It seems to be a common consensus among shrew types that most likely we will end up in a world similar to the world of Mad Max, or 1984, or something even worse.
For me, A Brave New World sort of existence is more likely. Maybe that first, and Mad Max later—that’s possible. Maybe A Brave New World sort of place is too extreme—certainly for the near future it is.
So, what does all this mean? Well, many of those monsters may be there just to scare us and are never intended to actually grab our dangling arm and pull us under (this is probably only true with health scares, but who knows). The monsters that will indeed reveal themselves in all their horrible gore will wreak havoc for us (shrews) but will probably not elicit much fear and angst from sheep.
One of the most successful psyops has been to convince people that there is never anything to fear from the agenda, but only to fear what the agenda is creating a solution to dispel. Take CBDCs for example. That is not a monster to the sheep, but instead is a remedy for all the problems that the agenda tells us cash creates.
It has become easier and easier to convince the sheep-type that there is no stick behind the carrot (and by the way, most (not all) of us have a bit of sheep hiding under the wool in our psyches). This “no stick” mentality has been one of the most successful of the psyops and frighteningly so.
The end result of such a brainwash is having people begging for the stick, with no need for a carrot at all (can you say, “medically assisted suicide” for mental health issues?)
Most of us see the stick very clearly. Most of us do believe that the carrots are actually sticks, and we are fearful of a Mad Max sort of future. And even if the horror of the future is minimal enough that sheep don’t really notice it, we will.
Let’s look at some examples.
The logic that sheep use to describe their reasons why none of this tightening up of security (thus loss of personal freedoms) affects them in an adverse way is, “I have nothing to hide, nothing to fear, I am a good person and will do nothing to cause the authorities to look for me, or want me, or invade my privacy (except when they are looking for some OTHER criminal).”
This will certainly work to a point. And they will not notice how restrictive their lives must be in order to “be a good person.” Here lies the rub. What if taking a walk outside of curfew hours constitutes being “bad” or going to church, or some other innocuous activity? It is the definition of “being good” that will slowly change.
Another example. In this “near future,” there will be restrictions on movement. Most sheep types think this might be ok.
At first, it will be required to have a QR code scanned to leave the city. We are all familiar with using QR codes by now, considering most restaurants require a scan to get a menu. “That’s ok,” the little lamb says. “They are only checking to see how large our carbon footprint is so they can keep temperatures from rising so high the climate will kill us all.”
Next comes scanning the QR code and receiving notice you have to turn back and go home and stay there. Then comes days where no one is allowed to venture outside of their home at all—for a day, a week, “until further notice.”
You get the picture.
Same goes for a variety of other situations. Heat and AC in your house, food you buy at the grocery store, all controlled by Social Scores, or health condition (which disease did you avoid the sixth booster for?). Simple stuff like this. Far from Mad Max, or even from the rendition of the future that Orwell predicted in 1984.
No comments:
Post a Comment