>Those people all live in the same NYC/SF/LA/Austin bubbles. To some extent they are "in on it". They do understand perfectly that they are engaged in social engineering and manipulating the public. Just their personal rationalizations or goals may differ depending on how far up the club ladder they are. And how far up the ladder they are is dependent on their family connections and/or usefulness and unique skill-sets and psychological openness to knowingly do evil, rather than just buy into the delusional aspects/accept easy rewards for saying and promoting gay liberal shit/the NWO agenda. > >A lot of Masons etc are practically openly Luciferian now. But they'll still swear blind that Luciferianism isn't Satanism. Some will believe that, some will know it's a lie. But as long as it benefits them as individuals, they'll go along with whatever lie or fantasy keeps those privileges coming. > >But I think the Big Players are more in sense corporations than individuals. Group Business and Political Ventures with a front man to be the face and persona. Movie Stars are probably the best angle from which to understand this. Like Gwyneth Paltrow and GOOP. She didn't invent GOOP. She has nothing to do with what products become GOOP products. She (the human individual who happens to share the name as the Gwyneth Paltrow Corporate Entity) is just the Company Mascot. The cartoon animal they slap on the advertising and PR. She's the Mickey Mouse of Gwyneth Paltrow Inc. The corporation branding is directed at middle aged cat ladies and cool wine aunts with too much money. They develop products that pander to this area of the market. Those products include GOOP, movies and even political/social ideas (like being overly-obsessed with your own vagina). The decision makers will be the usual cadre of jews and other sociopath scumbags, and they'll have synergistic relationships with other Corporate Entities that masquerade as actual famous human individuals. This will include marriages and romances that sell shitty women's magazines (that in turn advertise shit like GOOP products). The wealth will be distributed among those controllers while the "front man" will either receive a stipend or (if they're of a particular elite bloodline) a full stake. > >When they say Kim Kardassian or Beyonce is worth a billion dollars, that means it's a billion dollar corporation, not a billionaire individual who can cash out at any time. They (the actor) is in it for life. They are owned 100% via their contract. And this is what they're hoping to do with The Great Reset. Everyone signs up to a life contract where you own nothing, but are given walking-around money ("per diems" as they call them in the entertainment industry) and, ultimately, have to do as your controllers tell you - as you will literally be their living asset. Sentient Cattle. > >There's even a theory that we may already somewhat exist in this state of asset-dom. Look up Admiralty/Maritime Law Theory: https://usahitman.com/words-maritimelaw/ But the next step (The Great Reset) is the full-consent version of this. > >So, under this scenario - if you are told to report to place X and perform duty Y, are you an actor? What if they assign you a spouse? And you have to keep up the front that you love them? And the assigned spouse is doing the same thing. And you have to stick to it because Alexa 2.0 is watching and listening to you, and you'll be brutally penalized if you "drop character". Maybe you'll be of plastic enough of mind to buy into this assigned role and actually start feeling love, but can you be sure the same is true of your assigned spouse? You believe it, but it's still theater. Somebody set all this up and cast you in the part and cast someone else as your spouse. If the lights suddenly came on and it was announced that the play is over, do you stick around? Does your spouse? Do you have any claim on that person at all? They are, in truth, a complete stranger. Another actor. > >Words as we understand them are being rapidly re-conceived and re-defined. And our cultural roles have already been greatly subverted into what amounts to having to "act" or have a public persona where only sites like this allow truth expression without incurring some kind of immediate social penalty. We're already halfway to being "Actors" in our own lives. Maybe those Buzzfeed faggots just bought in much easier, or they enjoy "being someone else". Maybe someone they perceive to be better than their real identity. They certainly seem to have a huge narcissistic aspect to their author personas and never hesitate to lie about others to boost their own perceived importance. Isn't that sort of like a small child playing at being magical princess? Insisting the people around her bend to her every whim? To please and entertain her at every turn or else feel her wrath? > >In a non-fantasy/non-clown world (where your smiles are just painted on) that bratty girl would get a spanking, and that woman would get herself a slap for treating other people like shit. So it's a very empowering role for them to play. Which is why they were the first to buy in to this emerging paradigm. And if they could lock it down as a permanent and enforced state of affairs, they'd sign the Great Reset contract in a millisecond. They say as much on twitter every single day.