I have a concept which I want to share for discussion
I'll call it the Pareto rule of repression, the idea that a certain threshold percentage of opinion must be in place before a repressive policy can be carried out and if that threshold is not met, the policy will be a failure.
For the purposes of explanation. I'll use 90% as an example of this threshold and demnstrate why the MSM and the narrative is so important
I'll also use vaxxed versus unvaxxed, although other differences could be used such as race, religion, or politics, support for foreign intervention etc.
The cabal as hoping to use the vax in order to lockdown society, remove dissenters and institute their "new normal" and they damn near succeeded, but they didn't..
Why?
In my opinion, they had camps built for vax refusers and they would have murdered us in the camps and blamed covid which would further that narrative.
I think the cabal did not reach the threshold of support they required, let's call it 90% where they could retain a functioning society while removing the unvaxxed. There were just too many of us and society would have collapsed without us, both politically and technologically. They need the higher fraction of society to carry out the repression on the lower fraction and if the ratio isn't high enough, the higher fraction do not do it.
The story Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift has a non emotive example of a societal rift where people are divided over which way up to eat their boiled eggs and they will go to war over it. My contention is that the Lilliput MSM and shadow government would need a threshold of let's say 90% of broad end egg eaters in a mixed society before they would repress the pointy enders and 75% just wouldn't cut it, the minions would not comply.
I think that we escaped vax tyranny and genocide because the unvaxxed had a high enough percentage that the cabal plan was just not possible and that white hat, anons and generally awake people tipped the balance.
It's all about the percentage, the MSM, manufacturing consent and narrative.
An awake population cannot be oppressed and would not oppress.
Solid post. I think you're on to something, and I agree that if significantly more Americans had been mesmerized by the "vax" propaganda and related pro-tyranny mindsets, those of us ignoring or outright protesting the COVID theater, the "vax", and so on would have been targeted for termination in the camps.
Those camps weren't built for anything else, and history shows that outright mass democide is common. Sauce: Death by Government, by R. J. Rummel, and The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (the Foreward is titled The Uses of Atrocity), by a group of left-wing scholars who researched every Communist regime of the 20th century.
Thank you fren!
What do you think about the threshold principle? The idea that they needed a certain percentage above which the plan works and below which is doesn't.
I think it's an important part of the equation.
The Second Amendment -- and the percent of the population that is armed and even reasonably competent -- is another. The number and level of corruption of the military and federal, state, and local armed agents is another; a widespread understanding of freedom and of tyranny (and their effects) is important for effective resistance, and there are more factors.
But I think you've identified a good proxy for estimating the danger of a successful boost of tyranny by the ruling regime. When enough of the population has been gaslit or whatever into believing the cover story for the heavier tyranny being imposed, the danger of that tyranny succeeding is very high.
Yes, you've pointed out the second amendment which really changes the environment and would radically change the percentages needed to repress.