The overlords have been conducting a particularly "interesting" (twisted, devious, psychopathic) little psy-op these last few days, whereby they have scrapped the free lateral flow tests. This is a big deal because - I was rather flabbergasted to learn recently - it's become quite the de rigueur new trend amongst the voluble of virtue to test for the plague EVERY DAY (see my imagined exchange with such a person here....).

Testing daily is super-virtuous, for two reasons:

1. It's "free" (e.g., funded non-consensually by the public via the form of sanitised extortion and theft known as "taxes"), and it's very virtuous to make a big song and dance about how great "free" things are and how evil it is when you have to pay for them yourself (even if you're a wealthy and world-renowned academic - maybe especially then);
2. It's ostensibly all about protecting others. "I'm not doing it for ME," the super-self righteous simper solemnly, all over social media, presenting their positive test results with all the pomp and ceremony ordinarily reserved for a positive pregnancy test. "It's to protect the MORE VULNERABLE!"

So far, so morality-by-numbers. Good, kind, virtuous people who care about others order lots of tests ('cos they're "free") and use them daily (to protect the more vulnerable - which I thought the masks and injections were supposed to do, but alas, logic, consistency and virtue-signalling seem rarely to go hand in hand).

So, with the daily testing - as with all "Good Person" positions - the desired course of action has hitherto been made as black-and-white and binary as possible by the overlords.

But now we have a curve-ball. The free tests have been scrapped, prompting an actual moral dilemma amongst the self-proclaimed "good people". The "good person thing", the course of action that "good people" take, is usually made so ridiculously obvious for them, pitched at a third-grade-level by our paternalistic propagandists (Brexit? Bad! Nasty! Racist! Remain? Good! Virtuous! Moral! - etc.), that having to actually think for themselves, deploy discernment and judgement (judgement! Bad!) and make a moral choice, has sent many of them recoiling into a complete tailspin.

Because now there are TWO courses of potentially virtuous behaviour, but neither is clear cut.

1. Hoard free tests in order to test daily and protect the vulnerable, OR
2. Stop hoarding tests in order that they are more available to the vulnerable.

GADZOOKS! WHAT A DILEMMA.

It's quite extraordinary to see the mental gymnastics the "good people" are performing to "decide" between these two courses of action, with one woman on Twitter admitting she is hoarding tests... But only so she can donate them to the more vulnerable later on (she has actually suggested that, alongside food banks, the UK ought establish a number of "test banks").

Then we have the inevitable virtue wars on social media, with people trying to out-virtue / out-vulnerable / out-victim each other, by stating, "well *I* haven't hoarded any tests and I've got such-and-such terrible victim status, are you saying YOU'RE more in need of tests than ME??!"

The national media is fanning the flames, naturally, by naming and shaming "test hoarders" who "shamelessly" stockpile tests, thereby further inflaming an already incendiary issue, and on and on the arguing goes... Whilst utterly ignoring the genuinely important aspects of the testing conversation, the real questions, which are:

*Does the test work (no);

*Are there nefarious health implications to using it (yes), and

*Is it being used as a stage prop to continue to perpetuate the illusion of a pandemic (also yes).

The total and utter abdication by the media and government of addressing these questions, or encouraging the public to address them, whilst whipping up a frenzied fight about whether to hoard or not to hoard, is the essence of the Overton Window, one of the most powerful and effective weapons of political control there is.

The Overton Window is defined as "the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse."

What this effectively means is that skilled social architects can create the illusion that intensive discourse and political debate is taking place, that there are different "sides" airing their views freely and challenging each other... Whilst keeping this discourse very tightly restricted to a narrow range of "acceptable" viewpoints (to hoard tests or not to hoard tests) and dismissing any other viewpoints (the real issues as listed above) as mad hattery and conspiracy theory.

Clever, eh? Twisted, devious, and psychopathic, yes - but also very clever.

An interesting addendum to this is that it appears that the overlords are purposefully waging a psychological war on the compliant. The test hoarding wars obviously make no difference to us conspiraquacks, who have, in many cases, spent months doing everything in our power to avoid such tests and so find the hoarding wars both preposterous and vaguely comical.

But for the obedient rule-followers, who have muzzled up, kneeled down, and clapped like seals upon state command, they are facing a genuine, near-paralysing dilemma, and this is by design.

The machinations of the ruling classes over the post-war decades have been deftly engineered in such a way to crush critical thinking in the masses, to obliterate the idea of a guiding inner compass, and to make people as ethically weak and morally vacuous as possible - to make them so that they have no real internal moral script of their own, therefore are constantly looking to external authority to tell them how to behave: what the "good person thing" to do is.

That's why you see so many meltdowns and fights on social media over the test issue. It's because it's usually made so blatantly, embarrassingly obvious for these people what "the good person thing" to do is, that when it's not, they crumble immediately, because - and this is the terrible, stark truth - they cannot moralise for themselves. What is the genuine, non-state-approved, moral thing to do in this situation, in any situation? They don't know. They're trying to guess based on a formless inner emptiness that looks only for superficial approval and authoritarian pats on the head, not from any genuinely deeply-held moral convictions of their own.

The overlords have intentionally disabled the masses morally, to make them completely dependent on (and therefore compliant with) authority, which also means the social controllers have the ability to cause mass meltdowns and chaos (ordo ab chao, as their mantra goes) at any time, by suddenly yanking the comforting rug of mindless compliance out from under the docile majority populace. To do this, all they need do is simply present an actual moral dilemma without providing an obvious answer.

They're doing this with the tests, and they're doing it with the masks, too. Masking is no longer enforced, and is only "recommended", meaning, once again, the masses have to choose for themselves, and this is presenting an agonising, terrifying dilemma for them. I saw someone joke on Twitter that "the maskies are furious that wearing a mask is now optional as now they have to decide for themselves whether to wear one rather than being forced to" - and it's actually true. Exercising personal choice and developing their own moral stance is so alien to them that it's coming out as frustrated, frightened aggression - they're aghast that the state is dropping all Covid restrictions, not because they're afraid of a virus, but because they're afraid - terrified, petrified - of having to think, and more to the point, moralise, for themselves.

And, ultimately, they're in a hopeless double-bind, because they will never find the real moral position by looking at the debate as framed through the Overton Window. The reality is that if you really want to understand what's going on in the world, you must always eschew the obvious arguments, the arguments made on the TV, the arguments raging on the blue-ticked Twitter profiles.. And look for the arguments that aren't being hosted on the world stage. Because it's only when you look past the performance and break the fake window, that you start to find the real moral position - and, therefore, the truth.