Timepeace: political narratives and ‘urgent’ decision-making
— covid, climate, censorship, and domestic terror (Part 6)
Barreling down the highway, suddenly there is road construction ahead…. This is a place where drivers merge and change lanes, where conflict and stress can build, and where accidents can occur.
Is humanity at a similar juncture? Are life choices being contracted down into fewer lanes?
In the real world, when lanes are reduced, most drivers slow down. But unfortunately, in the current political climate, the natural inclination to reduce speed and apply caution is being overrun by justification for urgent “emergency” actions.
We have been down this road before.
One way of viewing the world, as politicians in the leading party work feverishly to address the dual challenges of covid and climate change, is that human behavior is being corralled into fewer lanes – due to the dual challenges of covid and climate change.
Another way of viewing the world is that as societies supposedly work to adjust to the dual challenges of covid and climate change, these are justifications for imposing changes that have nothing to do with health (“covid”) or the environment (“climate change”).
At what point does an individual begin to question a narrative?
How does one test the hypothesis that one of these paradigms is predominating?
And more importantly, if legislation justified to address health and climate concerns is co-opted by other priorities, what road are we on and where are we going?
Covid and Climate and Counting Whose Money?
Several writers have cautioned that the true terror that is operating behind the political scenes for the dominant parties is fear of economic contraction.
From the vantage point that financial growth is the priority, actions that ignore environmental concerns, or prop up certain interests, are good decisions, such as the idea of nuking Mars. 
From this vantage point of a priority on economic growth, censoring voices advocating for caution and reasoned decision-making is the appropriate action.
Propaganda and Profit
In regard to accelerating connectivity to address nearly every societal ailment, those groups and individuals who are either advocating for a slower course, or calling for caution, or noting the downsides of “fewer lanes,” or reporting harm, for example, via unsafe exposures, have been portrayed as “conspiracy theorists.”
Marginalization is directed to those who question assumptions behind planned “progress,” for example, in the operation of the electric utility grid. Voicing the danger of green-washing of sustainability is met with disgust from environmental groups, as well as politicians.
How and why have certain assumptions about EMF/RF/5G been programmed into the minds of the public, resulting in such polarity?
How was the idea that 5G opponents believe “5G waves spread covid-19” and, therefore, set fire to infrastructure promoted? Who benefits?
Are 5G-concerned groups and individuals arsonists and conspiracy theorists?
How many of the reported infrastructure fires have been investigated, with evidence proving that 5G opponents were convicted of arson?
Where did the term “Conspiracy Theory” originate?
According to Sally Painter writing for TopSecretWriters.com,
The term conspiracy theory brings to mind all kinds of connotations that range from outlandish to crazy. These associations with the phrase were intentional and exactly what the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) intended. According to Zero Hedge, the term Conspiracy Theory was created by the CIA in 1967 as a way to discredit anyone who dared to challenge their official version of the truth.
It seems that the Conspiracy Theory CIA brainchild was first revealed in a 1976 dispatch. This communication was marked “Psych” and “CS”. The psych abbreviation referred to psychological operations or what is better known in the modern world as disinformation. The CS was the abbreviation used for their Clandestine Services unit. 
Following recent political events, the United States is moving to address the current “threat of domestic terrorists,” as opposed to terrorists from other countries. This will entail removing even more of the protections of citizens’ rights in a democratic society, building on changes that accelerated after Sept. 11. This includes the institution of widespread, covert citizen surveillance via the Internet of Things (IOT) and 5G. This movement towards human rights violations has progressed under both political parties, by simply using different justifications. The perceived good guy/bad guy perpetrator/savior polarity between the parties is as irrelevant and inapplicable as the current health exposure limits in place for many toxic exposures.
Censoring conversations as well as suppressing emerging science about health and environmental consequences, in regard to any initiative sourced from concern about covid or climate, does nothing to protect health and the environment.
As a Chinese proverb cautions: “An overturned cart ahead warns the one behind.”
When fear of economic contraction results in regulations that prevent health and environmental caution and scrutiny, such as any of the bills currently under consideration to expedite the roll-out of the 5G telecommunications network, we are approaching a lane loss, a sharp curve, and obstructed vision. 
Like Tiger Woods, we are about to leave the roadway.
Learn more: In a discussion of how the insurrection at the Capitol building is being utilized to drive new policies regarding domestic terrorists, investigative journalist Daniel Liszt offers historical insight from John F. Kennedy, Naomi Wolfe, and others regarding economics, public policy, human rights, and fascism.
Dark Journalist: The State of Emergency Powers!