Truth is, there isn't a "plan" and if there is a "plan" like all battle plans they mostly go out the door when the first shot is fired.
When Harold Macmillan became Britain's prime minister, he was asked what would determine his government's course. He replied with Edwardian languor: "Events, dear boy, events."
You are primed to see connections. We are a narrative, storytelling species. It's in your DNA.
Remember, though, sometimes things just happen that nobody predicts. The fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, were black swan "tail events" that caught everybody by surprise...including those involved.
You know how in business and government a 5 year plan is useless after a year or two as circumstances change, and thus it needs to be revised? It's the same for these elites. It may LOOK like it was all planned, but only because their end goals of the subjugation of humanity is the same. They throw a lot of darts at the dartboard. Some hit, some don't.
On this, I believe that the Canadian truck protest is an "event" nobody saw coming. This doesn't mean that events can't be manipulated after they occur for advantage. Remember Rahm Emmanuel saying "never let a crisis go to waste", well that happens too.
There are multiple competing groups of elites, who occasionally align to deal with a greater threat (Donald Trump for example). These competing groups want the spoils of government for themselves, and as part of this, they use whole swaths of groups who think they stand for freedom, both left and right. How the fuck do you think it became a big deal that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were bemoaning the "death tax" during the W. Bush years when your average suburban Republican gave two shits about it 5 years earlier. And we all know how the left was manipulated to pivot from Occupy Wallstreet to racism as the biggest concern over wealth disparity.
In sum: Not everything is part of a "plan."
It was really nice here for a while from Feb of last year to now, mostly serious minded discussion.
No, it's not predictive programming, just it's funny that what happened in this movie is what's happening in Canada.
Storyline: While driving through the Arizona desert, Albuquerque based independent trucker Martin Penwald - who goes by the handle "Rubber Duck" - along with his fellow truckers "Pig Pen" and "Spider Mike", are entrapped by unscrupulous Sheriff Lyle "Cottonmouth" Wallace using a key tool of the trucker's trade, the citizens' band (CB) radio. Rubber Duck and Cottonmouth have a long, antagonistic history. When this encounter later escalates into a more physical one as Cottonmouth threatens Spider Mike, a man who just wants to get home to his pregnant wife, Rubber Duck and other the truckers involved, including Spider Mike, Pig Pen and "Widow Woman", go on the run, figuring the best thing to do being to head to New Mexico to avoid prosecution. Along for the ride is Melissa, a beautiful photographer who just wanted a ride to the airport. As news of what happened spreads over the CB airwaves, other truckers join their convoy as a show of support. Cottonmouth rallies other law enforcement officers throughout the southwest, they who soon learn that stopping Rubber Duck, the face of the now highly public standoff, is not as easy as shooting him and the truck due to his highly explosive cargo. As the standoff escalates, New Mexico Governor Jerry Haskins joins the fray, he who sees the strong public support for the truckers being something on which he can capitalize politically.
When a big wave election comes along usually a midterm against an unpopular incumbent president (2006, 2010, 2018, 2022 are recent examples), you always have a lot of politicians decide to not run again. They take a look at the polls, and decide it ain't worth it. Why take their re-election funds and spend it on a losing battle. They take their large re-election campaign war chests and wash the money through a non-profit and get the money back in speaking fees or being overpaid for a no show job.
Example: Paul Ryan in 2018, as Speaker of the House had a $5.8 million dollar war chest.https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/paul-ryan/summary?cid=N00004357
Ryan couldn't take the war chest as personal funds (though you used to be able to), he had to wash it first. Initially, he makes a large tax deductible donation to a non-profit with that money, which paid him a large salary. Later, he starts his own nonprofit with that money, which pays him handsomely. He uses his connections with lobbyists next. Want to get a meeting with X person still in office, pay Ryan $XXX and he can arrange it.
So, it's about them getting their money, not some "they see the covid conspiracy is going to blow wide open and they will go to prison" or some "two more weeks" type of thing.
Lastly, there are only about 30-40 "swing districts" in the House. These are non-gerrymandered districts where there is no inner city County Clerk cheating on the behalf of the democrats. Typically, this is suburbia somewhere. Most everybody is in a safe seat, so you're not going to have more than 30-40 members of the House go from Dem to GOP.
Just a thought, but advertising agencies and governments have been perfecting fear porn tactics for decades now with the propaganda campaigns against smoking, drunk driving, and the war on drugs. Those cheesy ads? All they did was change the topic, but it's the same techniques. Same thing goes for seeding stories in the media. Instead of a story where drunk driver kills X, they just swapped out drunk driver for covid.
I was not a regular viewer of Don Draper and Mad Men, but to that show's credit, it did show how easily we are manipulated. All three anti-vice campaigns have been pretty successful.
This is not to say that I support drunk driving, drug use, or smoking. Frankly, all three are pretty dumb. But once an elite consensus formed that it was acceptable to manipulate the public on these issues, you didn't think it would stop there, did you?
There is a legal principle that if a statement is wrong in part, it is wrong in the whole. That is, logically speaking, a good maxim for single arguments. For example if I say 2+1 = 4, then you can know that my equation of (2+1)x(3+4)=28 was solved incorrectly.
However, this maxim of “wrong in part, wrong in whole” does not apply for separate arguments. If in separate debate I say 3x3=9, you can’t use as proof that 3*3 =/= 9 because I had said 2+1=4. Doing so is called the “genetic fallacy”.
Now, that I have made clear the issue with simple examples, let us expand the topic to conspiracy theories. And there are a lot of them, aren’t there?
Bigfoot and cryptids; Freemasonry; Rothschilds and Jew banking stuff; Holocaust; Alien abductions; Election theft; Hitler escaped to Argentina; Weather control; Covid; Fluoride; Various shades of 9/11 from inside job to controlled demo; moon landing was fake; Flat earth; Kennedy was killed by the CIA; Etc. etc. etc.
If someone on the board thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, but say, NOT a controlled demolition, one should debate 9/11 data with the person. Here is where if you can show someone’s theory is wrong in part, then more likely than not it is wrong in whole.
But what happens if someone agrees with you that 9/11 was a controlled demo, but thinks that the moon landing was not faked? Here, because they are separate topics, using someone’s belief that the moon landing happened has zero weight on if 9/11 was a controlled demo.
In fact, you look like a fucking moron for saying to someone who thinks that aliens abductions occur (when you don’t) that their take on covid as a depopulation scheme is wrong only because of their take on aliens. Whinny soy boy faggots will disregard Joe Rogan saying the sky is blue because it came from Joe Rogan. How about skeptically looking up at the sky after hearing such, or at a minimum, not engaging if you aren’t sure. If you are not well informed on a topic, nothing prevents you from not debating it.
You should take each topic INDIVIDUALLY. I know people who are the “right side” of things on most issues (at least to me) but who think Freemasonry is just a club for guys to get together, with nothing sinister at all. While Freemasonry is evil, I am not going to throw out data the guy presents on covid because he says his uncle is a Freemason and that it just a social club; I take his data on covid and evaluate it as it relates to covid. Likewise I have a friend who thinks that 6 million Jews were gassed and that covid tyranny is a lead up to this happening again. Avoid bullshit purity tests and take the guy’s support fighting covid tyranny and debate the Holocaust separate. Ya dig?
There is, perhaps, one exception to this rule about weighing evidence for each topic separate...if you are making the case that the conspiracies are linked. Then you debate the linkage: is it the FBI, the Deep State, or your own take that Obama is pulling the strings. But that is not what is happening on this board. Instead you get bullshit purity tests. Let me tell you, mon ami, nobody on earth will align with ALL your views unless that person is in the mirror.
So, in sum, debate each topic separately, don’t assume because they disagree with you in X that their opinion is invalid on Y.
Monoclonal antibodies - the stuff they gave Trump and Rogan and which FL is giving out to people, saving lives: this was developed by Operation Warp Speed. I didn't know this until the now viral David McC./Rogan interview.
How does this fit into the narrative?
The segment on them starts at 1 hour and 59 minutes in this interview.
Any yea, somebody here is going to say he deserves it. Whatever. The relative has been there for me when I needed help, and it would be nice to keep him around a while longer.
p.s. 13 year old unvaxxed relative in the same household got covid at the same time. Has the sniffles and is fine.
I keep seeing this topic pop up after Florida is resurrecting its state militia. I want to give some background.
Most people don't this, but a second purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the federal government's hands off control of the state militias. State militias were to be a bulwark against federal tyranny, to act against the feds if they had too. Essentially the Founders were comfortable setting up conditions where states had their own military forces, although there was a national army and navy. There is a lot of record of this in Founding Era writings. However, militias proved inadequate in the War of 1812, so the move towards centralization started.
Still, even during the Civil War, units were composed of troops and officers all from within states. But by WWI this system proved inadequate for the massive nationwide mobilization that had to occur, so it was reformed and centralized. People at the time pointed out that this was not supposed to occur, but alas, their voices were not heeded. By WWII and thereafter, a dual system was set up where, national guards were nominally under control of the governor of a state, but they were really just federal Reserve units, federalized at will.
An example of this federalization, is when Ike took control of the state national guard units, federalizing them, to implement desegregation. The governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, had indicated he would use the state National Guard to PREVENT the implementation of SCOTUS's Brown decision that required integration of the schools. So for the first time since the Civil War, troops didn't have to decide who remain loyal to, their state, or the feds.
Still, the ghosts of the original system remains, which is why Oklahoma is allowing its National Guard troops to avoid the mandatory jab....so long as the troops are not activated and put under federal control.
So, in summary, FL, in bringing back its state guard, disbanded in 1947, is bringing back a Founding Era understanding of state sovereignty.
(p.s.: No court is ever going to rule the current National Guard system unconstitutional)
.....when we are giving out poisonous covid jabs across society. We've not advanced as far as you might think.
