I hear what you're saying and you make a fair amount of sense - the sense that 'all in it together' is not the same thing as 'doing the same stuff'. Likewise, they (these MWO leaders, that is) pretty much all have similar characters/personalities (ruthless, a little despotic, etc.), so the policies/pillars of a NWO are useful to each of …
I hear what you're saying and you make a fair amount of sense - the sense that 'all in it together' is not the same thing as 'doing the same stuff'. Likewise, they (these MWO leaders, that is) pretty much all have similar characters/personalities (ruthless, a little despotic, etc.), so the policies/pillars of a NWO are useful to each of them.
For example, if one thinks about the horrific child abuse network, and how exposing it to the public would make the public bring down the entire western empire from within, then it does beg the question 'why doesn't Putin or Xi order their intelligence services to expose the whole network?' - it's what I would do if I were them. It's a very elegant solution. One can say the same about 9-11 - why didn't Putin expose it on the very day it happened? He's not dumb enough to believe the official narrative. Rhetorical questions, perhaps.
However: I think there is one, let's call it a 'hidden variable' that you may be missing here. And that's the idea of 'coercion'. In layperson's terms 'if you don't do X, Mr. Putin/Xi/[insert national leader] then we [the oligarchs, the real controllers] will do Y'.
Think about the psychology of it this way - does, say, Putin really seem like the kind of guy who would gladly just bend over and pick up the soap for some weasel like Mr. Rothschild & associates? No, I really can't see Putin 'only following orders' - he would have to be seriously coerced into it, and this means the 'threat' involved has to be exceptional.
Having considered this, I am currently leaning towards the nuclear threat (so-called Samson Option - weapons stashed, along with the necessary cells, in hundreds of major cities across the world, with less than a 30-60 minute time-to-target). It's not actually the immediate loss of life, it's the extinction level event caused by nuclear winter and destruction of the ozone layer.
Mind you, if I was Putin and Xi and aware of this, I would've already developed the tech to disperse all that soot and end the nuclear winter, and also repair the ozone layer.
Serious points to think about, I think.
But you are right about infighting amongst the cabal playing out in wars on the world stage. In the final reckoning, only one faction will win. I think these real conflicts are pre-empting this. It's in their psychopathic nature, after all, not to trust other psychopaths. i.e. each other. Thus - all of them require deterrents (if I go down, you go down with me).
Thanks Evelyn. Personally I suspect that “coercion” is monetary and financial. Governments do not control the issuance of their currency. “Private” central banks do and they are independent of government, in Russia too. Oligarchs control the money supply and that seem sufficient to me to coerce any government as they wish.
Yeah, but this is entirely my point. Anyone with any sense (or patriotism, for that matter) would take public/state ownership over the money supply - this is, after all, what the Nazis did and which led to WW2 (no inflation, no debt, would've created a domino effect - the western empire's entire foreign policy has been about attacking anyone who threatens to do this with their money supply - i.e. socialism).
Perhaps my point is psychological - you say 'governments do not control the issuance of their currency' - well they have the effing power to do so, don't they? So the real question is 'why don't they take back control over their own currency? What is it, really, that Mr. Rothschild & Associates have hanging over them that they don't do this blatantly obvious thing?' After all, let's take UK as an example - if the government took control over the Bank of England and the City of London, what would Rothschild & co. do? They must have some kind of 'deterrent/threat' surely?
Something like 10 trillion quid passes through the CoL every DAY - even 0.1% transaction tax equals 3.65 TRILLION a year (and you can bet Mr. R & co. take their commission).
So - I will reiterate - what is the coercion/threat/etc. that prevents ANY POLITICIAN from advocating taking public ownership of the money supply? This is the crucial question.
As an interesting corollary - there's a fascinating little quote from Nick Griffin (BNP leader) about this - he said something like 'they were fine with us, all our policies, until we said we'd take back control over the Bank of England'. We see this with the history of German fascism - they were fine with it, until it threatened the economic system on which global control depends.
As Churchill himself once said 'this war is not about the survival of democracy, it's not about defeating fascism, and it's certainly not about the jews - it's about the survival of global capitalism' (private correspondence with Roosevelt - I will have to dig up this quote, I've lost the reference so this is from memory).
Anyway - thanks for your reply! My basic point is that the coercion has to be something more than just 'we control the money' because that control could easily be taken away from the oligarchs.
So there is no equivalence between 'false binary' and 'they're all in it together' - on this, we are agreed!
Regarding the issue of money by a so called government, you could ask the same for highly trained fighting machines in the armies of the countries, who allow themselves, despite heavily armed, to be bossed around by low life sewer creatures in suits, degenerate scum, soldiers usually despise.
In theory, they have the power to stop it all, like sending special commando forces to take out Oligarchs. Their locations are no secret, they fly regularly, could be intercepted, a drone missile fired at their place. But wait, this crap is all aimed at us, not the Oligarchs.
I hear what you're saying and you make a fair amount of sense - the sense that 'all in it together' is not the same thing as 'doing the same stuff'. Likewise, they (these MWO leaders, that is) pretty much all have similar characters/personalities (ruthless, a little despotic, etc.), so the policies/pillars of a NWO are useful to each of them.
For example, if one thinks about the horrific child abuse network, and how exposing it to the public would make the public bring down the entire western empire from within, then it does beg the question 'why doesn't Putin or Xi order their intelligence services to expose the whole network?' - it's what I would do if I were them. It's a very elegant solution. One can say the same about 9-11 - why didn't Putin expose it on the very day it happened? He's not dumb enough to believe the official narrative. Rhetorical questions, perhaps.
However: I think there is one, let's call it a 'hidden variable' that you may be missing here. And that's the idea of 'coercion'. In layperson's terms 'if you don't do X, Mr. Putin/Xi/[insert national leader] then we [the oligarchs, the real controllers] will do Y'.
Think about the psychology of it this way - does, say, Putin really seem like the kind of guy who would gladly just bend over and pick up the soap for some weasel like Mr. Rothschild & associates? No, I really can't see Putin 'only following orders' - he would have to be seriously coerced into it, and this means the 'threat' involved has to be exceptional.
Having considered this, I am currently leaning towards the nuclear threat (so-called Samson Option - weapons stashed, along with the necessary cells, in hundreds of major cities across the world, with less than a 30-60 minute time-to-target). It's not actually the immediate loss of life, it's the extinction level event caused by nuclear winter and destruction of the ozone layer.
Mind you, if I was Putin and Xi and aware of this, I would've already developed the tech to disperse all that soot and end the nuclear winter, and also repair the ozone layer.
Serious points to think about, I think.
But you are right about infighting amongst the cabal playing out in wars on the world stage. In the final reckoning, only one faction will win. I think these real conflicts are pre-empting this. It's in their psychopathic nature, after all, not to trust other psychopaths. i.e. each other. Thus - all of them require deterrents (if I go down, you go down with me).
Thanks Evelyn. Personally I suspect that “coercion” is monetary and financial. Governments do not control the issuance of their currency. “Private” central banks do and they are independent of government, in Russia too. Oligarchs control the money supply and that seem sufficient to me to coerce any government as they wish.
Yeah, but this is entirely my point. Anyone with any sense (or patriotism, for that matter) would take public/state ownership over the money supply - this is, after all, what the Nazis did and which led to WW2 (no inflation, no debt, would've created a domino effect - the western empire's entire foreign policy has been about attacking anyone who threatens to do this with their money supply - i.e. socialism).
Perhaps my point is psychological - you say 'governments do not control the issuance of their currency' - well they have the effing power to do so, don't they? So the real question is 'why don't they take back control over their own currency? What is it, really, that Mr. Rothschild & Associates have hanging over them that they don't do this blatantly obvious thing?' After all, let's take UK as an example - if the government took control over the Bank of England and the City of London, what would Rothschild & co. do? They must have some kind of 'deterrent/threat' surely?
Something like 10 trillion quid passes through the CoL every DAY - even 0.1% transaction tax equals 3.65 TRILLION a year (and you can bet Mr. R & co. take their commission).
So - I will reiterate - what is the coercion/threat/etc. that prevents ANY POLITICIAN from advocating taking public ownership of the money supply? This is the crucial question.
As an interesting corollary - there's a fascinating little quote from Nick Griffin (BNP leader) about this - he said something like 'they were fine with us, all our policies, until we said we'd take back control over the Bank of England'. We see this with the history of German fascism - they were fine with it, until it threatened the economic system on which global control depends.
As Churchill himself once said 'this war is not about the survival of democracy, it's not about defeating fascism, and it's certainly not about the jews - it's about the survival of global capitalism' (private correspondence with Roosevelt - I will have to dig up this quote, I've lost the reference so this is from memory).
Anyway - thanks for your reply! My basic point is that the coercion has to be something more than just 'we control the money' because that control could easily be taken away from the oligarchs.
So there is no equivalence between 'false binary' and 'they're all in it together' - on this, we are agreed!
Regarding the issue of money by a so called government, you could ask the same for highly trained fighting machines in the armies of the countries, who allow themselves, despite heavily armed, to be bossed around by low life sewer creatures in suits, degenerate scum, soldiers usually despise.
In theory, they have the power to stop it all, like sending special commando forces to take out Oligarchs. Their locations are no secret, they fly regularly, could be intercepted, a drone missile fired at their place. But wait, this crap is all aimed at us, not the Oligarchs.
Love of money is in their interest to comply. Love of life is in their interest to survive.