top of page

Divide and Conquer.

Or should that be Divide and Destroy?

The definition of the term ‘divide and conquer’ is:

“to make a group of people disagree and fight with one another so that they will not join together against one.”

This strategy is highly beneficial to those who create division in order to gain and maintain control, which is the common goal of any ‘ruling faction’. However, not only does infighting amongst the opposition help to divide them, it also serves to weaken them and stop them from recognising that they may have interests in common, not least of which is their opposition to those who are attempting to ‘win’ and thereby control them. In addition, infighting amongst the opposition serves to divert attention away from all of the nefarious activities of those who seek ultimate control over everyone.

The term ‘divide and conquer’ is said to be attributable to Philip II of Macedon and to have been used as a strategy by many leaders to assist their military conquests of other countries. However, ‘war’ is not the only scenario in which this strategy can be used. It is abundantly clear that this strategy has been and is still being used against ‘the people’ by the ‘would-be controllers’ of the world in their efforts to prevent our ability to live in freedom.

We are in the midst of what is often described as an ‘information war’. This description is true, although only partially so, because the real ‘war’ is far greater and more important than simply the control of information; the real war is for the control of our minds and over all aspects of our lives. It is crystal clear however, that whoever controls the information will be able to influence the greatest number of people. This was described in detail by George Orwell in his seemingly prophetic book, 1984.

A particularly poignant point to make is that ‘information’ does not necessarily equate to ‘truth’, even thought the word ‘information’ is defined as,

“knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction”

Study and instruction is not always provided from an unbiased source, therefore knowledge is not always synonymous with information that is true.

This point is particularly significant because of the existence of what is called the ‘truth movement’, a label that is highly problematic for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that it raises the question: what is ‘truth’? This is a good question.

The dictionary defines ‘truth’ as,

“the quality or state of being true”

This is not helpful because it requires an understanding of the word ‘true’, which is defined as,

“in accordance with fact or reality”

Information about ‘fact or reality’ has been and continues to be manipulated so that it is now claimed to equate to ‘that which is promulgated by experts’. This does not mean it is either ‘fact’ or ‘reality’, nor does it necessarily represent ‘truth’.

It is likely that many of us often have a ‘feeling’ about a piece of information and that may help us to sense whether it is ‘true’ - or not. This is called intuition and it is a valid human sense. But the meaning of this sense has been manipulated so that people are now encouraged to think that whatever they ‘feel’ is true is actually true, simply because they have an emotion relating to it; but this is a complete misunderstanding of intuition. One of the main consequences of this misunderstanding is that people have taken as ‘true’ a wide range of different ideas, simply because they believe them to be true.

This misunderstanding can be extrapolated to information promulgated by the ‘truth movement’, which is claimed to be helping humanity free itself from the impending tyranny of the ‘would-be controllers’.

But there is a problem, or more accurately, there are a number of problems!

First of all, it has been shown that, throughout history, most if not all ‘movements’ have been infiltrated and destroyed from within, which can be achieved through various methods depending on the end-goal of the strategists. This alone raises the question of why seemingly intelligent people who have created these ‘movements’ in recent years have failed to acknowledge something that can be easily discovered through a little research. Is it because they think that ‘this time’ their movement will succeed? If so, many questions need to be asked, such as: Why do they think that it will succeed this time? What is different about their movement? Have they protected their movement against infiltration? If so, how have they done this?

It is possible, and even probable that some of the current ‘movements’ have been set up by the ‘would-be controllers’ for the sole purpose of initiating their ‘divide and conquer’ strategy to destroy the real ‘truth’ about the important topics of our times, such as the existence of ‘viruses’. As many of us have now demonstrated, there is no evidence that any particle that has been labelled a ‘virus’ has been proven to be the cause of disease. This can be stated as a fact about reality - and therefore shown to be ‘true’. This fact can also be extrapolated to apply to bacteria, which have also never been proven to be ‘disease-causing’ agents.

Taken together, these 2 facts threaten not only the entire vaccine industry, but also a huge proportion of the pharmaceutical industry as well as some of the chemical industry, because there is no longer any need for products to ‘fight germs’.

Obviously, those of us who maintain that there are no pathogenic viruses or bacteria are still a relatively small group, although we cannot be referred to as a ‘movement’ and we do not have any leaders.

There is another group of people who correctly claim that vaccines are dangerous, but incorrectly claim that there are nevertheless such things as ‘infectious viruses’. This somewhat larger group is comprised of and led by many highly qualified doctors and scientists, a factor that serves to make their case seem highly credible.

Then there is a third group, which comprises mainstream organisations such as the WHO, CDC, NHS and government ‘health’ departments in almost every country. This group states that ‘Covid’ is real, masks and social distancing are important measures to protect public health, and that vaccines are safe and effective.

The existence of these 3 groups with seemingly irreconcilable differences serves the ‘agenda’ by ensuring that the general public, or most of them at least, remain confused, which makes them more likely to defer to the mainstream and their narrative because they are more familiar with them as the ‘experts’ with respect to matters of health, although familiarity is not the same as truth. This situation has the potential to destroy any and all opposition in the process.

I’m not going into detail about what transpired, because that is not the main aim of this article, but a few recent events have had the potential to destroy the credibility of the first ‘group’, which is comprised of those of us who have stated continually that ‘viruses’ and bacteria are not the causes of disease.

The purpose of this article is to highlight how important it is to not immediately accept something that is claimed to be ‘true’ at face value, but also to not automatically dismiss something just because it challenges your existing belief system. This is of even greater importance at the current time when we are in the midst of what is clearly an ‘information war’, particularly if the ‘information’ is promulgated by the MSM. But it is equally important if the ‘information’ is promulgated by what is described as the ‘alternative media’, because it is increasingly apparent that this form of media may not be quite as ‘alternative’ as we have been led to believe and may also be promulgating misinformation, whether deliberately or innocently.

We must all therefore become much more discerning!

There is another important point to mention, which is that no single person knows, or can know everything about every topic; that is impossible. We have to recognise that a person who is really knowledgable on one topic, cannot be assumed to know everything about all of the topics they may choose to discuss.

Unfortunately, the consequence of this is the often incorrect assumption that the person must be wrong about all topics if they are wrong about one.

This is a case of what is known as ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’.

Similarly, selecting the information that resonates with our research and leaving out information that does not resonate with it, is often dismissed as ‘cherry picking’.

But these are merely labels intended to confuse us, make us feel inadequate, and question our ability to recognise what is important and relevant from our own perspective.

Sadly, most people have insufficient time to undertake all the research necessary to fully understand even one topic, and this is of course why it is so much easier to ‘trust the experts’. But that is exactly what the ‘would-be controllers’ are relying on, that people will just defer to ‘authority’ - and of course ‘they’ are the ones who will provide the ‘experts’ that the people need to listen to. And so if the ‘opposition’ groups are all arguing amongst themselves, they can easily be ridiculed and dismissed, which will lead to the ‘victory’ of the ‘would-be controllers’ over us all.

There are many ways of disrupting us and our efforts to research and learn, and of discrediting us in the eyes of the public when we attempt to share what we find. This is perfectly clear from the increasing censorship of mainstream platforms, such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

What we must all recognise, is that each of us is on a journey of discovery and that journey is unique to each one of us. The solution to our own problems and issues lies within ourselves.

In addition, we each possess our own understanding of the information we have researched. This can lead to interesting discussions, but we should not let it lead to infighting, because that only serves those who seek to control us.

Despite our differences, I would suggest that we do have one aim in common; and that is to live in freedom and make our own decisions about all aspects of our lives.

We all therefore need to be fully aware of the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy being used against us, so that we do not let ourselves get drawn into fighting each other over details, when we could be creating new ways of living in freedom.

Dawn Lester

September 11, 2022

Related Posts

See All


Stay connected

book | collaborate | connect

spark your inspiration
with our email newsletter!
bottom of page