3,466
06-16-2024, 01:02 PM
"Didn't force?"
Define "force."
If by the word "force," it is intended to mean that no-one made a "law" so it was all up for individual judgement, that is simply not true. "Law" is one thing, "policy" is another which bears the same pressure and lacks government 'accountability."
If by the word "force" it is intended to mean that there was no "threat" added to the mandate, that is also not true. In fact, the threats were instant and unavoidable: loss of livelihood, loss of social engagement, instant judgement by the external social order as deplorable and selfish... how does that happen?
If by force you mean no one put a gun to your head and said "Do it!"... yeah, you didn't "force" anybody.
But the crowning offense here was NOT the policy, was not the 'law'... it was the manufactured body of "social media" and "public media" combatants. There was a paid contingent of 'master' social media influencers, public celebrities, and cadres of "maybe people" who flooded the public dialogue with their utterances, all repeated and amplified by media "marketing" and "public relations" mechanisms. It was the idea that the US government used tax-dollars to fund and impel a 'social media' offensive... both dominating and controlling the population by "telling them what they all thought" and providing a synthetized "appearance" that it is so.
I distinctly remember the "I think vaccine dissenters..." statements highlighted and championed in media and social media... how they should "all die..." or "be punished..." "be branded as antisocial would-be criminals..." or "demonstrate their ignorance."
The real tragedy was the human suffering for a trillion dollar wealth transfer, the weaponization of social media, and of course... the aftermath of lies... the direct assault on scientific truth... the corruption of medical records, and the loss of far too many people in the mix.
There was a very fundamental reason why governments shouldn't get into the business of propaganda... this is an exemplar of that reason. It becomes especially relevant when the exploit (in this case global money laundering) is more important than the population.
The right "sponsored" individuals in policy-making positions, and suddenly the citizens are "expected" to cheer and support their policies not because they are sound... by because they are government "policy."
Sort of how Khmer Rouge policy and Nazi policy were "championed" by the people of their countries... and yeah ...no one had to be "forced" to support them either
.
They must erase history before they proceed with these ridiculous "operations" of theirs... too many people know they are all too keen to lie to sell their goods or ideas.
This is right up there with the clown-show doctrine of setting up a crisis to exploit and then proclaiming "Who knew?" in the aftermath. Another favorite ploy.
Define "force."
If by the word "force," it is intended to mean that no-one made a "law" so it was all up for individual judgement, that is simply not true. "Law" is one thing, "policy" is another which bears the same pressure and lacks government 'accountability."
If by the word "force" it is intended to mean that there was no "threat" added to the mandate, that is also not true. In fact, the threats were instant and unavoidable: loss of livelihood, loss of social engagement, instant judgement by the external social order as deplorable and selfish... how does that happen?
If by force you mean no one put a gun to your head and said "Do it!"... yeah, you didn't "force" anybody.
But the crowning offense here was NOT the policy, was not the 'law'... it was the manufactured body of "social media" and "public media" combatants. There was a paid contingent of 'master' social media influencers, public celebrities, and cadres of "maybe people" who flooded the public dialogue with their utterances, all repeated and amplified by media "marketing" and "public relations" mechanisms. It was the idea that the US government used tax-dollars to fund and impel a 'social media' offensive... both dominating and controlling the population by "telling them what they all thought" and providing a synthetized "appearance" that it is so.
I distinctly remember the "I think vaccine dissenters..." statements highlighted and championed in media and social media... how they should "all die..." or "be punished..." "be branded as antisocial would-be criminals..." or "demonstrate their ignorance."
The real tragedy was the human suffering for a trillion dollar wealth transfer, the weaponization of social media, and of course... the aftermath of lies... the direct assault on scientific truth... the corruption of medical records, and the loss of far too many people in the mix.
There was a very fundamental reason why governments shouldn't get into the business of propaganda... this is an exemplar of that reason. It becomes especially relevant when the exploit (in this case global money laundering) is more important than the population.
The right "sponsored" individuals in policy-making positions, and suddenly the citizens are "expected" to cheer and support their policies not because they are sound... by because they are government "policy."
Sort of how Khmer Rouge policy and Nazi policy were "championed" by the people of their countries... and yeah ...no one had to be "forced" to support them either
.They must erase history before they proceed with these ridiculous "operations" of theirs... too many people know they are all too keen to lie to sell their goods or ideas.
This is right up there with the clown-show doctrine of setting up a crisis to exploit and then proclaiming "Who knew?" in the aftermath. Another favorite ploy.
