Plan Z: A Social Theory
Here I describe my theory of the plan that I believe is driving global political development. I also explain why I deeply distrust Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In the alternative political environment, I stand quite alone in my scepticism towards Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Here I will explain the reasons for my scepticism.
Let's call the global corona policy that was rolled out in 2020 Plan A.
As resistance to Plan A grew, it became necessary to implement Plan B.
The main characters in Plan B
Donald Trump stars in Plan B as a global political leader. Elon Musk stars as the global leader and financier of the critical press, critical social media and critical political (nationalist, right-wing) movements in Europe. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stars in Plan B as the leader of criticism of the coronavirus vaccines, lockdowns and related issues.
Plan B gives hope to the many who could see, through intuition or critical thinking, that there was something very wrong with the corona policy. They now hope that the three musketeers (Trump, Musk & Kennedy) will step onto the stage as righteous men in the political theatre, clean up and restore health and justice to the world. This hope leads to a new, safe state as a passive herd animal cheering on the new heroes.
The religious belief in some Christian circles that Jesus has a plan against evil in Plan A, and that it is all predicted and described in the Book of Revelation, has the same effect. It also leads to passivisation from political actor in dangerous anger to passive spectator in blissful joy. This new form of woke Christianity thus functions as a variant of Plan B.
A third variant of Plan B is the kind of criticism of the corona vaccines that is characterised by misinterpretation of data and psychological violence against politicians and vaccinators, among others.
There are even more variants of Plan B, so there's something for everyone. For example, the awakened spiritualists also have their own variants where they believe it's written in the stars or channelled by spiritual mediums that it's all turning around now. On the media front, for example, we have the new critical media Psst! which is apparently fuelled by anger against the corona policy (especially vaccines) and is now also signing up to support the idea of Trump, Musk and Kennedy as the great saviours.
System criticism, not person criticism
I do not claim that any of these names etc. in Plan B even realise that they are acting as controlled opposition in the next act of a political play. A controlled opposition is only effective if it does not realise that it is controlled. I hypothesise that the control of the opposition's individual actors takes place through the design of the very system they are part of. My critique and theory is therefore a political system critique and not an individual person critique.
The people who believe in some variant of Plan B are part of the counter-current. The people who still believe in Plan A are part of the mainstream of political discourse.
Donald Trump plays the role of political clown for Plan A, which allows the mainstream to ridicule anything that may be claimed or revealed from Plan B. Elon Musk plays the role of a mad rich man with far-right tendencies, which also makes it easy for the mainstream to ridicule anything that comes from that front. And then there's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who is referred to and perceived as a rogue anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist with the entire medical establishment against him. Thus, criticism from Plan B reinforces the internal belief in Plan A. It also works the other way round: criticism in Plan A of the actors in Plan B reinforces the internal belief in Plan B. The consequence is increased polarisation and rigidity in attitudes.
Plan A + Plan B = Plan Z
My theory is that Plan A and Plan B are part of one larger overall plan, which we could call Plan Z. One of the goals of Plan Z is to promote conflict between social groups, so that, for example, Christians fight Muslims, anti-vaxxers fight pro-vaxxers, climate believers fight climate deniers, and right-wing extremists fight left-wing extremists. This is self-harming behaviour on a collective level, where the only winners are those who do not participate in the civil wars, but instead gain political power and economic wealth by allowing the conflicts and fighting to unfold freely and violently.
With Trump, Musk and Kennedy at the helm, a controlled demolition of the corona system can take place with the sacrifice of carefully selected scapegoats in the political media theatre, while the underlying political agenda is sought to be realised in other ways. At the same time, the mainstream can laugh at the corona criticism when it comes from the American clown circus. In this way, both the mainstream and the counter-stream are satisfied, while Plan Z continues unhindered.
The end game
In my opinion, the endgame of Plan Z is to impose a totalitarian, technocratic, global society linked to a new digital currency.
It is a game for the power of technology and economics, where public health is one of several arenas in new forms of psychological, vertical war.
The deep enemy of those in Plan B is not those in Plan A. The deep enemy of those in Plan A is not those in Plan B. The deep enemy of both Plan A and B are those who control Plan Z.
It is a vertical war in the sense that it is a vertical war between the people at the bottom of the power pyramid and a small group of incredibly wealthy individuals and families at the top of the power pyramid who pull the strings through funding and who otherwise prefer to remain out of the public eye.
It is a war that goes back a very long way in human history. From the top of society, it is basically driven by the greed, intelligence and psychopathy that leads to worldly wealth, power and success, which has accumulated over generations in families with a few at the top, top shelf today.
At least that's my social theory, but I could be wrong. It could also be that I'm right. We must follow the development of evidence for and against the hypothesis.
