Zaboravljaš hroboatose da sve, apsolutno sve netko financira.

Moraš imati jako moćnu vlastitu moć samozavaravanja i nijekanja da bi sada vjerovao da ne postoji globalna agenda moćnih elita.

I sam sam nekada, sada već davno, želio vjerovati da nema neke konkretne urote od elite nego mnogo raznih interesa koji guraju u svojim smjerovima.

Istina je da postoji i mnogo raznih interesa, ali sigurno je da se moć dosta skoncentrirala, i onda ovi najmoćniji guraju svoju agendu najjače, i to je ta teorija o globalizmu koja kruži.

Mislim da ne trebam govoriti što je Blackrock, i koliko su moćni.

Evo video u kojem direktor u Blackrocku Larry Fink otvoreno govori da "se moraju forsirati ponašanja", i da to u Blackrocku već rade. Navodi dalje glupe primjere, više žena, više diversifikacije i sl., ono što je za javnost, ali razmislite malo što znače riječi "forsirati ponašanje".

Zašto bi ti netko forsirao ponašanje, s kojim pravom?

Evo jedine skupine čije ponašanje je opravdano forsirati:
1) djeca dok ih roditelji odgajaju,
2) vojska koji su dobrovoljno ušli u službu, i samo u okviru te službe,
3) kriminalci kojima se oduzima sloboda i određena prava jer su počinili zločin.

Ovdje se ne govori o tim skupinama, nego o forsiranju ponašanja običnih ljudi, punoljetnih odraslih ljudi koji imaju svoju glavu i svoj razum.

Kada oni sebi uzimaju za pravo da forsiraju ponašanje ljudi, zna se onda da nema ideje koju ne bi progurali, ako vjeruju da su u pravu.

Što se tiče teorije da ima urota na visokom nivou to je sasvim sada jasno, jedino se otvara pitanje koliko će to dovesti do njima željenih ciljeva.

Iako su moćni i guraju svoje ideje, ne znači da su vidoviti i toliko pametni da će njihovo guranje dovesti do onih ciljeva koje su sebi zamislili, naročito što postoji mnogo skupina koje igraju igru da dođu do sredstava a sa svojim, različitim ciljevima.

https://www.google.com/search?q=we+must+force+behaviours&oq=we+must+force+behaviours&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU3NDJqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:25af4129,vid:eTDdDgr-xYo,st:0

Prvobitna teza je bila da postoji neka smišljena organizacija ili skup grupa koji rade na razgradnji zapadne civilizacije, a to znači sjeverne Amerike i zapadnokršćanske Europe.

Shortly before his death in 1989, Hubbert himself admitted that when he showed his Peak Oil paper to Shell’s managing director before presenting it to his colleagues, the director had told him not to “go overboard” with his estimates of oil reserves, pointing specifically to L.G. Weeks, a rival geophysicist who had estimated reserves to be much higher, and thus the impending threat of undersupply and the need for high oil prices to be much weaker.

But although today Hubbert is remembered almost exclusively for his Peak Oil thesis, he was in fact involved in a much larger, lifelong project, helping to codify and incorporate a movement that, much like eugenics, was wildly popular nearly a century ago, fell out of favor in polite society, and yet continues today under other names. That movement was called “Technocracy.”

- "Hello, I’m Arvid Peterson, and this is the first of a two-part presentation on Technocracy, an alternative social system. These programs are not intended to entertain or amuse you, nor are they meant to scare you. We are making a new approach. It is not political, financial, philosophical, legal, religious or moral. It is a technological approach. Technocracy is the scientific answer to America’s social problems and technocracy is a new design for social operation that based on upon science. It is the vehicle by which we can move into a new era for better living.”

Technocracy billed itself as a social movement, a philosophy, a scientific solution to political and economic problems, and a new way of ordering the world. But, at base, it is an idea for a new international economic order, one to be designed and managed down to the most minute detail by a select few: the “technocrats.”

Epstein’s interest in genetics led him to sponsor a number of scientists working in the field, including George Church, a Harvard geneticist whose lab received funding from Epstein’s foundation from 2005 to 2007 for “cutting edge science.” Church publicly apologized for his connection to Epstein, which included several meetings a year from 2014 onward. This was neither the first nor the last time that this unassuming Harvard biologist, whose “cutting edge science” often strays into controversial areas, caused a public scandal. In 2019, Church proposed a “genetics dating app” which was immediately denounced as applied eugenics.

Church also acted as scientific advisor to Editas Medicine, a startup seeking to use the genome-editing tool, CRISPR-Cas9, to eliminate diseases by deleting the parts of a genetic code responsible for the illness. In 2015, the company announced it had raised $120 million from a group led by Epstein’s appointed backup executor, Dr. Boris Nikolic. Naturally, that group of investors included Bill Gates.

Yes, Bill Gates is certainly following his father’s advice to collaborate with “like-minded partners.”

So, the question remains: Is Bill Gates motivated by eugenics? Given that eugenics went underground over half a century ago, we are unlikely ever to unearth a frank admission along those lines from Gates himself. After all, there are no longer any card-carrying members of the American Eugenics Society; the society was rebranded in the 1970s when, as the society’s founder noted, “it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption.”

But there was an American Eugenics Society in the 1920s, and it just so happened to boast a “William H. Gates” on its member roster. But perhaps that is just a coincidence.

And there was an American Eugenics Society in the 1960s, when William H. Gates II was preceded as head of Planned Parenthood by Alan Guttmacher, who simultaneously served as the Director of the American Eugenics Society.

And perhaps it was coincidence that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation organized their London Summit on Family Planning, at which the Gates recommitted themselves to funding population control in the third world, in July 2012, on the anniversary of the First International Eugenics Congress, held in London exactly 100 years prior.

And perhaps it is reaching to compare the young Bill Gates’ dating preferences to the genetic-based dating favored by modern-day eugenicists.

Formirani prijeki sudovi, organizatori prosvjeda se presudjuju u roku odmah, jedan dobio tri godine.

Zivjela zapadna Europa i europske vrijednosti

Eugenics was a field named and codified by Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin. Ostensibly concerned with heredity and what would later be known as genetics, the eugenicists believed that the rich and powerful were rich and powerful not because of luck or chance or happenstance, and certainly not from the deployment of cutthroat business tactics and underhanded dealings; no, the rich and powerful had attained their status because they came from “better stock.” Conversely, the poor were poor because of their “defective germ plasm.”

As transparent as it seems to us today that this ideology was a self-serving self-justification for the ruling class, it was quickly taken up as the great social crusade of the early 20th century. From Teddy Roosevelt to H. G. Wells to Julian Huxley to Winston Churchill, there was widespread support for the eugenicist notion that society must strive to make sure that the rich and “well-born” breed as much as possible, and the poor, infirm, and “feeble-minded” be prevented from having children.

A common eugenicist argument was that the scarce resources of society should not be used to support the lower classes, as that only encouraged more of their kind. Instead, life-saving medical care and intervention should be rationed so that those resources can be best put to use elsewhere. So-called negative eugenicists even took things further, with some, like famed playwright George Bernard Shaw, calling for people to be called before a state-appointed board to justify their existence or be put to death.

Vježbe buduće totalitarne vlade. Kao za pandemiju u Australiji i Kanadi.

Vi niste kvalificirani za suvislu diskusiju.

Biće tako i u HR. I prije nego što neki misle.

Loviće nas ko međede po šumama, dok nas sve ne pozatvaraju i pobiju ko Škripare.



Zato, (dok još mogu) svim zagovarateljima imigracije OPREM DOBRO!!

Ali pazi formirali zurne sudove, sude po dva sata, ljudima rezu kazne od par godina.

To je klasicna diktatura, sa druge strane divljanje islamista i arapa toleriraju maksimalno. Logicno, sve vise pozicija u vlasti VB uzimaju tamnoputi.

Englezi su unisteni, ali nije mi ih zao. Zelim im jos gore.

“If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear” has always been the rallying cry for those who are too afraid of questioning presumed governmental authority to speak out against the surveillance state and the implied assumption of guilt that goes along with it. With feigned bemusement these moral midgets inevitably ask, “What’s so bad about the government spying on you, anyway?”

The answer, of course, is that the very question implies that the agencies tasked with carrying out this constant Big Brother surveillance are themselves above reproach, shining lights of moral rectitude who would never abuse this incredible power for nefarious ends. For the unimaginative out there, Hollywood yarns like Enemy of the State have provided fictional examples of what can go wrong if someone, somewhere, abuses this power of information and surveillance to target an innocent person in the wrong place at the wrong time.

To be sure, the power that these technologies give for agencies, or corrupt groups within those agencies, to destroy the lives of targeted individuals, is itself a fitting answer to the question of why government surveillance should be troubling to us. But beyond what can happen to specific, targeted individuals in such a scenario, however, is a much larger question: What if this data, our emails, our phone calls, our credit card transactions, our social media posts, our cell phone GPS logs, and all of the hundreds of other pieces of data that are admittedly being collected on us every day, were being fed into a database so gargantuan it contains a digital version of every single person on the planet? And what if that database were being used by the Department of Defense to war game various scenarios, from public reactions to natural disasters to the likelihood of civil unrest in the wake of a declaration of martial law?

Remarkably, this is precisely what is happening.

It is called the “Sentient World Simulation.” The program’s aim, according to its creator, is to be a “continuously running, continually updated mirror model of the real world that can be used to predict and evaluate future events and courses of action.” In practical terms that equates to a computer simulation of the planet complete with billions of “nodes” representing every person on the earth.