Marc Malone, Opting Out of The Great Reset |537|

You already know the answer to the question about control. The terms and conditions by which vaccine manufacturers deliver the vaccines is a form of control over the governments and their legal systems, both of which are themselves forms of control, that then institute and enforce vaccine compliance measures such as lockdowns, restrictions, and vaxports on citizens — all specific types of control.

Whether the government's measures are part of the secret deals is currently unknown — but also irrelevant. Either way, there is direct collusion between big pharma and big government that results in a very significant level of control over a wide cross section of the population. This is all done in concert with the MSM that controls the narrative via The Trusted News Initiative, which censors out anything that could cause "vaccine hesitancy".

Many of the people who are involved in these three key facets have direct board level representation and/or investment. I'm not going to lay the whole gory mess out here, so do some of your own digging. Go back and start with the WEF, who is in on it, where they work, and what things they've done to move their agenda forward, while making huge gains in profit and power.

It's a nice arrangement for syphoning money directly out of a nation's population without asking them ( the people ) if they want to buy your product. It's simply all arranged under the banner of Health & Safety, and people are expected to comply. If they don't — then their civil liberties are taken away, businesses closed, jobs are lost, and they are shamed by the media. If you don't see all that as a really negative ( if not evil ) form of control — what is it?
Either I didn't phrase the question properly or you misunderstand. Apologies as that's probably on my end.

If I'm reading this correctly, control is a servant of profit and not a master goal in and of itself. There is no WEF cabal with a mandate to reduce freedoms and increase control over humanity. There's only the almighty profit motive which can certainly lead to tactics which exhibit reduction of freedoms and increased control systems. Do I have that right?
 
Either I didn't phrase the question properly or you misunderstand. Apologies as that's probably on my end.

If I'm reading this correctly, control is a servant of profit and not a master goal in and of itself. There is no WEF cabal with a mandate to reduce freedoms and increase control over humanity. There's only the almighty profit motive which can certainly lead to tactics which exhibit reduction of freedoms and increased control systems. Do I have that right?

I would say that the priorities between profit and power are likely different depending on the people in question. It's also not binary ( one or the other ), but a matter of degree. We can't get inside everyone's head to know with certainty on an individual level. But it's reasonable to make some generalizations.

For example, some of the players are so wealthy that money is not the issue. So it's more likely that they are in it primarily for the control. But at the same time, the desire for power ( control ) exists at all levels. Some people will sacrifice a raise in pay for a management position. Historically, that arena tends to be the domain of politicians and bureaucrats — which exist at almost every level of society.

If you ever wonder why you seem to know more than your boss does, but they're in charge, it's because control is more important to them than knowledge, and that mentality more easily ignores ethical issues. That's why corporate policies on ethics often look good on paper, but are very different in practice. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out if people put their minds to it, which is why questioning authority is such a no-no.
 
One seems to contradict the other, no?

If it is unknown, that the government's (which governments?) measures are part of secret deals with big pharma i.e. lockdowns etc, then how do you then say in the next breath that there is indeed, collusion, which results in significant levels of control over populations?

I think I may have already answered the above by saying that although we don't know all the details, we do know that the deals took place because they are a matter of public record, or whistleblowers have come forward, or documents have been released under the FOIA, or courts have ordered the disclosure of such details. Then when you see the outcomes of those deals being put into action, and they amount to some sort of control, it's an obvious connection.
I think lockdowns were a total mistake, not worth the innumerable secondary effects they have produced. Something to be looked back on with horror in the history books.

I also hated the vaccine mandates. But, I do recognise that the vaccines had a real effect on healthcare systems and outcomes with the virus (at least the original strain). I just wish it wasn't mandated.

We're on the same page there, except that recently, I'm questioning the efficacy of the vaccines to the point where I'm now skeptical that they had any real benefit at all, because a reasonable case can be made that the conclusions they arrived at do not follow from the stats they used, and that other contributing variables cancel out the rest of the uncertainty.
 
I would say that the priorities between profit and power are likely different depending on the people in question. It's also not binary ( one or the other ), but a matter of degree. We can't get inside everyone's head to know with certainty on an individual level. But it's reasonable to make some generalizations.
Generalizations aren't reliable; generally speaking. Power also takes many forms and are not exclusively related to wanting to control how others think/act or to specifically limit their freedoms.

For example, some of the players are so wealthy that money is not the issue. So it's more likely that they are in it primarily for the control. But at the same time, the desire for power ( control ) exists at all levels. Some people will sacrifice a raise in pay for a management position. Historically, that arena tends to be the domain of politicians and bureaucrats — which exist at almost every level of society.
Again, what's the evidence for this Randall? The leap from power seeking at a managerial level to a global, coordinated initiative to control societies, to limit freedoms, etc. Its a massive leap and quite a different thing from power plays at mid level management positions in commerce.

If you ever wonder why you seem to know more than your boss does, but they're in charge, it's because control is more important to them than knowledge, and that mentality more easily ignores ethical issues. That's why corporate policies on ethics often look good on paper, but are very different in practice. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out if people put their minds to it, which is why questioning authority is such a no-no.
Way too much generalizing here. I've worked in private industry for 35 years, held various leadership and individual contributor roles. Met plenty of managers that meet your description. I've also met plenty of leaders who are in leadership because they're really good at it. The best being the ones least interested in control (in my experience). I don't know what you do or have done for a living but your generalization here is way off.

The summary here for me is there's no actual evidence to put forth regarding a coordinated, elites-driven objective that is focused on control (and all the scary biproducts: reducing freedoms, etc.). Sure, there is plenty of evidence of elites seeking to aggressively push their self-serving agendas but (as I've said before) this is nothing new.
 
If Humanity is lucky, any day now there’s going to be a loud POP all around the world when simultaneously the minds of close to 1 billion parents of 3,8,12 y/o children realize they put masks over their babies faces and injected them with experimental products, and all for politics, not safety.
If you hear the POP, don’t be alarmed. It’s a good thing.
 
..
I know Ontario is going through another massive surge so they've gone back to masking.
This is false. Ontario does not have mandatory masking policy.
I was visiting Quebec and they do have mandatory indoor masking policy.

At this point there are a number of jurisdictions that are mask free and others that have mask mandate. It should be easy to compare the actual results of masking policies. To date all studies I have seen show no significant reduction in transmission via masking.

This is to be expected with the understanding that Covid is transmitted by aerosolized particles and not just by droplets.
The smallest very fine droplets, and aerosol particles formed when these fine droplets rapidly dry, are small enough that they can remain suspended in the air for minutes to hours.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html
 
This is false. Ontario does not have mandatory masking policy.
I was visiting Quebec and they do have mandatory indoor masking policy.

At this point there are a number of jurisdictions that are mask free and others that have mask mandate. It should be easy to compare the actual results of masking policies. To date all studies I have seen show no significant reduction in transmission via masking.

This is to be expected with the understanding that Covid is transmitted by aerosolized particles and not just by droplets.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html

Not exactly.
https://www.employmentandlabour.com...the-end-of-april-what-employers-need-to-know/
"
As of April 27, 2022, those using transit systems, and visitors and guests in long-term care and retirement homes, hospitals, shelters, jails and congregate care and living settings will no longer have to wear a mask.
Additionally, on April 27, the Ontario government plans to lift all COVID-19 related mandates and letters of instruction."
 
I always find it hilarious when someone connects Soros to Nazis when he's a Jew and lost people in the Holocaust.
Soros is almost as big a boogie man for the right as Bill Gates has become.
I've despised Gates when he was still "their symbol of capitalism"
 
I always find it hilarious when someone connects Soros to Nazis when he's a Jew and lost people in the Holocaust.
I'm sure there is an explanation for that. Narratives don't require evidence/facts to be created. We castigate religion for it, but conspiracies are embraced. There's a certain irony in that.
 
I always find it hilarious when someone connects Soros to Nazis when he's a Jew and lost people in the Holocaust.
Soros is almost as big a boogie man for the right as Bill Gates has become.
I've despised Gates when he was still "their symbol of capitalism"
That’s horrible logic. Similar to saying Putin wouldn’t kill Ukrainians because he’s Eastern European white!
Soros confirmed publicly that he is Jewish in name only and does not believe in God. Therefore he has not ties to Jewish people other than political. Especially considering the all-encompassing nature of their church/temple/society.
That’s like someone saying they are a Catholic who’s never been to church…. Like okay, you’re not a Catholic.
 
I always find it hilarious when someone connects Soros to Nazis when he's a Jew and lost people in the Holocaust.
Soros is almost as big a boogie man for the right as Bill Gates has become.
I've despised Gates when he was still "their symbol of capitalism"
That’s horrible logic. Similar to saying Putin wouldn’t kill Ukrainians because he’s Eastern European white!
Soros confirmed publicly that he is Jewish in name only and does not believe in God. Therefore he has not ties to Jewish people other than political. Especially considering the all-encompassing nature of their church/temple/society.
That’s like someone saying they are a Catholic who’s never been to church…. Like okay, you’re not a Catholic.
Actually, that logic is WORSE than saying Putin wouldn't kill EU Whites.. It's more akin to saying the George Bush Jr. wouldn't send American Christians to Afghanistan to guard and die over poppy fields for CIA Drug Ops because He's a Christian.
 
I always find it hilarious when someone connects Soros to Nazis when he's a Jew and lost people in the Holocaust.
Soros is almost as big a boogie man for the right as Bill Gates has become.
I've despised Gates when he was still "their symbol of capitalism"
Soros is a piece of FUCKING GARBAGE. If you've ever listened to him, and can see through BULLSHIT, you'd know.
He's in the business of undermining and destroying power and transferring it. Destroying countries and peoples.
And then there's his gang of Antifa thugs...
 
Soros is a piece of FUCKING GARBAGE. If you've ever listened to him, and can see through BULLSHIT, you'd know.
He's in the business of undermining and destroying power and transferring it. Destroying countries and peoples.
And then there's his gang of Antifa thugs...

I don't care for Soros or ANY billionaire monkeying around with different countries. Every one of them is the same that way. From the Koch brothers to Elon Musk to Jeff Bezos and beyond. If they are engaging in politics its for their selfish ends.
If anyone thinks Soros is worse or better than the others, they are fooling themselves.
This is reason number 1000 why billionaires shouldn't exist.
J
 
This is reason number 1000 why billionaires shouldn't exist.
These things are easy and popular to say, but what does it mean? Once you've killed off the billionaires, what about the hundreds of millionaires? The tens of millionaires? The millionaires? So on down the line. I've never read a practical, thoughtful response to this quandary.
 
These things are easy and popular to say, but what does it mean? Once you've killed off the billionaires, what about the hundreds of millionaires? The tens of millionaires? The millionaires? So on down the line. I've never read a practical, thoughtful response to this quandary.
The end of the financial system as we know it will do the trick. Definitely unwieldy. But has to happen. Equalization.
 
Back
Top