Posted originally on the CTH on December 23, 2022 | Sundance
Perhaps the #1 question I see raised in our discussion is a variation on “what are we going to do about it?”
It is a profoundly understandable question, yet it would take volumes of manuscript and dozens of hours of conversation to adequately answer. That said, the reason for the complexity of the answer is very simple.
Approximately, 72% of a healthy adult American population took an experimental COVID-19 shot as recommended by, and later demanded by, government. That’s essentially 3 out of every four Americans.
In a recent poll of the 190,000 followers to CTH on Twitter, we asked did you take the shot? More than 80% of the respondents said no.
In a national population where approximately 1 out of every 4 declined the shot, the CTH audience consists of a population where 4 out of 5 declined the shot. The CTH audience is essentially the inverse of the national population. This is a context for looking at the original question.
The proverbial ‘we’ are in agreement as to the scope of the national problem. However, ‘we’ in the larger context are in the minority. That doesn’t mean we are powerless, nor does it mean we cannot affect the change we desire. However, that context does structure the nature of the challenge, and form the baseline for any proposal that would be considered an answer.
Again, in general terms, CTH readers are far ahead in understanding the scale of the problem as compared to the general population. It has been more than a decade since we first outlined the corrupt nature of the Dept of Justice and the specific political activity of the FBI as it was happening. At the time, people said we were nuts; generally saying we took analysis of how the domestic intelligence state was corrupted by politics, too far.
Well, here we are a decade later and the larger population of the American people are now openly accepting the DOJ, FBI and Intelligence Community are corrupted by politics. The very small minority position is now the slightly larger majority position. But it took a decade.
How long did it take the majority to realize ‘ballots’ -vs- ‘votes’ was a real problem? We have had THREE election cycles decided by ballot collection. The BETA test in California (2018 midterm), the national ballot collection rollout in 2020, and finally the midterm election in 2022. Five years since the original data showed ‘ballots’ were the election control mechanism, not ‘votes’. Now, people are awake to the problem, but again it took five years.
Another example: Take the basic construct of our UniParty political system…
♦The RNC wants money.
♠The DNC wants power.
♦The RNC uses power to get money.
♠The DNC uses money to get power.
♦The donor activity of the RNC drives their ideology.
♠The ideology of the DNC drives their donor activity.
This is the essential difference in the two private corporations’ political business models. It is a very nuanced distinction, but it is a distinction. Nothing within that system can change until the people who engage in that system admit this is the system. Right now, less than 10% (my estimation) of the Republican Party followers understand this.
Most self-admitted Republicans think that by changing the head of the RNC, the corporation will adapt a new business model. The majority of those believers are willing to support an RNC corporation insider like Harmeet Dhillon as the change agent. The history of the Club does not support this expectation, yet they believe it.
Those whose hold on power depends on deception are always able to find an audience of those willing to be deceived.
Now, the audience of those willing to be deceived is a flexible group in terms of numbers and identities. Even those who have been in that audience for some time may one day walk away from it. What is it that makes folks stay in that audience? What price are they afraid of paying? What deception are they unwilling to let go of?
While we use the word passive to describe this “willingness to continue in deception,” this is not an experience shaded in peaceful lavenders, mint greens and dappled sunlight. This is the deadly passivity of muscles that no longer fire; tiny electrical charges that no longer leap from one synapse to the next.
This is as passivity says: “I won’t begin resisting, because I know that once begun, I must continue. Rather than assert myself and perhaps fail (or get really scared), I will sustain myself where I am trapped. I will muffle my moans so as not to risk exposure, and I will call it self-control. Winston Churchill would have called it cowardice, but I will call it pragmatic caution.”
And within that framework, there’s the answer to the question, “What are we going to do about it?”
The very first step that’s desperately necessary for our survival, is that we become disillusioned–and quickly. We must stop pretending.
In the interim, if you are one of the 1 in 4 independent-minded Americans, you need to think about your home, the physical surroundings of yourself and your community, as the Alamo.
Fortify your defenses literally in your family.
Then, only if your home is secure, move forward using tactical civics to influence the local election level, city council, school boards, sheriff, judges etc. Each of these local level engagements should be looked upon as setting perimeter defenses against federal and state intrusion.
Once you are confident in your home and family security, and once you have established the safe perimeter to keep your community guarded, then you expand to the larger state offices, via state legislature, state senate and state governor.
Through this process you are constantly leveraging the majority. You are not in the minority within your home; and hopefully you will not be in the minority within your county.
If you are stuck in a blue region, retain the disposition of an insurgent. The rebellion can formulate underground.
You have the better arguments; you believe in freedom. Continued assembly-building will gain the numbers needed to be in the majority.
Keep focused on spreading disillusionment by using the atomic sledgehammer of truth. Never accept the false pretenses that underpin the status quo. The opposition’s arguments are weak, and they are built upon fraud. They require a constant pretending. Denial of truth permits easier trespass.
Use truth as a weapon by learning the core issues better than the other side. Read the history of how events unfolded. Learn the hidden constructs behind the motives carried by those who created the events. Learn their arguments and learn how to deconstruct them.
Then, when you are intellectually armed and fully prepared, openly stop pretending and ask the questions in public that will awaken the audience around you.
Centinel2012 