I’m going to take a risk here and make some general remarks on matters that I can only really comment on generally and even then a wee bit cryptically.
I do so while avoiding pretending that I know something about matters I know nothing about. This is a task for a wire-walker or a wing-walker and neither of them is my specialty.
But I would like to question whether many things happening now are as they seem.
Let me give some examples.
What might happen if we find out that situations that look inequitable turn out to be covers for actions that cannot be taken in the light of day?
Supposing using tiers for some financial operations turns out to be a blind for having a certain group go first, tempting them to use their privileged position to engage in unethical or illegal activities, and then trapping them in their own acts. Would that not remove some potential troublemakers from the scene and make what follows easier?
Supposing that what look like constraints on us are really ways of seeing that panic from others or a barrage of recriminations do not ensue. Or reducing the risk of robbery? Or keeping us safe in other ways by making it impossible to discuss the Reval? (Can we spell N-o-n D-i-s-c-l-o-s-u-r-e A-g-r-e-e-m-e-n-t?)
Supposing what look like delays are really ways of getting around tax laws that can’t be changed fast enough so we are being pushed into a different tax year [early 2014 for tax year 2015], by which time [April 2015] the tax laws may have changed? Just saying….
Supposing all these stops and starts are simply ways of getting us accustomed to some situations that are novel to us and require us getting used to?
Was this technique not used with the American people back in the 1960s to bleed off alarm at the thought of going to war in Vietnam? Float trial balloons?
Oh, look. Someone has attacked an American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin (false flag in the end). But this administration will not go to war. Hold the phone. We have go to war. No, we won’t. Didn’t want to but we have to. No, we won’t. This administration tried to avoid it but I’m afraid we have to, etc., leaving the American public thinking the administration had done all it could to avoid the war when in fact it was actually behind the war. (1)
This technique can be used for beneficial purposes too. Supposing all the stops and starts we’ve been going through lately were designed to get us accustomed to new roles and new, expanded responsibilities? The Reval is here. The Reval is not here. It’s here again. It’s not here again. After a while the idea of the Reval becomes quite an everyday thing, rather than a huge challenge. Has not all this back-and-forth made that possible?
Do I know what I’m talking about? No, I don’t. Am I making recommendations? No, I’m not. Just trying to stimulate some new ways of thinking….
(1) See, for instance, Isidore Ziferstein, Psychological Habituation to War: A Sociopsychological Case Study. American Orthopsychiatric Association, 1967, 12 pages.