Divide and Conquer: Revisited & Expanded

Why are we still allowing ourselves to be divided?

The reason for revisiting, revising, and expanding this article is because what I cover in it is as relevant today as it was when my article was first published over 2 years ago - interestingly on 11th September!!

In fact, I propose that the topic is more important today than 2 years ago, because the overall situation does not seem to be improving; there remains a great deal of division.

It’s always useful to define the terms we’re using to make sure we have the same understanding of what we’re talking about. So, according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term ‘divide and conquer’ means:

“to make a group of people disagree and fight with one another so that they will not join together against one.”

This term is said to be attributable to Philip II of Macedon and to have been used as a strategy by many leaders to assist their military conquests of other countries.

But ‘war’ is not the only scenario in which this strategy can be implemented.

Creating division to make people disagree and fight each other, verbally as well as physically, is clearly a highly beneficial strategy for those who wish to gain and maintain control, which is the common goal of any ‘ruling faction’. However, not only does infighting amongst the opposition help to create division, it also serves to weaken them and thereby prevent them from the recognition that they almost certainly have interests in common, not least of which is their opposition to those who are attempting to control them. In addition, infighting amongst the opposition serves to divert attention away from all the nefarious activities of those who seek ultimate control over everyone.

It is abundantly clear that this strategy has been and is still being deliberately used against ‘the people’ by the ‘would-be controllers’ of the world in their efforts to prevent our ability to live in freedom.

We are in the midst of what is often described as an ‘information war’. This description is true, although only partially so, because the real ‘war’ is far greater and more important than simply the control of information; the real war is for the control of our minds with the aim of gaining control over all aspects of our lives.

It is nevertheless crystal clear that whoever controls the ‘information’ will be able to influence the greatest number of people. This was described in detail by George Orwell in his seemingly prophetic book, 1984.

A particularly poignant point to make is that ‘information’ does not necessarily equate to ‘truth’; the word ‘information’ is defined as,

“knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction”

Study and instruction is not always provided from an unbiased source, therefore knowledge is not always synonymous with information that is true.

This point is particularly significant because of the existence of what is called the ‘truth movement’, a label that is highly problematic for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that it raises the question: what is ‘truth’? This is a good question!

The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides a few definitions of the word ‘truth’, one of which states,

“the body of true statements and propositions.”

This requires an understanding of the word ‘true’, which is defined as,

“in accordance with fact or reality”

But is this ‘truth’?

Information about ‘fact or reality’ has been and continues to be manipulated so that it is now claimed to equate to ‘that which is promulgated by experts’; a claim that does not mean a piece of information is either ‘fact’ or ‘reality’, nor that it necessarily represent ‘truth’.

We are continuing to learn that much of what we’ve been told is ‘true’ can be shown on further investigation to be inaccurate or even completely false.

This is where discernment needs to be implemented.

We are increasingly recognising our faculty of intuition and may experience an intuitive ‘feeling’ about a piece of information that guides us to sense whether it is ‘true’ - or not. Intuition is a valid human sense.

But discussions about our sense of intuition often suggest that it means that whatever people ‘feel’ is true is actually true, simply because they have an emotion relating to it; but this is a complete misunderstanding of intuition. One of the main consequences of this misunderstanding is that people have taken as ‘true’ a wide range of different ideas, simply because they believe or ‘feel’ them to be true.

The uncomfortable ‘feeling’ associated with learning that something you believe to be true is in fact untrue, referred to as ‘cognitive dissonance’, is not the same as intuition but it may be driven by intuition to help us learn what we need to learn. I know that sounds like a paradox. It isn’t meant to be, it’s just a question of learning what intuition really is and then recognising when it speaks to us.

This can be extrapolated to refer to information promulgated by the ‘truth movement’, which claims to be helping humanity free itself from the impending tyranny of the ‘would-be controllers’.

But there is a problem, or more accurately, there are a number of problems!

First of all, it has been shown that, throughout recent history (although I’m aware that we’ve been lied to about a lot of ‘history’), most if not all ‘movements’ have been infiltrated and destroyed from within, which can be achieved through various methods depending on the end-goal of the strategists. This alone raises the question of why seemingly intelligent people who have created these ‘movements’ in recent years have failed to acknowledge something that can be easily discovered through a little research on some of the many 3-letter agencies such as the CIA and organisations such as Tavistock. Is it because they think that ‘this time’ their movement will succeed? If so, many questions need to be asked, a few of which are: Why do they think that it will succeed this time? What is different about their movement? Have they protected their movement against infiltration? If so, how have they done this?

I’m not doubting that it is possible to live in freedom, I’m pointing out that the infiltration or even creation of ‘movements’ can be used as an aspect of a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy, Extinction Rebellion being one example, so we need to be vigilant!

It is possible, and even probable that some of the current ‘truth movements’ have been set up by the ‘would-be controllers’ for the sole purpose of initiating their ‘divide and conquer’ strategy to destroy the real ‘truth’ about important topics of our times, such as the existence of ‘viruses’. As many of us have now demonstrated, there is no evidence that any particle that has been labelled a ‘virus’ has been proven to be the cause of disease. This can be stated as a fact about reality and therefore shown to be ‘true’ - unless and until someone can provide some genuine evidence that demonstrates otherwise. This fact about viruses can be extrapolated to also apply to bacteria and other so-called ‘germs’, which have also never been proven to be ‘disease-causing’ agents.

Taken together, these facts threaten not only the entire vaccine industry, but also a huge proportion of the pharmaceutical industry, as well as a significant proportion of the chemical industry, because there is no longer any need for them to manufacture products that ‘fight germs’.

Obviously, those of us who maintain that there is no evidence for the existence of pathogenic ‘germs’, whether viruses, bacteria, fungi or parasites, are still a relatively small group, although we cannot be referred to as a ‘movement’ and we do not have leaders.

There is a second group of people who correctly claim that vaccines are dangerous, but incorrectly claim that there are nevertheless such things as ‘pathogenic germs’, especially viruses. This somewhat larger group is comprised of and led by many highly qualified doctors and scientists, a factor that serves to make their case seem highly credible to the general public.

Then there is a third group, which comprises mainstream organisations such as the WHO, CDC, NHS and government ‘health’ departments in almost every country. This group states that ‘Covid’ is/was real, masks and social distancing are important measures to protect public health, and that vaccines are safe and effective. This group also continues to promulgate ‘stories’ about various other ‘infectious diseases’ and threats of ‘future pandemics’.

The existence of these 3 groups with seemingly irreconcilable differences serves the ‘agenda’ by ensuring that the general public, or most of them at least, remain confused, which makes them more likely to defer to the mainstream and their narrative because they are more familiar with them as the ‘experts’ with respect to matters of health, although familiarity is not the same as truth. This situation has the potential to destroy any and all opposition in the process.

Unfortunately, there are ongoing efforts to discredit those of us in the first group, even by people in the second group. These efforts relate to the discussion of other topics we have shown to be lacking in evidence to support them, such as ‘climate change’, although this is by no means the only example. The purpose would seem to be to ridicule us and encourage the public to think we are ‘crazy’ and not believe us.

Most of these efforts employ the use of logical fallacies, which are woefully inadequate as a method of ascertaining if something is ‘true’ or not.

My aim in this article is to highlight how important it is to not immediately accept something that is claimed to be ‘true’ at face value, and, at the same time, to not automatically dismiss something just because it challenges your existing belief system and causes cognitive dissonance.

This is of such importance at the current time when we are in the midst of what is clearly an ‘information war’, particularly if the ‘information’ is promulgated by the MSM. But it is equally important if the ‘information’ is promulgated by what is described as the ‘alternative media’, because it is increasingly apparent that this form of media may not be quite as ‘alternative’ as we have been led to believe and may also be promulgating misinformation, whether deliberately or innocently.

It is increasingly obvious that the ‘alt media’ whilst simultaneously challenging the mainstream nevertheless promulgates fear-inducing ‘information’ that is equally unsubstantiated.

We must all therefore become so much more discerning!

There is another important point to mention, which is that no single person knows, or can know everything about every topic; that is impossible. Nevertheless, many people who share correct information about one topic may discuss incorrect information about other topics. Whilst this can tend to create some frustration, we have to recognise that a person who is really knowledgable on one topic cannot be assumed to know everything about all of the topics they choose to discuss, even if they have a very popular podcast channel.

Unfortunately, the consequence of this is the often incorrect assumption that, if a person is wrong about one topic, they must be wrong about all the topics they discuss.

This is a case of what is known as ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’.

Similarly, selecting the information that resonates with our own research findings, and omitting information that does not resonate with it, is often dismissed as ‘cherry picking’.

But these are merely labels intended to confuse us, make us feel inadequate, and question our ability to recognise what is important and relevant from our own perspective.

Sadly, most people have insufficient time to undertake all the research necessary to fully understand even one topic, and this is of course why it is so much easier for them to simply ‘trust the experts’. But that is exactly what the ‘would-be controllers’ are relying on; that people will just defer to ‘authority’ - and of course ‘they’ are the ones who will provide the ‘experts’ that people need to listen to. And so if the ‘opposition’ groups are all arguing amongst themselves, they can easily be ridiculed and dismissed, which may lead to the ‘victory’ of the ‘would-be controllers’ over us all, if we allow it.

There are many ways of disrupting us and our efforts to research and learn, and of discrediting us in the eyes of the public when we attempt to share what we find. This is perfectly clear from the increasing censorship of mainstream social media platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and X (formerly Twitter). In more recent times, there has been a significant increase in shadow-banning, something I have personally experienced with my own work.

What I feel is important for us to recognise, is that each of us is on a journey of discovery and our journey is unique to each one of us. The solution to our own problems and issues lies within ourselves.

The recognition of this as a ‘truth’ may be difficult to ‘prove’ - at least in a laboratory setting, which is where most ‘science’ is claimed to be performed, although this too is incorrect. The evidence for this ‘truth’ lies in the realms of philosophy and especially within ancient Eastern teachings, although much can be gleaned from Western teachings. When we dive deeply into this material we discover that it leads us to the question of what is ‘objective truth’. This, in turn, leads to questions about ‘reality’ and into the deeper questions about the nature of reality; but that is a topic for another day!

The main point to emphasise is that most of what we are learning is that we’ve been lied to about many different aspects of life. So it’s more appropriate to say that we are unlearning rather than learning and as we unlearn what we thought was true, we discover that there is a lot we don’t know. This means we have to be comfortable in not knowing; we have to be able to say “I don’t know” when we discover, for example, that the story of DNA as our ‘blueprint’ is unproven and find that we don’t have a replacement explanation for what ‘genes’ actually are.

The indoctrination from our school days of needing to know ‘the answer’ to the question so we can be right and pass tests requires some effort to overcome.

This leads to another point I’d like to emphasise, although I have discussed it in previous articles, which is that it is unnecessary to provide a replacement explanation when we provide evidence to refute a claim made by others. Falsification does not require replacement!

I would add that an important part of our learning journey is to be able to collaborate with others and share information so that the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. This is the integration of the individual with ‘the collective’ (no, I don’t mean a communistic collective) so that we grow and learn together in harmony, which is truly creative. Infighting prevents and even destroys this harmony.

I would suggest that, despite our differences, we all (or most of us at least) have one aim in common; and that is to live in freedom and make our own decisions about all aspects of our lives.

This makes it an imperative to become fully aware of the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy being used against us, so that we do not let ourselves be drawn into fighting each other over details, when together we could be creating new ways of living in freedom.

Dawn 🌹