FWIW, this seemed pretty obviously staged.
Bourla has not a single person working personal security? There's that chunky guy, but he's behind everyone for most of the incident.
We heard there were 5000 cops assigned for security, but not a single one in sight? Are they outside the perimeter? Who are they keeping out, if not jokers like these?
So they're in a secured area and everyone is wearing a badge, even Bourla himself. But neither of these "reporters" has one, nor a couple of the "photographers"?
Long story short, a little psychodrama staged to let you know "something is being done".
I don't think any of the J6 protesters had been convicted of a crime two weeks later, so I would not think pardons are applicable. That is, unless one subscribes to the theory that the power granted to the President is actually the power to grant blanket immunity. Seems like a dangerous theory.
As far as Julian Assange, he's been dead or in a deep, dark hole since October 2016. Spend political capital and stir up a shitstorm over a dead guy? Doesn't seem like a productive use of resources to me.
When I hear about something like this, I always wonder how many people working personal security detail have silently woken up over the last few years, and as much as they object to what the Elites are doing, they think to themselves, "I'm going to keep my job protecting this scumbag because if the time is ever right, I'm going to be in position to help save the world using a 30 cent bullet."
That thought would really haunt me, if I was one of "Them".
If you were looking to demonstrate to everyone your reply was dumb and without content by having absolutely no power to explain what you yourself wrote, then mission accomplished.
Congratulations! Please play again soon.
PS: TIL "a person" is "a request". People have to be dense not to understand that self-evident fact.
As regards the video, I had actually planned on watching it, but the reason was to see if James Corbett tipped his nand as deep cover controlled opposition. The very title of it--and the premise--was suspect, though. "Trust" him? Do they make clear with what I am entrusting him? My wallet? My Corvette? My surgery? My 140 characters of valuable insight?
As regards the "door-in-the-face" technique, what do you perceive as the large and small requests Elon is making? And of who? Anything to do with the 8 bucks a month for a blue check mark? Personally, I passed.
As to McCarthy, I was baffled at first. Then I looked at the list of his compromises and felt better. But what really convinced me it was probably the right thing was reading Trump's endorsement carefully. He basically only said, "Hey, don't worry about it, everything's going to be fine."
See, McCarthy is clearly a douchebag and tried to stab Trump in the back. Trump never even publicly called him out on these things. So my thesis became that a backroom deal had made McCarthy completely subordinate to Trump. Then this solidified it with much more detail:
The only thing that still really bothers me about Trump is the vaxx stuff. I mean, how hard is it at this point to say, "Well, all the experts around me said that Warp Speed was the greatest thing ever and we worked really hard on it. But now there's some troubling information coming out about the vaxx. People should look into this for themselves because now I'm not so sure those experts were as expert as they made out."
But then again Trump lives in a very different world of information than us ordinary people. Like, you and I know exactly how famous Tom Cruise is, but do you think Tom Cruise knows the same way we do? I doubt it.
For all the "Elon is cOnTrOlLeD oP!" people, why not just explain to the group here how this is advantageous to the WEF?
Because it seems to me that this is just going to make it a lot harder to get everyone to go along with their plans to control the world. "Common knowledge of the fraud" and all that.
Just a quick note: I believe Israel has only about 4 dozen tactical nukes (~5KT). If you want to know how big that is, one of them blew up Port Said. They stole these a few years back.
And they needed to steal them because they didn't have any of their own. But you know what really convinced me of that? When it "leaked out" that Colin Powell said something like, "Israel has 200 nukes all pointed at Iran!" That was supposed to convince us Israel had nukes. And where did it come from? Powell's AOL email... lol
I get it, they're dumber than we think, but they're not that dumb and stuff like that doesn't leak out without a real shitstorm afterwards. But nope, not a drop of rain fell.
I feel like there's probably a number of people at NATO right now thinking, "Uh, Russia, if we're fighting a war with you, you have to tell us about this stuff beforehand. You can't just spring it on us. That's totally not fair!"
The way politicians and the mainstream talk about it, California is going to wash away into the ocean (even before the whole thing cracks off and falls in), but I came across this NOAA document for California and Oregon:
Monthly Precipitation Summary Water Year 2023
California is a very dry state to begin with and if I'm reading this document correctly, this year is not much different than an average year. Looking under "Pct Avg to Date" for the various watersheds, the highest I saw was 183, not even double. Many of the areas are well below normal. Everyone can get a sense of it for themselves.
But then again, it's not like the media ever fear-mongers, right?
PS: None of this should detract from the notion of weather warfare, which I am certain exists. In fact, one need only look at the anomalously warm weather in Eastern Europe for an example. They're trying to keep the ground from freezing to postpone the imminent Russian ground offensive.
Whoa, dang, why doesn't this guy just say he's dying for a huge dose of "freedom" to be airdropped on his country? (Haha, "dying", get it?)
In all seriousness, the cracks are really starting to show. It looks like the sides being chosen now are breaking into, "Yes, WW3 would be a good thing personally" and "No, WW3 would not be good for virtually everyone" No public announcements seem to reflect this clearly.
However it is you choose to measure it, you might like to reflect on how much positive impact you've had on the world as compared Trump and those who support him.
I suspect you'll find many reasons to think that you've done great.
One should correlate the timing of the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which eliminated liability for vaccine injury, with the steep rise in childhood vaccinations, and with the invention of--excuse me!--the first identification of SIDS.
This will be of interest to all coincidence theorists out there.
As is almost always the case, when we are meant to believe a situation is simple, it's actually complex (and the reverse). That's true in this situation as well. To substantiate that point and to begin to understand some of the complexity, I suggest starting here:
Just a coincidence, I'm sure, but in the show "New Girl" she played the recurring role of the ex-wife of Rob Reiner's character.
If you haven't had the displeasure of seeing any of his tweets, he is about the most vicious and unhinged Leftist in Hollywood. To characterize the material, it's worse than we were all supposed to think Trump's tweets were-- in the opposite polarity, of course.
I know that's a bold claim, but check it out if you feel like lowering your opinion of Leftists.
AJ is correct that they are revealing themselves more plainly. What now should be observed--and is observed much more easily--is the effect this has on normies. To wit: it doesn't.
Even when exposed, these revelations just hit a wall on the outside of normie "consciousness" (whatever that may be) and bounce off. They fail to engage it, at most just waving it away like a bad smell.
You never hear them say anything like, "That dude sounds like a damn pedophile and that's over the line!" or "Satanism?! Naw dog, I ain't down with that." Exposure has not and will not have the effect one would reasonably assume, and we should stop thinking it will.
Mark Passio related an anecdote from the time he was leaving the Church of Satan decades ago. He told them, "I'm going to expose you, tell the world what you're doing!" And what do you think they said?
"Go ahead. We could tell them ourselves and they wouldn't believe us any more than they will believe you." Quite disturbing, but we must internalize it and act accordingly.
Well, if he's going solo there is not one single other successful example we can point to. About the closest you can get would be Kim Dotcom, who ran off to the hinterlands, or John McAfee, who is dead or felt like he had to fake it. These are both smart, resourceful guys that only wished to speak some of what was on their minds.
So if Elon has "evil genius"-level smarts, he certainly knows that if you not with Them, you're against Them. Free-lancing is never, ever allowed. Observe any of Them closely, from George Soros to the King of England, and you can tell that none of them speak freely. They've all got invisible bosses who are listening.
Elon was certainly one of "Them" at one time and as freakish as any of them, but for some as yet impenetrable reason he turned some time ago. I think he's smart enough to know to leave Them guessing as to whether They can get him back in the fold, or They need to eliminate him and cook up another oligarch. Anyway, that's how I'd play it if I were him.
I also agree. Further, if Elon is a "limited hangout", tossing around terms like that is hanging it out way farther than necessary for no discernable reason.
It's enough to make me think the people still loudly insisting "eLoN iS a ShIlL!" are not very good at analysis. Or maybe just shills themselves.
No one denies the documents are legitimate and classified, or claims that they were planted. We see virtually all "conspiracy theorists" on the case should be more properly called "conspiracy speculators", so they're the opposite of helpful.
To attempt to find out what's really going on here, one should determine how these documents--just laying around for many years not bothering anyone--now suddenly came to light two years into Biden's term. The story we're given is:
On November 2, Biden’s private attorneys unexpectedly discovered the first collection of about 10 classified documents from the Obama-Biden administration in a locked closet at the Penn Biden Center office in Washington D.C—a think tank that Biden founded. Biden began working at the office occasionally in 2017 after his vice presidency ended. Following statutory requirements, the documents were voluntarily turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
If Biden is as crooked as we know he is, then I would suspect his attorneys are as well. Why would they not just put them back, then communicate to someone that "things in that old closet should be properly disposed of--gotta keep it 100!" But no, that's not what happened.
Just my wild guess: someone in close orbit of Biden has known about them for a long time, and he finally got sick enough of all the shit and decided it was time to drop dime, perhaps even anonymously. Docs surface and the narrative is a BS cover story.
This item is consistent with the idea that Nixon had come to judged as an unreliable asset to the Cabal, and was removed from office in the psychodrama known as Watergate.
I would not refer to it as a coup, since Nixon belonged to "Them" all along, and he was going to go one way or the other. The spectacle was staged for the public.
To understand a little better that Nixon was not going to ride the train all the way to Satan's Pedoville, one may refer to his comments on Bohemian Grove.
Spoiler alert: What you say is correct and--way down at the end of the road--you figure out he's a disinfo agent, the highest level of which I know. You can search for and find a couple of people writing that up. It's gotten so bad that I stopped reading his work about the summer of 2019 with the Space Shuttle paper.
All that being said, his earlier work (with the exception of his very first paper on JFK) is very solid. Specifically, he surfaces a ton of little known evidence and breaks through a lot of "mental barriers", such as pointing out how many WW2-era photos are faked. And really, the "mental barriers" part is actually more important, because it opens you up to recognizing and properly interpreting the evidence on your own.
Well, you can see that this is a helluva long disclaimer to give and is going to scare a lot of people off, so I typically just leave it out... lol. I suppose my real point is just something like, "If I can expose someone to the idea that the deception is even grander and more audacious than they ever thought possible, they just might widen their horizons, and if they do that they'll start seeing more for themselves."
Glad you got something out of the link!
Haha,,yeah, it goes from "ridiculous!" in December of 1997 to "oh yeah, of course" by January 1998. We get trifled with so easily. But it gets worse, and here's something you might find interesting.
First, I would suggest there should probably be no association with the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, since that didn't start until 15 months later.
But in any case, the "predictive programming" made sure we swallowed the scandal right when it came along. right? But how did they get the timing so good? How did they know when or even it was going to break? Mere coincidence? You wouldn't have to believe that if...
The Monica Lewinsky Scandal was faked (24-page PDF)
Fake and ghey. Everyone can examine this incident for themselves and figure out the same.