I think they're pushing for collapses to coalesce. A one world government is easier for them to run.
That's a very risky option, compared to the more desirable alternative of incremental implementation as they have done over the years
True, but they also need something drastic to take that last step I think. People won't accept it without.
There's a great deal of loss of control with such a bold move. The apathy is great during prosperous times, much less during troubled times. Why take a risk when you can afford to avoid it. But then what's the goal? A monopoly on life itself that's the end game ultimately. Now maybe it calls for a necessary culling in between, in order to start over. In that perspective a catastrophe(s) of epic proportions becomes desirable. What struck me when I was reading the so called Agenda 2030, is how rosy and sugar coated all propositions appear to be. https://poal.co/s/Politics/236417
(post is archived)