Slightly concerned this interview is a bit too good to be true, I think a bit of patience would be prudent just to confirm that an intentionally planted story is not in place to discredit.
Slightly concerned this interview is a bit too good to be true, I think a bit of patience would be prudent just to confirm that an intentionally planted story is not in place to discredit.
I don't disagree with the mindset of typical employees and Drs, the overconfidence and hubris. Generally going along with whatever. The part that is too far is how this is a complete and total affirmation that is just too perfect.
This isn't saying the quiet part out loud, it is grabbing a megaphone and yelling up and down the street. I am only saying it would be wise to wait a day or two before mass circulating this story. Just caution to deception.
Of course the opposition is loud, as it should be. But where do we see senior executives saying yes we are lying to the public, it's a revolving door with regulators, yes we engage in directed evolution, etc.
When I think of the narratives of the past years and before, it is always to frame things in ways which are not direct, and this aligns with my experience where in this industry there is zero awareness and true belief that people opposed to them are unhinged.
This person is maniacal in their language, saying look how evil we are, look how deceptive we are. My gut is that, from being tangentially in these networks, that virtually no one is thinking this way, getting into these positions and networks.
I don't deny the underlying narrative and intent, but it is built on a deceit of those perpetuating the actions. I cannot fathom encountering a high level director or VP at one of these companies saying yes, we are doing evil, isn't it great how evil we are.
I've learned to be wary of these "bombshells" how many "bombshells" have we seen already? Excess deaths through the roof, people dropping dead, turbo cancers, and more and more bombshells, yet still it carries on.
What do we expect to happen with this interview being available, the same as everything else, suppression, attacking the source, rewriting/reframing past events.
We aren't in need of more bombshells and if we have a lesson from the past few years it is that waving around a bombshell paper, report, statistics, or interviews does not result in that sudden shift in perception in understanding.
Jumping at these stories, which MAY be traps, is a risk as opposed to the steady stream of clear information once it is known, the things that aren't at risk of being disputed, often from their own sources.
The writing is on the wall, wolves are everywhere, let's not be herded.
Once again, all I am cautioning on is time. It is awful to be duped and to try to convince people with information that then turns out to be false or misconstrued.
We generally likely don't even disagree on the underlying issues that are happening and all the effort spent to manipulate and gaslight people into harming themselves.
If a note to exercise a fraction of caution for a setup you are considering as controlled opposition then I would recommend taking a step away from your screen for a few minutes.
Or do you consider everyone who disagrees with your omniscience and poor reasoning an enemy?
With all of this, patience and resilience is going to see it through, there isn't going to be a heroic moment of revelation, it is not set up for that.
I hope this ends up being true, but to me still I will reserve jumping on the bandwagon of absolute certainty for just a day or two.
Personally I don't feel it is naive to wait a short period of time for information that, if we knew was 100% true would not really make a difference in terms of what could be acted on.
Slightly concerned this interview is a bit too good to be true, I think a bit of patience would be prudent just to confirm that an intentionally planted story is not in place to discredit.
Same. Others saying the same -- that it’s an op to degrade the authority of Project Veritas and make them look foolish.
If they are not in on it.
It's basically governments who agree to share one another's data.......
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/oct/02/the-secret-history-of-the-five-eyes-untold-story-international-spy-network-by-richard-kerbaj-review
Agreed.
I don't disagree with the mindset of typical employees and Drs, the overconfidence and hubris. Generally going along with whatever. The part that is too far is how this is a complete and total affirmation that is just too perfect.
This isn't saying the quiet part out loud, it is grabbing a megaphone and yelling up and down the street. I am only saying it would be wise to wait a day or two before mass circulating this story. Just caution to deception.
Nobody was ever truly forced. No gun to head. No family kidnapping.
You are leaning to sympathy. Please ,mercy and sympathy for these animals?
Of course the opposition is loud, as it should be. But where do we see senior executives saying yes we are lying to the public, it's a revolving door with regulators, yes we engage in directed evolution, etc.
When I think of the narratives of the past years and before, it is always to frame things in ways which are not direct, and this aligns with my experience where in this industry there is zero awareness and true belief that people opposed to them are unhinged.
This person is maniacal in their language, saying look how evil we are, look how deceptive we are. My gut is that, from being tangentially in these networks, that virtually no one is thinking this way, getting into these positions and networks.
I don't deny the underlying narrative and intent, but it is built on a deceit of those perpetuating the actions. I cannot fathom encountering a high level director or VP at one of these companies saying yes, we are doing evil, isn't it great how evil we are.
Again though, just patience.
I've learned to be wary of these "bombshells" how many "bombshells" have we seen already? Excess deaths through the roof, people dropping dead, turbo cancers, and more and more bombshells, yet still it carries on.
What do we expect to happen with this interview being available, the same as everything else, suppression, attacking the source, rewriting/reframing past events.
We aren't in need of more bombshells and if we have a lesson from the past few years it is that waving around a bombshell paper, report, statistics, or interviews does not result in that sudden shift in perception in understanding.
Jumping at these stories, which MAY be traps, is a risk as opposed to the steady stream of clear information once it is known, the things that aren't at risk of being disputed, often from their own sources.
The writing is on the wall, wolves are everywhere, let's not be herded.
Once again, all I am cautioning on is time. It is awful to be duped and to try to convince people with information that then turns out to be false or misconstrued.
We generally likely don't even disagree on the underlying issues that are happening and all the effort spent to manipulate and gaslight people into harming themselves.
If a note to exercise a fraction of caution for a setup you are considering as controlled opposition then I would recommend taking a step away from your screen for a few minutes.
Or do you consider everyone who disagrees with your omniscience and poor reasoning an enemy?
With all of this, patience and resilience is going to see it through, there isn't going to be a heroic moment of revelation, it is not set up for that.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/directed-evolution-pfizer-rd-exec-says-covid-19-created-wuhan-cash-cow-company
Follow up seems legit enough!
I appreciated our conversation but don’t think it is necessary to end on controlled opposition, no benefit in mud slinging.
What came to mind for me was multiple other loose ends over the years that amounted to nothing.
Hope this gets huge traction.
I hope this ends up being true, but to me still I will reserve jumping on the bandwagon of absolute certainty for just a day or two.
Personally I don't feel it is naive to wait a short period of time for information that, if we knew was 100% true would not really make a difference in terms of what could be acted on.