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.
You're talking about anonymity I think
I think this is a very important discussion. I think the weight of distinct anons out there talking about stuff and analysing details in public is making a huge difference. Being an anon means that you are judged on the reputation of your previous comments and the merits of your arguments and non on real world qualifications or reputation. In fact, we normally do not know each other's credentials and surely we have many undeclared experts amongst us for every subject. Doctors, engineers, historians, scientists, teachers. In this environment, there is always an expert to take apart an argument made or bolster it on merit.
When it comes to real life. Who is to say that we anons are not being counted in person. I redpill anyone I can and have a message on my car about the vax. We also have people on twitter and Truth and rumble who are non anonymous, but may also have a presence here - who knows.
I too see this as an important discussion. I know that many, possibly even most of us do what we can as individuals. But what I am questioning I guess is IF there is a step necessary in the Awakening where we put anonymity behind us and just step out en mass when it is time for the tide to turn.
Let me state it differently. A point where us stepping out en masse does in fact turn the tide at the 'precipice'.
I think the precipice is the scare event, not the public response to it, but maybe it's both.
I don't really want there to be a time when we all have to work synchronously like that. I think our power is in our million different approaches. We are a distributed intelligence. Can you tell me why it would be necessary?
I'm not sure it would be but in thinking through your premise it occurred to me that it could be a necessary step to shift the window on their percentage. It becomes "do they really need 90% to move forward?" OR "can they still move forward on the PERCEPTION that they have 90%" ??? We are the difference in those two things.
Yes, this is worth thinking on. Luckily, the perception is brittle and redpilling someone is generally irreversible. When shown something in the right way, people can't unsee it.
That's an EXCELLENT point. You're talking about a major and inherent benefit of FREEDOM: society's problems get tackled from many directions by many different people with different views, expertise, and approaches -- instead of by a single imposed pseudo-solution. Under freedom, what works is embraced and less-successful approaches are discarded. Under tyranny, you're stuck with whatever approach gets imposed, until some other imposed solution comes along -- which is usually just the same corrupt "solution" as before with a new name, a bigger budget, and tighter restrictions.
Also: This has become an epic thread. Thanks for starting it off, propertyofUniverse!
Wow. Thank you very much fren!
It's an analysis approach which has been rattling round in my head for a while.
IMO It's related to phase changes and emergent properties of complex systems
I'm sure the cabal have lots of analysis on how to manipulate societies.