Oct 28, 2023

So What?

Todd Hayen

How many of you out there have experienced this? You are having a conversation with a normie friend (if any of you have any of those left, friends who are normies) and you are doing really well with all the evidence you have gathered about the New World Order, the WEF, the bent on transhumanism from the global-wannabe-world-leader-technocrats, and all of the other things that are clearly obvious. And then whomever you are talking too really can’t come up with any sort of viable counterpoints and they just shake their head and say, “So what?”/p>

I have had this experience several times, and I must say it usually stops me cold. Right before the incredulous, “so what?” leaves their lips, I am usually a bit excited, actually believing I may have won my debate: rather proud that all my studying and research is about to pay off—finally capable of making a sound, and evidence based, argument.

“So what? I really don’t care.”

“Uhhh…what?”

“I really don’t care.”

What better way to end what started out to be an argument: the announcement from your sparring partner that it never really was an argument, because they never really cared in the first place.

This usually happens when they know you’ve got them—when you have made your argument really convincing. Then they say it doesn’t matter if you are right, “so what if you are right, I don’t care.”

Sure.

I am not certain if this is a conscious tactic on their part, and they do this just to save face, and then later walk away and in private, take a gasp and exclaim to themselves, “oh my God! Is that reallyhappening?” Or, if it is actually true that they really do not care, and you arguing your point actually reaches a limit where it bores them to extinction, and they just want you to shut up.

“Just shut up, I don’t give a hoot in hell about what you are talking about, it is just a bunch of boring hooey to me. Shut up for God’s sake.”

Could be either, I don’t really know. I can’t really tell. Let’s look at both possibilities.

Let’s say they begin to believe what you are saying, and they just can’t get themselves to agree so they casually announce to you that it just doesn’t matter to them. Could this be possible? That they believe, let’s say for example, that the vaccines could actually kill them, or make them very sick, and they really, honestly, don’t care? Yeah, sure.

They might then say, “there are lots of things that could kill me, why not one more thing. And it isn’t certain, so I am willing to take my chances. At the time everyone thought it was a good idea, and that it was safe and effective. I took a risk, and maybe it won’t turn out well for me, but that was a risk I was willing to take.”

“But it wasn’t a risk when you took it,” you think to yourself. “You were told it was perfectly fine, you took the jab believing all was ok. Right? And now you find out it isn’t, and you are ok with that?” Sure, why not.

Then you might say they were tricked, and the “man” wanted as many people to die as they could manage by pushing to vax onto everyone. They won’t believe that one. That’s the sort of argument you probably won’t get the “So what?” response from. They just won’t believe you and will send you packing if you try to unload anything like that on them. That’s too far down the hole.

There is also a possibility their “I don’t care” come back is a response that is meant to counter the unconscious. They really might care a lot down there in those dark recesses, but just don’t want to admit it because it is too frightening a prospect—or too embarrassing. In that case their “I don’t care” response to your brilliant argument is just a defense mechanism, a form of plugging their ears and singing, “la, la, la, la, la.”

Regardless of the reasoning, your argument is over. You will not get the satisfaction that you might have gotten through to them, even if you might have. It’s over. Go out on the back porch, have a beer, and watch the squirrels.

So, let me restate this because I have confused myself. 1. They believe what you are saying (as long as it is not too far-fetched) and they actually, honestly, don’t care. 2. They believe what you are saying, and actually do care but they don’t want you to know that they do. And 3. They don’t believe what you are saying, and just say they don’t care to shut you up.

I think I have sort of gone into detail regarding 1 and 2. 3 is a tricky one. How can anyone really not care? Well, 3 could also be 2. We have no idea what is going on in the unconscious, that is why we call it “un” conscious. We see this a lot though, this inability to process what is going on.

The phenomenon is similar to Captain Cook’s Australian natives who could not see his ships offshore because they were so outside of their understanding, they were not comprehensible. Is that what this is? It seems odd if so. Nothing that is happening is that foreign to our understanding. But if we simply disagree with it, or deny, then maybe that is the same thing—we don’t want to see it, therefore we don’t. I do think, however, that a malicious government is indeed beyond the comprehension of many people, even if evidence of that malfeasance is looking them directly in the face.

Of all of these possible explanations for the “I don’t care” response, the first one is the most perplexing to me. People simply do not want their idyllic world to be disrupted. When they say they don’t care, but actually believe you, I doubt if they really are allowing what you might be saying to cut through. They don’t really believe the consequences of what you are saying. For example, if you are trying to explain CBDCs, they may understand that this means there will be no cash, they just don’t seem to see why that is a problem. The same goes with Digital IDs. When you explain that this means complete surveillance, and complete control, they don’t really grasp what that actually means. They don’t care, life goes on, there are things that come up looking like “progress” and one really can’t be bothered with all the inconveniences that progress might bring.

They may as well say, “There’s nothing we can do about it.” And some of them do say this. Which is odd, because there is always something we can do about things that rely on compliance in order to take a foothold. And nearly everything that is going on now relies on compliance. But part of the agenda is to make us impotent to our own individual power. The agenda makes sure we are divided and remain divided. The agenda makes sure we remain confused, and hypnotized with distractions, and popular alliance with “the next thing.” According to the rules of the agenda, everything that comes at us requires taking a side, even when taking a side isn’t necessary.

Take the vaccine as one example. The agenda made sure we were all aware that people not taking the vaccine were despicable, uncaring, selfish, and would soon die—and take a few of us down with them in the process. Pseudo-science took the main stage stating that herd immunity would not be possible unless everyone took the jab. Never before had something like this occurred.

In the past, no one would even notice if someone in their inner circle had or hadn’t taken a flu vaccine for example. No one cared. Now they do—but they only care about what the agenda tells them to care about.

Once again, the “so what” response is a result of meticulous brainwashing. It comes as a result of a fear that if they say something like, “OMG, really? Tell me more!” they will be bursting their utopian bubble. They also will be taking back power that has been taken away from them.

When they admit something is wrong and they are concerned about it, they are acknowledging there is possibly something they can do about the situation. “What are we going to do?!” is the next logical comment. We are going to stop complying, for one thing. And we are going to gather together and figure out a new way to live.