What I mean by "win-win" for them, is that, no matter if you/we choose "yes" or "no", both cases they win https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic) I don't believe for a second that, billions invested in think tanks and various studies and planification efforts over decades, would result in plans/projects that could fail miserably just by "betting on the wrong horse" So when serious shit is at stake, it necessarily has to be a catch22 type of situation thrown at our faces; because both cases they win/"you" lose Just like when both sides of a conflict are funded by the same clique, no matter who wins, both sides end up owned by the same clique I know it's not comfortable and sounds pretty fucking hopeless, that's why most people naturally don't think in those terms because they look for a clear cut solution. "If the MSM says it's true, then it's false, and vice versa." <- sometimes that logic applies yes "MSM says covid19 exists, therefore covid19 doesn't exist" <- And here it fails; covid19 exists, and it's not what they portray it to be... https://poal.co/s/CoronaVirus/398579/998ed710-864b-4cc2-992c-feb2e0e3798d#cmnts Some people still stubbornly want to end up with a clear and definitive answer to every assault they have to deal with, because no answer at all isn't an option and it has to be a good answer, an answer solving the problem, which isn't possible, since there's no such thing as a good answer to a catch22. Now, just because there are only losing positions in a given proposition, doesn't mean there's no way to turn the situation to your advantage Georges washington lost pretty much all his battles, but won the war. Catch22 all the way, BUT, the winner is the one still capable to occupy the terrain, not the one who "scored" the most. Same deal with vietnam, in the end the US had to go home and claim victory, to some extent, while vietcongs were still in vietnam in the end. Same deal with afghanistan, there's no win for the US, while at the same time nobody can say they lost. Was winning even really part of the plan in both vietnam and afghanistan is open to debate, but that's another topic Back on topic. What I've noticed overtime is this; they have a multi layered agenda, and there's little room for "off schedule" events imposing additional delays. See the trump election, they didn't like it, like not at all. With trump starting to tear shits appart starting with NATO, the UN, etc. Trying to close the southern border and supporting the keystone pipeline. THey really didn't like that it was tiring to hear them screech to no end 24/7 anywhere you looked at. And I'm not saying trump was perfect or anything. I'm saying he fucked their timing and it pissed them off, it was painful obviously, to the point that virtually every MSM outlet was an anti trump platform. Usually you have half for the candidate, and the other half against him. Not this time. https://youtu.be/rHBiT6eJaQQ?t=29 "since many hours have already passed today and he's still not here" Timing matters Now you might say, "yeah but trump was pro bibi and this guy is obviously bibi's mantor or something" It's true and I don't claim I have all the answers. And I think timing matters, they don't have an infinite time window. If anything that's what I'm saying. Anything to delay the agenda, is good for us, for lack of better option. Edit: Anything to delay the agenda, or anything to accelerate mass awareness of their agenda