Sheep never probe the conventional narrative by asking probing questions. From Todd Hayen at off-guardian.org:
I will start this article with an apology to those readers who lack a ense of humour similar to mine, as well as to those lovely big hearted folks who don’t like labeling of any sort (sheep and/or shrew).
Regarding the term “sheep”—I have tried (and am certain I have failed occasionally) to refrain from calling an individual person as “sheep.” It is rather a term I have applied to a group of people with a similar “mindset.” If you feel you fit that mindset, you may, if you wish, call yourself a “sheep.” If you find it offensive, and do not feel you “fit,” then that is fine by me. Do not include yourself in the sheep group.
As for shrews. Well, that’s where the sense of humour comes in. I needed a term other than “those of us on the other side of the divide who believe in freedom and do not believe in the agenda or the power hungry globalists trying to take over the world”…whew…”shrew” is an easier way to get the same point across once the term is defined.
Why shrew? That’s a long story. But it is a term as good as any, and is complimentary to “sheep” as it starts with the same first two letters, and it too is an animal. Turns out shrews can be ferocious, even though very small. So that fits too.
So there you have it. Read this article with these things in mind, as it is full of reference to sheep and shrew.
The fatal error of sheep is not realizing that the people they call “conspiracy theorists” and “science deniers” are not some small fringe group of weirdos and hillbillies as they might imagine. The fact is we are large in number and include many brilliant minds and formidable members in our individual fields of expertise. This is no ragtag band of ne’er do wells.
