as one.