Do I want to "divide the movement"? Absolutely
... And never let it be said that I engage in intentionally provocative, wilfully outrageous, or blatantly clickbait-y headlines (I have to get around these interminable shadow-bans, perma-bans, and various violations of communist standards somehow...).
It's something that we hear a lot: "don't criticise such-and-such a person, don't scrutinise so-and-so, you're dividing the movement!"
The obvious implication being, therefore, that dividing the movement is something that is wholly undesirable. Well, I strenuously object - and I did do about three weeks of consultancy work for a law firm in 2021, so I have some professional familiarity with this vernacular... just throwing that out there for all the would-be Columbos who believe they have discovered my "dark secret" that I once worked for a law firm... hey, super-Sherlocks, if it was a dark "secret", do you really think I would link to said firm in the menu of my own website..?
Yet, I welcome and encourage you to scrutinise me, and I vigorously support your right to examine my motives and determine for yourself if I am legitimate and trustworthy, because that is the only way to get to the truth. It would be the height of rank hypocrisy for me to encourage you to question and critically analyse all forms of media... except for those authored by me. Those you should always take at complete face value and never question or think for yourself, as I am clearly beyond reproach!
(Note for the tediously minded - this doesn't mean I am obliged to platform and engage with every "u is controlled opposition innit" comment that I receive - I really don't have the time, or put it this way: if "arguing with critics on the internet" was a waged job, I would have become rich enough to retire some time ago - it merely means I support your right to question others, including me, and to draw the conclusions you choose.)
Anyone, therefore, who feigns pearl-clutching outrage that another would "dare" to ask questions about them or entertain healthy scepticism about their motives (eternal vigilance, after all, being the price of freedom), is either grandiose and arrogant beyond belief (why should anyone consider themselves beyond being questioned? Especially relative newcomers to the movement), or they have something to hide.
While it's true that the word "narcissistic" is probably overused, please do note that the prevalence of pathological narcissism in the general population is quite considerable, currently estimated at around 5%. That means in any large group of people, there are going to be a significant number of them. In the very loosely defined "truth movement", which comprises millions of people worldwide, there's going to be tens of thousands of them. And that's just "genuine" narcissists, not actual controlled opposition. Similarly, the same can be said for any other personal pathology you care to mention, such as BPD - which, again, is fairly common and we have all no doubt come across several suspected cases in "the truth movement". I'm not suggesting anyone should be unkind to these people - but to acknowledge that "uniting" with them is, in very many cases, neither possible nor desirable.
In order for any of us to form healthy, constructive, non-abusive bonds with other people, we have to be able to identify and weed out toxic people, and there are just as many toxic people in "the truth movement" as in any other large group of people. To say that we should embrace these destructive, exploitative characters with open arms just because we happen to agree on a few things is a form of gaslighting. No, I have standards, thanks, as well as self-respect, and the bar for entering my life is just a bit higher than agreeing with me that poison is bad (since basically, the one and only thing that unites every member of "the truth movement" is a belief that - at least some - vaccines are poisonous. The "movement" doesn't necessarily agree on anything else).
Ignoring, dismissing, and excusing toxic behaviour in "the truth movement" is just as bad as ignoring, dismissing, or excusing it in any other environment, be in the workplace, the family home, or somewhere else. How many members of dysfunctional families have been victimised and attacked when they call out abuse in the family, branded as troublemakers and liars, who should just put up and shut up so as to "not divide the family"?
If we're genuinely invested in both the truth and healthy, balanced, robust relationships between people, we must encourage and support others' rights to call out bad behaviour and make choices about who they have in their lives and who they unite with, which brings me to the next point...
Another common declaration in the "truth movement" is that we need "unity" to succeed.
Unity meaning what? That we never disagree? Argue? Fall out? Divide ourselves into subgroups, cliques, tribes?
Well, if that's what we need, then we need to stop being human, because human nature is to develop passionately strong belief systems, to seek out others who share them, and to defend them to the point of conflict - even, and not infrequently throughout history, to the point of death: caring about something or someone so much you would die to defend it/them is something many would see as an essential part of becoming fully human (to be clear, not that you actually ever have to make the sacrifice, just that you would be prepared to). And thank God human nature is like that, because what is the alternative? As they say, the only way to never offend anyone, to never attract criticism, to never get into conflict, is to say nothing, be nothing, do nothing.
As soon as you start expressing yourself, especially on such complex and contentious issues that characterise "the truth movement", you WILL offend people. You WILL come in for criticism. You WILL alienate people, whether you intend to or not. It is the human condition. But you'll also strongly resonate with people who are on your page, who you have things in common with, with whom you're compatible.
Human beings are hardwired to be exceptionally discerning about who they allow into their lives and form meaningful bonds with. It is critical for their healthy survival that they are, and we see it evidenced around us all the time. For instance: are you currently in a long-term monogamous relationship with the first person who ever expressed a romantic interest in you? No? Why not? Isn't that a bit "divisive"?
You're probably not in one with the second or third person who did, either, and also have almost certainly ended a long-term relationship, at least once, with someone who wished to remain in a relationship with you - even if this caused immense pain to the other person, and perhaps many other people (such as children and family members who liked your partner etc).
Well, how would you feel if I said that shouldn't be allowed - ever? That, as soon as someone expresses romantic interest in you, you are instantly required to have the kind of relationship with them that they want - forever - because anything else would be "divisive"?
It's a stupid argument, and the enormous pitfalls of such an approach are painfully obvious.
Equally so with other types of relationship. Think back to when you were at school. Was your whole school year "united"? Was everyone equally friendly with everyone else? Or were there groups and cliques based on different personality types and interests? Imagine if I had come along and told you, "sorry, you're not allowed to have your best friend and small tight-knit circle anymore, it's too divisive. You're now mandated to spend an equal amount of time with everyone in the year. Yes, including the school bully. Who cares that they're an abusive psycho? We all need to unite!"
Let's move on into the workplace: many of us have made some of our closest ever friends at work... and also encountered some of the world's most toxic bullies. Bullying in the workplace can and does completely destroy individual lives, and have a wide-range of knock-on effects for that individual's family and friends, too.
But should we just ignore all that and say, hey, look, we're all working in the same place, aiming for the same ends, forget challenging this sociopathic psycho who's destroying everyone's mental health and ability to function healthily, and just unite!?
This, in my opinion, is the refrain of the coward and the enabler. Someone who is too afraid to robustly confront and call out toxic behaviour, so instead they abdicate this responsibility and make disingenuous calls for "unity" instead. It's the adult equivalent of the snivelling kid in the playground who, instead of coming to the defence of the smaller kid being bullied, sucks up to the bully to ensure they don't get picked on themselves.
An effectual movement of people is not founded on a smattering of vaguely shared beliefs, underpinned by a fear of confrontation and cowardice. It's founded on people who are genuinely compatible and can work together in a much more meaningful way, and who have the confidence and the integrity to identify and condemn bad behaviour when they see it - and to support others who are courageous enough to do this, too.
Finding people you can work effectively with over the long-term is exceptionally challenging, and that's why successful businesses plough so much money into directives and programmes aimed at recruiting the right people, developing them optimally, engaging in effective "team bonding exercises" and so on. That all these people might agree - for instance - that the government lies about stuff is no kind of indicator, at all, that they are going to be able to work together in any kind of effective or meaningful way. It is, frankly, ridiculous to believe that this would be an indicator of such a thing.
After all, our enemies have far more rigorous recruitment processes than "agreeing on stuff". Millions of people agree, for instance, that the world is overpopulated, a position also held by our enemies (NB: I don't agree) - but that many people simply possess this belief doesn't give them instant access to powerful positions in the ranks. They have to go through a far more rigorous process than that, and demonstrate they're actually capable people.
A small team of collaborators who have demonstrated themselves to be genuinely compatible, mature, responsible, and devoid of serious personality disorders (which, as I say, are not uncommon, so it is not gratuitous to be concerned about this), will achieve infinitely more than a large group of incompatible people who may have all sorts of disabling personal limitations making them difficult or impossible to work with (equally, someone you find impossible to work with, might be able to work very well with someone else - hence the importance of discernment and 'division'). Size isn't everything. Quality over quantity, every time.
Another key reason for the importance of division is that individual people have wildly different work ethics and abilities to each other. In any large group of people, workload is almost never dispensed equally, and you typically end up with a small amount of people doing a large amount of work, with others doing far less. This is absolutely epidemic throughout all workplaces, voluntary organisations and everywhere else you find large groups of people. Indeed, it is so common for employers to have "dead wood" that sometimes consultants will be called in to get a precise breakdown from each employee of what they actually do all day.
Anyone nodding along to this right now has doubtless been required, probably on many occasions, to 'carry' others at work who don't do their share. This has happened to me on very many occasions, too, and it's another reason I'm so discerning (quote unquote "divisive") about who I will form relationships with: because if I'm not, I end up getting overworked and exploited by others. It is the same for any person with a work ethic and standards - which, to reiterate, a vast number of people (whether they consider themselves a member of "the truth movement" or not), don't have.
Now, when I say I want to be "divided" from people, that doesn't mean I want to be gratuitously unpleasant to them. It's eminently possible to be polite and civil to others without wishing to develop any kind of relationship with them. But just as important as manners, are standards, and not allowing yourself to be pushed into relationships with others you don't want, lest you get accused of "dividing the movement" - because the movement should be divided, for the reasons I have just outlined,
You will find, and you no doubt have, that the more passionately you care about something, the more accomplished you become at something, the clearer you become on who you are and what you want, the more "divided" from others you will become, because passion and skill empowers you, and empowered people are threatening to would-be exploiters (ineffectual, vague, meek cowards are not).
That is why the ruling classes do everything within their power from the day we are born to disempower us, and make us timid, doubtful, and insecure ("why, little ol' me question "the experts", never!"). And it is true that timid, doubtful, and insecure people are superficially a lot more "popular" than their opposites, because they don't stand for anything - they're too scared to. When you don't stand for anything, then of course you can "unite" with anyone and everything, because you have no standards. You have no meaningful self-worth so you are wide open to whatever toxic, destructive, exploitative force wishes to take hold of you - and they will.
It's therefore clear why the ruling classes would create and sponsor this personality type, and why they would put so much effort into eliminating meaningful diversity - the only meaningful diversity being the diversity of ideas - under the cynical facsimile of "unity".
The kind of "unity" they want is perfectly encapsulated in the NWO blueprint, John Lennon's 'Imagine', where there is no longer any conflict, because no-one any longer believes in anything. No-one has any individual passion or conviction or identity. Humanity is just one big, amorphous blob with no individual in any way distinct from any other. It's the kind of "unity" enjoyed by The Borg.
Yes, "divide and conquer" is a real political strategy that our enemies use, but they create unnatural divisions for the purposes of exploiting them (e.g., Brexit - suddenly the whole country was in deep emotional turmoil about an issue that the vast majority had never given a second thought to before). That unnatural divisions can be created for the purposes of exploitation and political control, doesn't negate from the fact that real, natural, and healthy divisions, between individuals and between groups, exist - and that they certainly should not be pathologised or erased, because to erase such differences, diversities, and distinctions, would be to erase the very essence of what it means to be a unique, unrepeatable human being.
So, if you're genuinely pro-humanity, and not pro some sinister Stepford-Wife-cyborg style future, where everyone thinks, feels, and behaves in exactly the same way, then you must stop calling for a "unified" future and for a human one, instead - in all its glorious, diverse, argumentative, joyful, messy - and, yes, 'divided' - technicolour.
And if you don't agree with me... you've just proven my point š
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...
- BuyMeACoffee for one-off or monthly donations
- Patreon, for monthly pledges
- Direct bank transfer, for either monthly or one-off donations, to Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA
Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.
14 comments on “Do I want to "divide the movement"? Absolutely”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search
Archives
Categories
Really thought provoking - can't help but agree with all the points you make.
Very struck with your perception about 'Imagine' - which came up in a replay of an Aretha Franklin concert recently...and made uneasy listening - for the reasons that you articulate particularly well.
Fully accepting there will be differences within the truth movement, but might it still be important to build bridges wherever possible?
Some of us, while having a religious background - have fundamentally crossed over into the secular world - yet profoundly appreciate the work being done by those still operating within a religious framework of some kind.
At the same time, we can still be wary of the way that any kind of religious outlook certainly has the potential to cloud the insight that is likely to be needed to most accurately perceive any given situation.
So obviously not complete identification - and definitely not unity for unity's sake - but nevertheless, wouldn't close cooperation with groups that are doing their best to span this religious/secular divide - be particularly helpful?
Brilliant - Iām tired of the "truther" and "freedom" movement, many of whom promote the same rubbish ("Iāve got a cold, thereās something going around etc) were pushing back on - and brave.
The only bit I donāt agree with is the bit about calling out the psychopathic bullies at work.
Not that we shouldnāt but that anyone whoās ever tried knows that the power of the corporation (includes chari-d-ies) will mean youāre gas lighted, crusted and NDA-ed. Brilliant training for Covid 1984 times.
Nice
Love your work as I have said before. I intuitively feel you should check out Frances Leader on Substack. Catch up on Sunday Memories serial too for a measure of this extrarodinary woman. Might inspire your own origins story which I would be equally fascinated by. You may be soul sisters... maybe cousins? Eill share similar on her stack about you.
"If you want to see who your tribe is, speak the truth and see who sticks around. Those are yours."
You'll be pleased to know that your tribe is pretty big Miri...And growing...Judging by the links to your website that I see on a couple of Telegram channels that I follow. Please keep up the good work.
One theory to explain the Covid madness of the last 3 years, as expounded by Mattias Desmet, is that we are confronting a Mass Formation. His solution to the problem of a Mass Formation involves making sure that we don't fall into our own opposing Mass so it is critical that we don't attempt to crush our own differences of opinion and divisions. Rather, I think of us as a group of allies attempting to encircle our enemy, advancing towards each other in ever constricting radii forcing them to collapse in on themselves crushed and hopefully never able to promote their evil ideology again. Once the enemy is vanquished we should be free to enjoy a life of peaceful and collaborative co-existence with whatever group we choose to consort with. Miri's drive to challenge and accentuate differences amongst us while simultaneously homing in on the major issue(s) we are all fighting for seems to be exactly the right approach for us to keep up an effective offensive.
Totally agree with all you have wrote. You say it so amazingly
You explained it perfectly. I feel the same at work and felt the same doing group activities.
It's not that I needed competent people around me, but please assist me as I assist you when I'm not knowledgeable.
You know that wolf packs don't have a set alpha, like science claimed? The alpha is the one competent at the current task (which changes), the pack assists.
It's a nice replacement for singular authority. Heck our brains are supposed to work that way! Ian Mcgilchrist explained in The Matter With Things that our brains optimally take turns on tasks because it's most efficient.
This leads into the John Lennon song Imagine.
Yes, it sounds like global governance at first.
But it's actually anarchist.
"Imagine no countries" (no centralized authorities that we have today)
There was nothing about having a government in that song!
Well said Miri . You are definitely on my wavelength , which is seeming quite rare nowadays. And I agree , we donāt need to be one amorphous blob that agrees on everything , how ridiculous! And how boring life would be.
Iāve also enjoyed following links to some of your earlier articles : a veritable rabbit hole! With plenty of food for thought .
I shall endeavour to ākeep upā with your updates . Thankyou for sharing your truth .
Oh and there's plenty of these "unity" people, especially those that think "no virus" is dividing the movement.
My favorite jagoff is Derrick Broze and other so called anarchists who are ironically obsessed with unity. That's not anarchy!
Thanks everyone for your most interesting comments š
To Paul - many thanks, and I think I know the name...
To Rosa - thank you, good to know!
To Harry, you said: "wouldn't close cooperation with groups that are doing their best to span this religious/secular divide - be particularly helpful?" - and I say, only if close cooperation is actually possible, and it's only possible with people who are compatible as colleagues, who are able to appropriately share workloads, who can treat others respectfully, and so on and so forth, and this, in my experience, is not common - positive, productive working environments take a huge amount of effort to create and sustain, and unfortunately, are not the norm within voluntary movements particularly (because organisations running on little or no money can't afford to invest in training, development, and all other initiatives that are typically essential to well-functioning workplaces).
So this is the point I am trying to encapsulate in my article - that calls for mass unity/cooperation simply don't take human nature into account, and the fact that cooperation / compatibility isn't a natural knack everyone has with everyone else, even if they share some general ideas. Assuming otherwise (that we can work well together just because we agree on X) inevitably leads to huge frustrations and resentments and - often quite quickly - alliances falling apart.
So it's better to acknowledge human nature from the start, and to be very discerning ("divisive") about who one will work with, and how. It saves so much time and energy down the line.
None of this is anything new and dates back to "Roman times", as it were. The ever-perceptive Monty Python crew depicted perfectly what happens when people get together on the basis of fighting a 'shared enemy', but don't necessarily have anything else in common... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
Thanks for your comment.
Thank you for your response, Miri - it's causing me to reflect further on this issue.
It's very true that just because there are some things very much in common - that doesn't mean there are enough, or that irreconcilable differences won't emerge later.
It seems clear that the recent experience with the Love Party illustrates this very well, and will have made you understandably extra wary.
It seems to be a matter of judgment - the weighing of particular circumstances. In my own personal life, I would say I am unique to the extent that someone 100% compatible would be very unlikely to exist...(or if they did, to find) so am painfully aware of the extent of the need for compromise - and yet of the potential risk this involves.
Exactly the same dilemmas have been brought into sharp focus for many of us regarding family relationships over the last three years. Just because we are born into the same environment - doesn't mean that we will all have the same crucial cooperating skills you describe...and yet the importance of keeping a family unity can be extremely high?
In this particular instance, since the enemy is so hugely powerful - a major strength that we have seems to be potential numbers of resistance?
So that finding sufficient common ground (among the admitted diversity of people) that will then swell further awareness - would also seem to be a priority?
In such a situation, to be aware and open about what the differences are, and therefore to take the time to clearly tease them out, rather than glossing over them for the sake of apparent unity (which I suspect is what often happens) would also be really helpful?
I suppose what has been happening with the 'Freedom Doctors' illustrates this? The initial need for numbers has perhaps caused an overlooking of potential divisions - which have only more recently been emerging.
However in instances where alliances may well be of utmost importance - identifying as fully as possible in advance where the differences, as much as the common ground, are - might be key to longer term success?
Hi Harry, thanks for your thoughtful response and to some extent I agree with you - e.g., that it's important to promote unity in families particularly, where possible. However, the emphasis must be on the "where possible" just as much as the "unity", otherwise one simply facilitates abuse. The statistics on divorce, for instance, are pretty clear-cut - about two-thirds are "low conflict", where there was no abuse or volatile screaming matches etc., the couple just "drifted apart", "weren't happy any more", etc - so in some of those cases, we may make the argument that these couples might have been better off staying together, what with all the upheaval divorce brings, especially if children are involved (and stats show quite a large number of people who do divorce in these circumstances, end up regretting it). However: that doesn't negate from the critical other one-third of divorces, where abuse or other high-conflict situations were involved, and in those situations, it's much better for the couple to be apart.
So I certainly agree that people can be too quick to dissolve relationships that could be salvaged in some circumstances, BUT I also know that the opposite is true, too - that people can tend to stay too long in toxic and abusive situations.
In prioritising "discernment" (so-called division), it is not about searching for the perfect partner with whom you are immaculately compatible (or the perfect job, or perfect relationship with your parents, etc) - it is about finding someone with whom you are compatible ENOUGH, where the relationship is good ENOUGH - it is about having that standard, and not accepting behaviour that consistently falls below it, without expecting perfection (which of course we all fall far short of). Of course I expect to have disagreements at times, even with my closest family and friends, and we do - but if the relationship is robust, underpinned by mutual respect, we can get past these differences and move on.
This isn't possible with pathologically toxic characters (of whom there are many everywhere), and the only way of continuing relationships with them, involves the non-toxic person repeatedly having to make allowances and permitting themselves to be repeatedly badly treated, which is no real solution for obvious reasons, and rapidly leads to massive resentments.
It is a well-known trope that "people don't leave jobs, they leave toxic work cultures", and it is absolutely true. What happens so often, in any sector you care to mention, is that bad management doesn't address the toxic characters in the workplace (often because they are afraid of them themselves), instead telling the non-toxic people to "accommodate" them (and very often blaming the non-toxic person for raising a complaint), which inevitably leads to many/most of the high-value employees leaving, and only the toxic characters remaining. High-value people know their worth and won't stick around to be badly treated for long.
People tend to demonstrate who they really are very quickly (especially when under pressure), and the mistake I personally have made so many times in the past is dismissing obvious big red flags for the sake of so-called "unity" - and it isn't a mistake I intend to make again, because never once has this worked out well, and instead ends up stealing huge amounts of one's time and emotional energy.
So to sum, unity is only desirable where it's possible. It may be possible with a majority of people in some circumstances. But there's always going to be that very significant minority with whom it's not possible, and for the maintenance of our own sanity and self-respect, we need to be able to identify these people and assert our rights to have nothing to do with them. We need to have standards, because the cost of not having them is simply far too high.
Hi again. Miri.
I value your words extremely highly - and will share these latest ones with my daughter in her 20's who has recently gone through such a 'toxic workplace' experience.
(I am also very grateful to be able to point to your recent discussion on the current crisis in democracy in a letter to my MP)
In regard to relationships particularly within the Freedom movement - I have had a new challenge this week. Joining a group which has been established for some time...which I had assumed was not at all religious...I found to my surprise that at least two of the leading members do have a religious perspective...along 'New Age' lines.
I don't know how deep these run, but certainly immediately there was the usual hallmark belief in reincarnation, in evidence.
In my experience, this is likely to be a deeply problematic issue - at some level undermining effective action and attitudes.
Perhaps not everyone will be affected in this way...but I have noticed a certain corrosive aspect which emerges with this belief system.
In some instances, people following these ideas through will announce that they have no sympathy for others variously caught up in some of the tragedy of recent times - because they "brought it all onto themselves".
I.e. they were just "paying off some of their past life karma"?
Where is the basis for compassion, or detailed psychological/sociological analysis - with such a belief system?
Yes, it provides a form of "religious consolation" - but I have never heard any satisfactory explanation for this major downside.
If life doesn't end with death, but is to go in some form, regardless - what's the harm in letting people die, then?
The only restraint seems to be the fear of potential repercussion on oneself...which may or may not be having such any positive effect - but I would suspect, very little.
I've also heard the view expressed that all the suffering inflicted is just to "wake people up" - and that since not enough people have done so, yet more suffering will have to be divinely allowed to take place...and is actually required.
And in the West, people espousing these views will claim to not be religious at all - but just "spiritual"...
At the same time, I've found a lot of excellent down to earth content within these resistance circles too - which obviously is to be appreciated.
However, you can see why I was taken aback to find this particular religious sensibility emerging in the only local action group I am aware of?
Which is why I will still have to have time for resistance groups based around more socially conservative religious ideas - even though my own leanings are that conventional couple relationship norms are far too vulnerable to stresses and strains to be able to constitute reliably safe and healthy environments for children to grow up in...like the proverbial 'two-legged stool'.
These arrangements may have worked well-enough in bygone eras when the paramount considerations were of one's duty and role...but in an era where personal autonomy has become the overiding goal - I don't see that they suffice any longer.
Anyway, that digression was just to point out the dilemma that despite my secular progressive perspective - there seems no alternative but to have to get along with religious perspectives, whether either traditional or 'New Age' - that I see as both equally problematic in their own way.
I wish more people in the Freedom movement were secular humanist in perspective - but there clearly aren't enough of us right now.