Written by Mathew Naismith
All we wanted from authorities is
transparency, from the very start of this pandemic there was no
transparency, in fact quite the opposite. It is not about being
anti-vaccination or pro-vaccination or anti-pandemic or pro-pandemic,
it is simply about transparency.
From the outset the phrase lockdown was
inappropriate, a phrase associated with unruly prison inmates, a
phrase that was going to instil fear, paranoia and hysteria, the very
same reactions authorities should have been avoiding but instead
promoted day in day out. This was at the same time the censoring of
facts that were not pro-pandemic and pro-covid vaccine was
implemented. The authorities and particular the main stream media and
social media were being anything but transparent.
“So as a leader, set the example. Go
first. Take risks with openness and honesty, and encourage team
members to do the same. The benefits, including increased innovation,
collaboration and quality, will be unparalleled! You won’t regret
it, but you have to lead by example. Be brave!”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/11/30/why-transparency-and-honesty-matter-for-leadership/?sh=7e9e89003943
In all honesty, has the authorities,
main stream media and social media fact checking set an example of
transparency? Setting an example of transparency leads to
collaboration, leading to people working together as one. From the
outset this leading by example to encourage collaboration was never
implemented, in fact quite the opposite was implemented. Was the
phrase lockdown from the start going to induce collaboration? No,
especially when the people of a country are not inmates of a prison
system and especially unruly inmates of a prison system.
Would have a phrase like preventative
isolation been more appropriate and responsible?
I think being transparent from the
start would have created a much more collaborative environment
between the authorities, MSM, social media fact checking and the
people, instead it seems that anything but an environment of
collaboration and transparency was being created. So as a leader of a
country or state and a leader of media information, transparency to
instil collaboration in times of a pandemic should have been
paramount, instead quite the opposite was instilled.
In all honesty, and in relation to the
degree of censorship, the level of transparency has actually
diminished from the outset of this pandemic, not improved as a
responsible body would do to instil collaboration and especially
innovation.
Innovation is the creation of a new
device or process resulting from study and experimentation. Was there
transparency in relation to alternative medical treatments for the
present strain of the coronavirus? Country and state authorities
banned and even outlawed innovative medical treatments, while MSM
totally denied there effectiveness, at the same time social media
fact checking made sure very few facts about innovative medical
treatments was being presented transparently.
Yes, it would seem from the start
innovation was being suppressed, not just to do with alternative
medical treatments but in relation to thinking innovatively outside
of the authorities and MSM narrative.
So why are some people more accepting
of the suppression of freedoms, information and transparency
therefore innovation than other people? Because the other people are
conditioned to being transparent therefore innovative mentally. The
other people who are more innovative mentally will of course be more
accepting of innovative medical treatments and information, this
stands to reason, for example, are the followers of communism
mentally innovative beyond the narratives of communism? Are the
people who watch MSM constantly mentally innovative beyond MSM
narratives? Now, are the people not under control of certain
narratives going to be more naturally innovative mentally and
physically?
The obvious suppression of innovative
thinking therefore medical treatments seems to be at hand, enacted,
through the lack of transparency.
Supplement: My father was
trained in an international company to psychologically manipulate the
workers under him. My father would often laugh at how easy the
workers under him were so easily manipulated. When it looks like you
are actually in the wrong, use deflective tactics to make it look
like that your wrong is right and that the right is wrong.
Recently, union members protested
outside a union office in Victoria Australia against the lack of
support for basic human rights by their union. The union boss phoned
a radio station and stated on air that the protesters presently
outside their office where extremists, the unionists outside the
union office heard this and reacted in accordance to the bizarre
action of the union boss. They even ended up turning the water hoses
on their union members, which by then was seen as simply protecting
themselves against violent extremists.
The point is, to take the emphasis off
yourself of being put in a bad light, manipulate the circumstances to
deflect away from your own bad behaviour and put it on other people.
I would say that the authorities, with the help of MSM and social
media, were always going to instil disunion, in the process taking
the emphasis off of themselves being in the bad light, being
extremist in their own actions.
How many people have this psychological
tactic duped? Ah, but the mind that is innovative is not so easily
duped.
