What is it that wakes people up?

And what keeps them sleeping?

Over the past few years many people have been given reason to question the information that has been presented to them by state officials and the corporate media. Other people have steadfastly refused to do so, to the point of defending what have often appeared to be contradictory or illogical edicts and behaviour. An often asked question among those who have abandoned their faith in government is what is it that separates these two groups? Why do some people 'wake up' when others, who are often from the same backgrounds, do not? There are many possible reasons, not all of which are applicable to each individual case.

The Asch conformity, Milgram, and Stanford prison experiments inform us that people have differing responses to peer pressure, and to being subject to, or in possession of authority. To the extent that these findings are accurate, it was found that most people succumb to those pressures. There is a sizeable minority who do not, but why?

In considering this issue the intention is not to be condemnatory or recriminatory towards the misled, but when considering issues of safety and well-being, awareness is objectively preferable to ignorance, as rationale is to unfounded fear. It is not possible to consider this subject from a neutral perspective. Either the state covid narratives are true or they are not. As they are not it follows that failure to recognise this is unhelpful. In examining the reasons for the success of the deception some value judgement is not only inevitable but necessary. Some reliance on conjecture and personal experience will also be necessary.

Innocence

For many people, March 2020 was the end of an age of innocence prior to which there was the belief that government was benign. Despite its many faults, it was considered that there were sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that, for the most part, society operated in the best interests of the people. This naivete was, to varying degrees, the consequence of limited experience, a failure of imagination, and a lack of attention.

Experience of malevolence

Some of those who opposed the lockdown policies did so because they identified features of manipulation and abuse. This is suggestive of a prior experience of those behaviours as it can be difficult to recognise that which we have not previously encountered. It is possible that many people had never had a significant personal experience of malevolence and so were unable to conceive of the calculated harm being inflicted by those who presented themselves as calm and caring. Even when the situation is explained to people, very often they do not contest the evidence presented but the scale of the malice, both in terms of its viciousness and geographical reach.

Ignorance of history

Such incredulity depends upon a public as inattentive as Jeffery Epstein's prison guards. It requires an ignorance of history, or an absence of the basic pattern recognition to draw parallels with the onset of other eras of tyranny. It requires a lack of the attention or of the perspicacity necessary to identify the false flag events of modern history that serve to demolish all trust in western democratic governments.

Inattention and distraction

Even without historical references, belief in state narratives since 2020 demands an irresponsible or childlike inattentiveness. Whilst it is true that people are busy with the day to day affairs of their lives, it is also true that those same people find the time to absorb the output of the corporate media. This is why the media is so successful in conditioning people and ultimately why it is disseminated and produced.

People also find time to keep up to date with various forms of entertainment. Leisure time is obviously essential to health and well-being but over the course of an eighteen month lockdown period that affected these conditions, perhaps some curiosity could have been roused and different opinions sought? Many people would have been made aware of concerns, even if they did not have ones of their own in relation to the impositions that were placed upon them. Why did more people not have the inclination to look elsewhere for information? Was this due to a lack of trust in alternative sources?

Faith in authority

Again we return to a misplaced and blind faith in authority. Our perception of a reliable source of information is often one dimensional. We spend years in school in which we are trained to passively and uncritically absorb information which we are then rewarded for faithfully regurgitating. Those who spend longest in the education system are those most committed to it and rewarded by it, and seem to be strongest adherents to the faith. They perceive authority as born of merit because they have the experience of earning their degree, profession and status through long working hours, application, and sacrifice. The training to be a medical doctor, for example, requires punishing hours over many years in a critical and exacting environment. Having suffered for their knowledge, how likely is an initiate to then welcome criticism or information from one who has not? What resistance will there be to the suggestion of a short cut to more accurate information?

Critical thinking

Critical thinking is often not taught on university courses. Students progress precisely by not questioning too forcefully what they have been taught. Those who query established narratives such as doctors who question vaccines, or environmentalists who query climate narratives often start from a position of believing the prevailing dogmas. It is unsettling personal experience that changes their views. This is the bumpy road travelled by Doctor Suzanne Humphries the author of Dissolving Illusions, Doctor Richard Moskowitz the author of Vaccines, A Reappraisal, environmentalists Cory Morningstar, Sandi Adams, and Patrick Moore, and former Pfizer CSO, Dr Mike Yeadon.

Pain and personal experience

Pain is a teacher. People can be shocked out of their paradigms. Prior to 2020 it is likely that the majority of people referred to by the pejorative term of 'anti-vaxxer,' were mothers who had noticed profound changes in the health of their children in the aftermath of an injection on the regular childhood schedule, and who had then arrived at a new perspective after copious research. It is probably fair to say that few of these mothers made a premeditated decision to become anti-vaxxers, but did so as a consequence of a harsh and instructive encounter with reality. Similarly, few, if any, so-called 'conspiracy theorists,' elect to assert contrary views. Holding a socially uncomfortable viewpoint is an inevitable consequence of a close examination of state lies.

Permission and exposure

Those who express forthright or unusual views serve as ‘permission-givers’ to others. When one person speaks up, others feel more comfortable doing so. This psychology is utilised by governments who employ think tanks or media personalities to propose policies that are outwith the parameters of social convention. When those margins are widened less extreme policies can be pushed through that would previously have been considered beyond acceptable boundaries. Equally, exposure to the views of those who question official narratives can force people to consider them, however briefly. We can also surmise from government expenditure on advertising during the lockdown period that repeated exposure to new information is effective in modifying public opinion and behaviour.

Peer pressure

People are swayed by their peers. This is one of the reasons that the numbers of people who questioned the lockdowns was assiduously hidden by the media. Hundreds of thousands marched through London in 2021, in perhaps the biggest demonstrations in the UK in living memory. Yet those reliant on the mainstream media would not have known they happened. Those who suffer from adverse effects as a result of the covid vaccinations are led to believe that theirs are isolated and rare cases lest further realisations follow. Current high levels of excess deaths are not reported with the sensationalism of lower figures in 2020. The effect of the behaviour of the majority on an individual is examined in the Asch conformity experiment and evidenced in numerous TV pranks that had their echoes in the lockdown era. The degree to which people wake up is influenced by their exposure to new information but importantly by the degree to which people in their social circle accept, or give voice to their acceptance of, that information.

Religion

Those who believe in a higher authority than government are better equipped to resist these social pressures. This may hint at a motivation for the increasing secularisation of society. Those who conform to values set by their religion can be less influenced by those proposed by corrupt politicians and journalists. A moral framework that is not subservient to the state permits a questioning of prevailing morality, policies and social mores.

Confidence and mental autonomy

In order to take a controversial view and openly espouse it requires a degree of confidence and one means of gaining confidence is through practice. The extent to which an individual practises independently arriving at, and airing, their own conclusions can depend on the degree to which autonomy of thinking is encouraged in their workplace. The hierarchical structure of many workplaces is such that thinking for employees is already subordinated to others. This submission is inculcated in the education system. A demand to wear a mask or accept an injection could be seen as merely an extension of a culture in which people have become accustomed to doing what they are told. For many people this was the case -masks and injections were just another thing they had to do for work.

Although the self-employed were among the first to be economically affected by lockdowns, a capacity for independent thought could also have been a factor in the number of self-employed business people who took a stand against the restrictions.

Mistrust of peers and alternative sources

Those who question accepted authorities are often dismissed as exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect- which describes an overestimation of one's competence in a given field. Yet this overlooks the fact that challenges to the accepted mode of thinking are necessary for progress and that they can, sometimes by necessity, come from outwith the ranks of the orthodox or qualified authorities. It also ignores the fact that our legal system is founded on the notion that lay people are equipped to assess evidence. This is our only course of action when credentialed experts disagree – as they have done so often since March 2020.

Use of the internet

It is an anomaly that lay researchers are often derided for finding information on the internet. Do qualified professionals not use the internet for research? The dissemination of information is after all its ostensible purpose. Given that the internet provides us with previously unimaginable access to information, is it really so difficult to believe that it might provide information that was previously unimaginable? The degree to which people use the internet to seek out information from alternative channels has a bearing on how they view state claims. This was the reason for the extensive on line censorship.

Intuition

One of the most striking aspects of the lockdown period was the extent to which intuition was absent and common sense over-ridden. The public were asked to believe that healthy people were sick and that seated people were safe from sickness where standing people were not. Parents were asked to hide their faces from infants, which for those following the science, was known to be distressing from the still face experiment. Parents were also asked to accept their children being confined or isolated for long periods and then masked in schools. Friends and relatives were asked to avoid seeing and hugging their loved ones, and to abandon them when they were sick or dying. Millions of people wore baggy, porous, dirty cloth masks in the belief that this in some way provided protection from breathing the same air as their neighbours. Once worn and potentially contaminated with a biohazard these masks were pocketed and re-used or littered on the streets.

Sex

It seemed to many of those who first sensed a problem with the lockdown restrictions, that the majority were women. In the first large demonstrations in London against the restrictions, the question was asked “where are all the men?” It could be that many men were working in the 'essential' services that continued unaffected by the alleged pandemic. To the extent that the perception that men were slow to respond was accurate, it could be explained by the fact that women are considered to be more intuitive or more emotionally alert. Perhaps men are primed to respond to physical threats and that superficially lockdown did not seem to be one. It was initially felt as an assault on the emotional well-being of the community and of the family. The war that has raged since has been one of information, the successful engagement in which requires skills of communication and empathy that are traditionally more associated with women. Given that the restrictions and other measures were to some extent entered into by choice, aggression and physical resistance was neutralised. It was less necessary to defend or fight those who complied than it was to reason with them. The choice involved means that some people now find it difficult to sympathise with those harmed by the injections. Empathy is required to unite these two groups.

Testosterone

A typical male trait is said to be a greater propensity to be disagreeable. Such a trait would make a man more inclined to speak his mind and to oppose the consensus. Physical fitness bolsters confidence. Is it possible that the drastic fall in testosterone and in physical activity in recent decades has led to an absence of men disposed to disagree with state impositions, or with the courage to speak out?

Apathy and Learned Helplessness

It appears that when lockdown began many people both male and female took the opportunity to indulge in their holiday habits, which included alcohol and television. The off licence and liquor stores remained open and senses were dulled to any potential state threat. In a society in which a huge proportion of people are medicated in order to endure their daily lives, many embraced the lockdowns and the time off work. There are ever growing numbers of people on anti-depressants. Were these levels of medication a factor in the apparent acquiesence and apathy that greeted the most restrictive policies ever imposed on democratic nations? Were some people too tired and numb to resist? Were people not enjoying their lives enough to fight to preserve their freedoms? Many later risked their health for a holiday or other short-term leisure pursuits by taking injections with no long term safety data. Do we infer from this that those people did not put a high value on their health or their lives?

It is often suggested that the actions of a single person are futile when faced with the machinations of the state, yet this was contradicted by the many who complied in the mistaken belief that it was necessary for them to do their part in order to help bring an end to lockdowns.

Age

With regards to the propensity to sense government deception there also appears to be some distinction in terms of age demographics. The older generation seem inclined to trust the state and the media, and perhaps in the UK this is due to a faith formed in the perceived communal effort of the post-war years and the foundation of the NHS and the ‘benevolent’ nanny state. Younger adults who have grown up with smart phones and the propaganda of the education system were susceptible to constant news notifications from their devices. The young are expected to have less of the wisdom and experience that might encourage scepticism of propaganda but in this respect they were often indistiniguishable from their elders. There are exceptions to these trends but it appears as though the generation who came of age with the advent of the internet were more likely to be cynical of state motives. They had enjoyed the opportunity to freely access information in the years before such access was curtailed, were perhaps less habituated to reliance on mainstream sources, and were subject to less intensive propaganda than has been prevalent in schools in recent years.

TV and propaganda

Undoubtedly consumption of television and TV news in particular was a major factor in the extent to which people were put under a government spell. Generations have grown old trusting the television and their preferred news networks. It is impossible to assess the extent of the bond infants form with the television as they gaze at it while it nurses them through their formative years. The television is thought to have a hypnotic effect that makes people susceptible to having their attitudes and behaviour modified even before more extraordinary possibilities are examined.

Exceptionalism

In the west there appears to be a sense of exceptionalism, as though any tendency of governments towards tyranny is not possible here. There is a prevailing faith in the notion of democracy and the public's supposed capacity to vote malign governments out of office – despite academic research finding that the US is in essence an oligarchy, and experience demonstrating only an ever more rapid and enormous wealth transfer to a tiny minority. There is a complete lack of understanding of the controlled nature of western society.

This produces a kind of arrogance in westerners who assume that state crimes of great magnitude are not possible in their countries and that large scale media complicity is improbable. In short they believe that were there to be such duplicity on a grand scale, someone would have the good grace to tell them first. As 9/11 whistleblower turned investigative reporter Kevin Ryan puts it, there is a belief, “that those who commit criminal conspiracies can only be relatively powerless people who happen to live on the most strategically important lands, and conspiracies among rich, powerful people are impossible or absurd.”

Ethnicity

It appears that the west is under attack because of its culture of freedom and individuality. It is clear that there is a concerted effort to modify social norms that have previously served western society. Mass immigration seems designed to change the social landscape in Europe and to create disunity in local populations. Yet an area in England in which lockdown compliance and vaccine uptake was strikingly low was London -which has a high ethnic minority population that was particularly targeted with propaganda. The capacity to see the threat to personal freedom was not necessarily carried by those who had inherited a culture of liberty but by those who had adopted it. Traditionally rebellious groups such as the Scots, Irish, and Welsh, mostly meekly complied. The predisposition for both compliance and non- compliance crossed ethnic and cultural boundaries.

Fear

The instinct for safety is hardwired into people, and social creatures find safety in the herd. Within that society some individuals also find safety in not acting at variance with their own rationale. The first of these instincts requires no thought and is a path of least resistance. The second requires the courage to face both a potentially unpleasant reality and the disapprobation of one's peers. It is hard not to conclude that the failure to examine the lies we have been told is, in some instances, due to cowardice. Many people complied for the sake of an easy life or because they felt the situation was only temporary, or because they believed that their compliance would help secure a swift end to the lockdowns.

Numerical and scientific literacy

People's capacity to see through state lies can depend on basic scientific and numerical literacy. The PCR test fraud is exposed merely by examining the rate at which it produces false positives and considering how many would be produced by a healthy population when the test was rolled out en masse. The deaths recorded within 28 days of a positive test were reported with no context as to normal weekly or annual numbers. Even from within the state news paradigm the threat of death was low. One 9/11 Truth advocate summed up the the lack of comprehension in a meme that read as follows, “I have spent 20 years trying to explain physics to people who don't understand what 99.7% means.”

Without basic scientific, mathematical or historical understanding many people are at the mercy of state experts and are unable to confidently challenge what they are being told, even if they have the inclination to do so.

Imagination and curiosity

It is not only people's numerical facility and logical faculties that have been found wanting. Artists of all forms who have not been compromised through finances or other affairs have been notable for their conformity with state doctrines. Perhaps again that is a consequence we might expect of those educated by the state and propagandised by its associated corporate broadcasters. Yet where some people flounder with numbers we might expect them to perceive the frauds being perpetrated due to familiarity with narrative, literature, theatre, film or performance.

To what can we ascribe the lack of imagination to perceive the deceit? Or the closed-minded refusal to consider it when the possibility is raised? Art in schools is about fulfilling criteria to pass exams and as such creativity in the education system operates within narrow parameters. In the professional world truly challenging work is not rewarded by a controlled corporate system that promotes state agendas and filters out threats. But what of the public? Reading literary fiction (-character rather than plot driven works-) is suggested to improve empathy and imagination. Has the passive receipt of film, TV and Netflix dramas led to a stunting of imagination or of critical response to outlandish narratives? What has become of our childhood curiosity?

Foresight

The public’s failure to understand what is happening is also characterised by an absence of foresight. This is related to the arrogance, naivete and exceptionalism that prevents people from ascribing anything but benign motives to government and from considering any possible future misuse of an increase in its powers.

This wilful blindness is cultivated by an uncritical state media which provides news without historical context and airbrushes or conceals previous and present state crimes, as well as the potential for future ones. The public’s absence of foresight was particularly evident in the willing acceptance of supposedly experimental injections.

Nuance

The years that preceded lockdown were also characterised by an absence of nuance in debate that created conditions for people to dismiss whole swathes of society based on their views on single issues. People on both sides of the Atlantic were estranged from one another by the subjects of Brexit and Trump, setting the tone for the outright rejection of those who questioned lockdown and experimental vaccines.

Conclusion

The one factor that universally explains people’s failure to question government since March 2020 is the belief in government as benign, the flip side of which is the failure to suspect the extent of its malintent. This faith is explicable only by a confluence of supporting factors, the most important of which may be state use of the television and media. Conditioning through state education (or under-education) has produced a population primed for the receipt of state propaganda. These means of controlling the public mind propagate the notion of authority as the sole source of truth and limit for many the motivation to question or seek information from other sources. The prevalence of this closed-minded condition in society means that to openly question the status quo is to risk ostracism and condemnation. This invokes fear which in turn reinforces a natural inclination to conform. This fear has proven justified as many among the non-compliant suffered losses, both materially and socially, though they preserved their physical health.

Those who see through the government deceit are those who through experience or rationale have been capable of contemplating the possibility of extreme malevolence. There are many routes to this realisation, through scientific, numerical, historical, or literary awareness; through attributes such as attention, intuition, imagination, foresight, critical thinking, skepticism of authority, curiosity and an openness to alternative sources of information; or through choices such as religious faith, or low TV and media consumption, or experiences that include learning from abuse and pain. In the end they all require the fortitude to look evil in the eye.