The Imposition of the Expert Class: A Historical Look at Control and Compliance
Exposing the Psychological Programming and Commercial Agendas Behind Public Health Protocols
What was truly laid bare during the COVID-19 era was not just a virus, but the imposition of the expert class. Governments worldwide, in implementing what was described as a foreign "terror program" locally, insisted they "must consult the experts," believing these figures held all the answers. Yet, the experts were all repeating the same information, which came from the same single source, and they often could not explain that information credibly—they were simply given a script and told there could be no deviation. It was fascinating to watch the disintegration of the so-called experts; when questioned by people "in the wild," they would stammer, make things up, or simply say they didn't know and would get back to the inquirer. Their authority quickly dissolved as soon as basic questions were asked about the origin and logic of the new protocols.
The Unanswered Questions of Pandemic Protocols
The lack of rationale was evident when questions were raised about the newly implemented protocols. Why did masking suddenly become "a thing" if it wasn't used during every other flu season? Why was six-foot distancing implemented if it hadn't been used for every other flu in history? And why the new practice of slathering hand sanitizer everywhere if it hadn't made sense in previous flu seasons? The response to these logical inquiries was "dead silence". Every single new protocol for this "novel coronavirus" should have been standard for every flu season, but it was not.
A Completely New Programming
The pandemic brought forth a "completely new programming". The dictates were clear: wear a mask at all times, six-foot distance from everyone even while masked, and lather hand sanitizer all over yourself and on surfaces. For some, this intense adherence became a religious experience, akin to joining a cult.
The Cult of Compliance and Punishment
Adherence to this new programming became a mandatory act of joining a "cult". If you didn't follow the cult's demands, you were reprimanded and punished, verbally and otherwise, by the society around you. This was about a "fervor of people doing the performance compliance".
Performance Compliance as the Goal
The requirement was not only to perform the action but to be seen doing the thing by everyone. Obedience was the end goal, and the "performance compliance of the compliance" was the entire point.
Questioning the Lack of Science
It was irrelevant if you questioned the "lack of science" behind the masking, hand sanitizer, and six-foot distancing. Your questions didn't matter, and the inability of the experts to answer them didn't matter. Compliance was the only thing that mattered.
Shifting the Blame: You Are the Problem
If you failed to perform according to the new demands, you became "the problem". The issue was framed as your non-compliance, not the fact that the demands themselves were "ridiculous" and the concepts being promoted were "nonsensical".
Psychological Entrainment Protocols
It was "pretty obvious" that psychological programming was taking place. The sudden, universal demand for constant mask-wearing, hand sanitizing, and six-foot distancing was part of the "entrainment protocols".
The Mass Formation Psychosis Reveal
A significant "big reveal" during COVID was the mechanism of mass formation psychosis. To change the behavior and habits of a large crowd of people, which they naturally resist, a specific combination must be deployed.
The Three-Part Combination for Behavior Change
The method to change the habits of a large group of people is a three-part combination: first, to socially isolate them; second, to make them afraid; and third, to tell them the only way out of the fear spiral is to do the things they're being told to do. This formula "creates mass formation psychosis" and was "unleashed across the world" during the pandemic.
Historical Precedents in the 1918 Spanish Flu
Curiously, the idea of masking was not new. You can look back to the 1918 "Spanish flu" where people also masked, and they also had procedures like isolation and putting tinctures on their hands. The problem is that masking "did not save you" then, and these concepts have been "tried before and it has failed spectacularly".
The Traditional Theory of Virology and Isolation
Traditionally, the theory of virology was that if someone was sick and "transmissible," you would isolate the sick person so the contagion would not spread to the healthy people. This was the working theory for 150 years. The pandemic flipped this by isolating healthy people to deal with the viral transmission.
Commercial Origins of Quarantine
The historical basis for isolation, and even the word quarantine (which may come from the old word quarantina, meaning a period of four weeks of isolation), is linked to commerce. In the old times of water-based shipping, a ship arriving at port would fly a special flag to signal they had not yet been cleared. A dock master would check the crew and passengers for sickness. If a competing interest ship arrived, political connections or secret societies could use a "wink and the nod" to quarantine the competing cargo, holding it in port for four weeks. This delay would keep "price stability intact," allowing the connected individual to sell their own cargo for "maximum value" without competition. The "false premise of sickness" has been used commercially for a long time to control markets by staggering deliveries and preserving selling value.
Conclusion
The events of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed a system where an "expert class" promoted "nonsensical" demands, backed by "dead silence" instead of credible scientific answers. This performance of compliance, which had the hallmarks of a mass formation psychosis created through fear and social isolation, was a shocking display of control. Furthermore, the protocols' striking historical similarity to past failures and the commercial origins of quarantine demonstrate a pattern of using the "false premise of sickness" to enforce social and economic control. Ultimately, the experience was about enforcing obedience and performance compliance, making it clear that in this new programming, the demand for compliance, not the pursuit of health, was the end goal.