[Cheers to @artgrafiken for this humourous illustration of what I call 'The Spectrum de la Woke']

There are layers of information in regards to the truth about Covid-19 and the greater subject of the 'Great Reset'. Individuals and groups can be completely on one side or the other of the 'truth spectrum' and then many others lay somewhere in the middle. One side of the spectrum being 'fully woke, fearless' and the otherside being 'fear induced, clouded judgement'.

(Please excuse my use of the word 'woke' as its use has become a bit passe in the now almost meaningless world of the new-age-modern-western-spirituality supermarket. I take this opportunity to reclaim this word to its full potential).

Let's make a few comparisons in alternative media to illustrate this 'truth-layers' perspective.

Look at this mainstream-ish interview with Professor Karol Sikora -

Compare it with this interview with Dan Erikson and Artin Massihi -

The interview with Professor Sikora is very sympathetic with the mainstream narrative however he makes some very valid concessions exposing parts of the narrative as ludicrous without directly countermanding it - for example, regarding the overbearing actions of the police in parts of the world that destroy the trust relationship between the state and the public. This stable conversation allows for the fear narrative induced person to safely start questioning the mainstream narrative using some 'expert qualified' opinion - society still intact.

Because that's the ball of string we're unraveling in people by feeding them direct truth - we're asking them to question the fabric of our present society and take self-responsibiliy - that's a pretty scary thing for an individual that has never had a need to think about this shit.

Then look at the second interview with Dan Erikson and Artin Massihi - it is very cut and dry with information and facts, they are not one sided and are not trying to push an agenda (you can tell the authenticity in his body language, hand movements and tone of voice) - Dan's reporting of information is dry, true experience which he feels needs to be made public for the sake of the public - yet you notice the cognitive dissonance in the camera person who makes a few very emotionally packed accusative questions - it could be said this person is under a fear induced hypnosis and feels that his world view is being attacked by this data which asks him to question the mainstream media narrative and the actions of his government. It is inwardly forcing him to question the veracity of the mainstream perspective. It is exposing the lie for what it is in plain sight. Yet the questioner has invested so much emotion into the original fear loaded narrative, so much effort into participating in the facade of 'working together', believing the lock-down measures were the best course of action in a collective effort to work together to 'save everyone', flatten the curve etc. that they may still fail to hear the hard facts in front of them.

Now, take this rogue doctor in a Spanish news report who outright spits in the face of the narrative with his experienced truth in a very frank kind of way - it is a win for us but it will also cause others to polarize and completely block themselves off, still wanting to believe that their government is working in their favour and everything can continue in cloudland forever more.

Understanding the layers of information in the 'wokening' gradation is important if we want to reach the critical mass required to 'awaken' the mass.

Take Price's law - https://dariusforoux.com/prices-law/

50% of the work is done by the square root of the total number of people who participate in the work.

Thanks to @barge for popping this in my face in a comment on a post of mine here, in which he/she states (honestly don't know your gender, lol)

If there are 10 people, 3 will do half the work.
If there are 100 people, 10 will do half
With 10,000 only 100 people do half the work
...and so on.

Interesting thing is this applies to many aspects of life (eg distribution of wealth etc). I imagine it also applies to energy and vibration!

Thus (and this is a very interesting and empowering notion), only a relatively small number of people need to maintain high energy levels (well above the heaviness of FEAR) for a collective 50% to be reached (tipping point) and a tsunami of transformation to occur.

Assuming a population of 10 billion, only 100,000 would be required for this!

This may equate (in crude terms): to 100,000 beings need to understand this 'crazy talk' for the threshold to be reached whereby it becomes closer and closer to being accepted by those who hitherto found it crazy (ie the default level of the Collective is raised!).

We need to work towards this critical mass of 100,000 people to make the necessary effect to the mass-collective. We need to be more effective with our methods by removing all sensationalism and bias from our material to reach more people; more working, considerate, smart people that will assist in this grand work of exposing the truth.

---

As another example: this video by this popular socialite will likely reach more people via the direct common sense of what we are/are not doing than the Spanish doctor video will with his frank in your face approach (however it must be mentioned, both do have a place):

We cannot hope to 'wake' the entirety of the population to the point of realising their governments and the corporations are entirely evil (which of course they are...) in a single moment -- we can have a greater effect on the collective by finding a middle ground within the public sphere and capitalizing on these middle layers in our approach in the public forum. This approach has much less potential to polarize people which allows a deeper and faster shift into truer truth later on in their lives.

We have to question, what is our true motive in finding the truth and spreading the truth if we understand that introducing a layer of truth that is too deep in the spectrum of truth causes polarization rather than true movement in the dynamic shift of beliefs held by the collective.

Are we truth-seekers for ego? Do we just want to be right in the end? Are we using it as a form of taking our anger out on the world so we can call them stupid sheeple? (an extremely polarizing and emotionally triggering derogatory term).

Another middle-ground example is this podcast by the 'Institute of Public Affairs' in Australia, the speaker explains his outrage at the loss of human rights in Victoria -

He uses the purely human rights approach and does not make an effort of argument to deny the mainstream narrative regarding the virus just makes a stand against the unnecessary heavy handedness of imposing emergency state measures for the threat - and the premier's plot to increase the State of Emergency another 12 months after the initial six months period (which is presently the legal limit for this temporary form of martial law).

There are many middle ground videos that illuminate a middle layer of truth: a stepping stone from which the acolyte truth seeker can walk to and from.

For myself, after a lot of self-reflection realising my initial truth spreading motive in the past has been ego and self-interest has caused me to question my true starting point -

Do I really want to help people?

What then follows is the firm decision to put in the work and find a middle ground that the average person can work with so as not to completely pull the rug from underneath their feet. An example of average people could be a family with both parents working full-time trying their hardest to keep things afloat.

What security can we offer them with our hard, cold, stark truth? We cannot wonder why there is cognitive dissonance. We must work with the situation and collectively devise solutions that can give these individuals peace of mind for their future.

We must empathize with each situation within the public forum individually and test the ground before we go 'out there' and just preach the good word of the truth potentially polarizing our listeners and causing a setback in their long-term self-realisation - simultaneously setting back our larger goal of collective awakening.

Otherwise, our emotion filled self-righteous efforts prove to support the very regime that we seek to topple.

Every situation, every conversation requires empathy and individual assessment of what layer of truth is accessible to that person at that time and from where and where to they have the ability to travel to in the spectrum in that moment.

Take this semi-alternative video on the 'Great-Reset' as purported by the World Economic forum for example -

It explains a few things but refrains from going down too many rabbit holes that the average person might find overly questionable. The video maker himself has been very cautious about releasing what might be considered from an 'extreme truther perspective' to be 'chicken feed'.

It's a very safe video about the concerning 'Great Reset' that we have found ourselves in the midst of and explains how Covid-19 is openly being capitalized on as an 'opportunity' by many corrupt corporations (the same ones that took us down this path of darkness and the same ones trying to mandate vaccines and trans-humanism).

Now compare that to this overt video about the 'New World Order' -

Here is a blatant video of unadulterated truth for those open enough with eyes to see it. Both videos have a purpose - both reach a certain percentage of the population.

This entire truth thing has become a complicated mine field of compartmentalized information for the would be truth spreader. To make the 'unwoke' into 'woke' their layer of ignorance must be re-empathized with and then brought to the next layer of understanding bringing them up and out of their society induced malaise.

This is baby steps to freedom.

Maybe there are fifty layers of information. (I make a pot shot for the sake of making a reference point).

Introducing a layer of raw truth outright to the someone that is completely ignorant results in polarization and a setback in their awakening. They will then set out to defend their wrong position, some more pro-active ones will even make an institution around the defence of their ignorance.

It is a long and hard road to bring that critical mass along for the ride in order to convert the greater mass of people in the population into 'woke' by default.

It can be made shorter with our dedicated application.

This requires understanding, empathy and hard work. We must be willing to put in the work in order to do it and do it properly - any anger and bias exposed on our part sets that date of mass awakening backward. The truth needs no dressing up.

In another way, it takes an extra effort of will for the 'woke' population to consciously re-take-on layers of suppression we previously worked our way out of in order to empathize with our audience to more successfully and gradually lift the fear induced population from its hysterical fear dogma induced trance up, out and into a state of empowered fearlessness.

At the minimum, we must reduce all sensationalism and bias from all our media in order to reach even the most ignorant person. Admittedly it is hard, we are so emotionally invested in the truth - we slip up all the time.

We must separate the position of the person we seek to assist from their interests. We must work towards the same interests instead of arguing over positions. We must find methods and engage in dialogue that best does this. We must have a meta-self-awareness of the way we use language so as not to place blame or create emotional triggers.

We need the people to come to straight forward rational conclusions based on solid data - so we must purify our journalism from emotion to avoid that switch that activates the collective hysterical fear train conditioned into the mind of the average individual.

When we are called conspiracy theorists we must provide solid data. If we have no solid data we must temporarily forfeit our claim for the sake of abstaining from polarization. As soon as polarization occurs, no communication is possible.

There's a saying, it goes -

Communication can only occur between equals.

We are not an elite club of truth-knowers that can live on an island and be 'right' away from everyone else - we cannot do this mass awakening and transformation of society alone. We need EVERYONE.

The least we can do is to desensationalize our articles to reach a greater audience; notice when we are using emotionally triggering words and descriptions and simply state the truth as it is.

Having said all this, all layers of truth are important. Yet as emotionally intelligent aware truth disseminators we must engage in this truth spread efficiently and intelligently in order the have the most effect in the shortest time.

How much do we really care about the people? Can we put our own self-righteousness and anger behind us and focus on the true path to the true solution - facing a bit more hard work for the betterment of all?

At the end of the day we are all self responsible, but we as the doers now have the power to decide what kind of world we want to live in.

We can get lost in our obsession for truth (addicted even), but is the way we spread it helping the greater effort? A meta-understanding of the self is necessary to know this.

We have to ask ourselves the question:

Do I limit the potential reach of my message by contaminating it with emotion?

I am by no means an innocent party in this equation. I here make a call to assess our motives/starting points and to line them up with our desired outcomes. To consider every conversation had in real life or on the internet with the empathy it deserves in being sympathetic to the layer the other party is receptive to and where is the next layer for them to travel - seeing the path they are on, exactly where on the path they are, and assisting their foot to make the next necessary step to self-awareness.

Forcing truth polarizes the listener. We do not want debates, we want conversations with shared aims/goals/aspirations that lead through rational pathways to shared mutually beneficial goals.

This post is not intended to stifle your truth mission - but to expedite it - to encourage observation of our output at a meta level in respect to our intended audience in the moment of output.

---

This article is the expansion of a reply to this post here by @perceive .

Thanks to user @nonewabnormal for continually posting important video data to be protected from censorship on the blockchain.

Thanks in general to independent journalists on Hive with great articles by which to discover and reference information! Just to name a few - @jasonliberty @ozraeliavi @perceive @oyddodat @corbettreport @krnel @activistpost @perceptualflaws @luca1777 @lighteye @libertyacademy @theouterlight

And to the amazing community dedicated to such things - Deep Dives

Photo image sources: 1 2