Who Is "We"? Learn from the Best!
Gary D. Barnett and Jon Rappoport have said much of it; I am also adding my two pennies.
Don’t you dare to enter!
It’s been bothering the heck out of me from around 1997 that people tend to use the personal pronoun “we,” when there is no “we.” The users either projecting their wishes into their discourse or simply employ the Rhetoric of Power against the impressionable and the gullible, suggesting that they are speaking in the name of a majority that is infinitely more important then petty individuals’ points of view.
I have never succumbed to mass manipulation of any kind, because I had something greater in my life than my survival and I knew what I wanted. If you pass those two tests, you can be sure that you will not fall for intimidation or for baloney, either. Still, my eyes were not exactly opened.
My final awakening started, when I bumped into Jon Rappoport’s many-decades-long research as one of the extremely-few investigative journalists. Gary was a bonus who, with his eloquent veracity and authenticity was, and still is, overwhelmingly saying what I would have said or say, so these two people assured me, I had some brothers-in-arms.
The manipulators
It’s easier to recognize manipulators than wishful thinkers.
There are plenty of manipulative terms that are imposed on the unthinking, utterly-humiliated, and powerless masses.
For the heck of it, here are a few, and I am generously including their “translations” into plain English:
Covid-19: one of the diseases invented at a rate about one a week by the Rockefellerian pseudo-medical establishment in the last hundred years;
“Vaccination”: it’s an injection, full of harmful ingredients, based on fraudulent “science” and often mandated on children and on legal immigrants;
“Society”: you’d better shut up, because it’s “society” talking now. Of course, nobody has been authorized to speak on other people’s behalf, and nobody could possible define what “society” is;
“Issue”: the term is either meant to hide a problem behind a shroud or is used by people who have next-to-no idea what they are talking about;
“Controversial”: there is no such thing as “controversial,” only as a reference or invocation to confused minds that cannot distinguish between the fake realities projected by various agencies or interest groups that control the MSM and its counterparts;
“Very”: a word used by people, whose vocabulary is not extended enough or their thinking has not reached a level, where they can express themselves more specifically; mostly, the word expresses that such people consider themselves extremely important;
I’ll write a separate article about all of the potentially-manipulative terms later.
“We,” however, is a major culprit among all manipulative words. It creates an imaginary community among all readers, who might fall for the details, because the premise is based on an existential need. I have published two articles regarding the way it works. This is how to recognize it:
And this is how you might be able to put up your defenses against it:
People, who use the word “we” and do not want to manipulate others are unlikely to know what they are talking about, unless they are hell-bent on creating a community that they want to use as a magnet for the undecided or desperately want to believe in, despite the fact that faith must precede faith:
Fake communities
Without fake communities that people actually assume to exist, to belong to, or and perhaps even to represent, the whole ruse would not work. Here are a few of those:
The “rainbow” people:
Actually, some of them, who are against grooming children, have just been banned from antisocial sites for “spreading hatred” or something like that.
The “Jewish community”:
There are many kinds of Jews without any common denominator among them in the modern world.
The “African-American community”:
Read some Thomas Sowell and you can find out how it is a fake term. People from the same socioeconomic backgrounds represent the same culture in specific areas, no matter what their skin colors are.
Fake communities also provide foundations for dividing the people:
Real communities
In traditional communities, usually based some kind of decentralized religion (e.g. the Amish), people are used to not hurting, but helping each other. In ANY other environments, “neighbors” are quite likely to kill each other, once food and energy shortages start, which they will, probably before the year runs out.
We
Gary D. Barnett, whom I greatly respect, is writing in his last article, published on LewRockwell on September 24, 2022,
I have been told over and over again that negating and ignoring government, non-compliance, no obedience to the state, and ignoring all mandates, is not a solution, but I beg to differ. There are 330 million of us and only a handful of them in this country. If you cannot understand the dynamics of this power, and the numbers involved, then you will never see your way to any liberty.
Gary and I advocate the same image of “liberty”: it can only happen by personal and responsible decisions. Still, when it comes to “we,” I beg to disagree. Who is “we”?
At least 60 million out of the 330 are willing to kill me for protecting their captors in their Stockholm syndrome, for my disagreeing with them, or nonchalantly, because they are paid well for the job. They are certainly not going to become my best friends and certainly not part of a group when I might belong; no “we” will prevail here…
Most of the rest, otherwise well-meaning people, who “wouldn’t hurt a fly” will be more than willing to kill me for food, water, ammo, or heat, especially when their children’s lives are at stake.
Gary and I can probably easily agree that only the person can take responsibility for his action and, moreover, the enforcers do not comprise “us.”
If Gary and I agree on that, the next step is also clear, although it’s not going to be a “universal solution” to all ills of mankind (as Gary says cannot exist and he and I agree again): convince the enforcers that they are going to be the next in line on the road to the slaughterhouse. Once that premise is established, it’s a good next step. Insiders, who realize they will be the next victims, can sabotage the plot and perhaps even bring it to an end.
The only problem is that it must happen, before most people get killed.
'we' need to convince 'them'
Write about the ‘he’ King Big Ears spoke of at WEF
‘He will have military forces under His command’
‘He will have Trillions in funding’.
Is that a new derivation of the Royal We or is he referring to an Actual He that He as in Charlie follows?
Royal We is interesting. Meaning Me but not you.