Protocol for social division and control: camps 1, 2 and 3
Confidential UK government briefing paper (draft)*
NIALL MCCRAE
During the Covid-19 pandemic, society divided into two groups. The vast majority believed our messages on the need for lockdown, masks and vaccination, but a smaller proportion of society – up to a fifth – rejected public health discipline.
This second group was effectively contained by our behavioural psychology programme and censorship interventions, which safely channelled the resistance into ‘red herrings’ such as the lab leak theory, use of ivermectin and futile legal challenges. We supported key figures such as retired nurse John Campbell to feed controlled critique into online discourse.
As noted in article on conspiracist Unity News Network by David Fleming and Niall McCrae, a third group emerged, which regarded the entire Covid-19 project as a hoax. This stance, initially limited to the likes of David Icke and thus readily ridiculed, contrasted with that of the main body of opposition, who believed that Covid-19 was real but exaggerated and exploited by the authorities. Before it could gain any traction, this third group was stifled by bans on YouTube and Twitter, as urged by our campaign against dangerous disinformation. Helpfully, prominent websites such as Daily Sceptic refused to publish articles that denied the existence of the coronavirus.
A tripartite division of society was presented more generally by David A Hughes, senior lecturer in international relations at university of Lincoln, who classified the following: –
Camp 1 – the majority (disparaged as ‘normies’)
Camp 2 – contained / controlled opposition
Camp 3 – critics who doubt / challenge everything
The three camps need different approaches by government.
Camp 1
The largest and easiest group to manage, Camp 1 does not need much imposed discipline as the inhabitants are willing to control themselves. They are unable to discern between fact and propaganda; they accept the authority of science, medicine and experts; and they do not explore underlying reasons for events. As well as doing whatever they are instructed to do, believing official guidance to be for their safety, comfort or convenience, they are also disposed to ostracism of anybody who asks questions. They are readily excited by ‘othering’ tactics, such as vilifying of ‘anti-vaxxers’ in our preparation for the Covid-19 vaccination programme.
Although they follow the path of least resistance, these are not ‘happy campers’. They persist with the political division of Left versus Right. For example, during the pandemic they supported or savaged Boris Johnson, as did Americans with their leaders Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Accordingly, statements and policies on Covid-19, Net Zero, military conflict and other events should be tuned to their political audience, although the goal remains the same.
Mainstream media are deployed for the official narratives drummed into the minds of Camp 1. People lacking critical faculties continue to trust the system (for all its obvious faults). Some caveats should be issued, however. Public mood may be volatile in times of perceived crisis or chaos, leading to serious disruption to livelihood (e.g. surging fuel costs). This makes citizens vulnerable to radical activists who threaten to overthrow the established order, with simplistic ‘populist’ ideas. Therefore, people should not be pushed too far, and government must be ready to step in to help (indeed, it may be advantageous to create adverse conditions to reinforce dependence on the paternalistic state).
Camp 2
Inhabitants of this camp are as gullible as those in Camp 1, or perhaps more so, because they believe that they have found the absolute truth, unaware that much of their thinking has been primed by the establishment. A strategy of Bolshevism was to control the opposition by providing the people and ideas for ‘refuseniks’ to follow. In the UK, critics of government policy on immigration, for example, are channelled into the likes of GB News, Nigel Farage’s Reform party and Tommy Robinson’s ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rallies. On the Left, similarly, are the pro-Palestine protests, for which rally-goers are blissfully ignorant of Israeli / Zionist manipulation.
For credibility, Camp 2 outlets must be portrayed as a risk to the government, democracy or the rule of law. Thus Palestine activists are arrested, and Reform is cast as a return to 1930s fascism. Such contrived animus solidifies support for these entities, giving them ‘underdog’ appeal.
Camp 2 people tend to seek a saviour, and are prone to a ‘pied piper’ promising change. But they want the system to prevail, if only they could replace the politicians, policies and ideology that they despise. Camp 2 is not averse to conspiracy theories, but the limitations to thinking are displayed in the focus on symptoms rather than causes. Right-wingers in Camp 2 blame Muslims for mass immigration, rather than the globalist Agenda 21 (which all governments must pursue). A trick with the younger educated generation who are drawn to Jeremy Corbyn or Zack Polanski is to nurture a sense of being anti-establishment, while idealistic zeal is directed into government objectives.
Camp 3
This group would be dangerous were it not so small and disparate. Its members are impenetrable to government messages, because in their nihilism they think that every word is a lie. Strong-willed and spiritual, they believe that while life may get much worse, ultimately their truth shall prevail.
There is some overlap between Camps 2 and 3. When civil unrest was sparked by the killing of three girls in Southport in 2024, most of the protestors were of Camp 2. An exception was Peter Lynch, who held a placard alleging a new world order run by international bankers, Jews and freemasons (he died in prison). Mostly, Camp 3 did not engage in such protest because they saw it as a trap.
BBC Verify, a government-directed propaganda unit, attacked the physical newspaper The Light (which appears to take an entryist approach in Camp 2 to entice recruitment to Camp 3).
Such is their integrity, Camp 3 people would refuse a vaccine or conscription if the consequence was imprisonment. Indeed, for the coming war, internment camps will be necessary for this group. As a general rule, MPs and councillors should ignore Camp 3, removing the oxygen of publicity: any constituent of this mentality does not deserve to be taken seriously, having views that are too extreme for reasonable debate.
*imagined
This article (Protocol for social division and control: camps 1, 2 and 3) was created and published by Niall McCrae and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply