2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

[rothschild]

...That was not the the entire statement upon which I based my premise.  Let me refresh your memory, from your Post #194, where YOU stated:

"How is "the populous" -- which is rife with divisions -- of serious consequence when they're dependant on corporations for their survival -- which is, and will continue to be, leveraged for maximum coercion?

If "too many moving parts" is indeed a fact, perhaps you could quantify it and provide a brief explanation of why they're an insurmountable obstacle.

The only major obstacle I see is the obedience of subordinates in the globalist hierarchy, hence the need for characterizing it's behavior as "emergency management". They're subject to coercion, reprisal, and if necessary, replacement."

I used your three lines (not just the one you offered as an explanation) for my disagreement and basis for my question.

Your third line made no sense as to who were the subordinates and the globalist hierarchy.

"The populous" and corporations are BOTH global AND subordinate.  "Emergency Management" is declared, ordered, and imposed by governments . . . not by the populous or corporations. 

It was a logical assumption (on my part), as you did not specify who or what was the "globalist hierarchy", I presumed you were referring to governments as the "globalist hierarchy".  If you were suggesting a Corporatocracy scenario, you failed miserably . . . by conspicuously being vague...

I assumed it was clear that globalist institutions exist for the express purpose of liquidating national governance and consolidating it into a unified governing body. My bad.

The CDC -- and it's counterparts around the globe -- responded to a declaration made by WHO, which is a UN agency. I think this clearly indicates that the UN is the defacto shot-caller with respect to pandemics. National deference to this global authority entails relinquishing sovereignty for the ostensible purpose of serving the "greater good". In a better world that makes sense; in a world governed by amoralists dedicated to the advancement of special interests, rather than general interests, it makes no sense at all in terms of legitimate public health.

Does a fox care about the "public health" of the chickens in the proverbial henhouse?

Is a person such as Bill Gates a benevolent philanthropist, or a fox pretending to be a benevolent philanthropist?

I'm clear in my mind as to what sort of person Gates is. If you aren't, let me know. His pecuniary interests are fairly easy to document.

Except in rare cases, I see the general populations of nations as having marginal influence on governance -- at best. The subordinates I referenced are those tasked with carrying out specific functions that fall under the rubric of "public health", and are a subset of the general population, but not the general population per se.

Is the CDC a globalist institution, and therefore a component of what I refer to as the globalist hierarchy? To my mind it has behaved as such, so I conclude that it is, and the rest of HHS, as well -- most especially the FDA.

I referenced Nazi Germany because it has been documented that hierarchical structure was a large factor in why the German civil service participated in the atrocities that were committed, the most significant component of which is compartmentalization. In hierarchies, people are informed on a need-to-know basis. Those who comprise the bulk of a pyramid know very little. Moving up there is a point at which compliance can be problematic. Germany's ultimate failure had nothing to do with that. It was the result of egregious blunders -- most notably those of Hitler and Goering -- and a war machine that was beyond what the German economy could maintain.

Corporate dependency relates to food, energy, communications, transportation, banking, etc., all of which can intentionally be interrupted and made to appear as sabotage. As you correctly noted, problem-->reaction-->solution. Politics plays an important role as to who will and will not accept predetermined "solutions". Those who don't are characterized as dangers to society.

Corporatocracy is the defacto reality in the Western World, but that doesn't necessarilly imply a unified globalist order; what does, IMO, is an institution such as the WEF, which is aligned with every major corporation and NGO in the world, and has been grooming "Young Global Leaders" since 1993.

If you'd like to attend the WEF's annual Davos shindig so you can see for yourself what it's all about, it'll cost you in excess of 23k for one week. Or you can save yourself some money and buy Schwab's book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Pretty sure the Davos shindig is by invitation only, which isn't terribly inclusive or equitable. I'd love to see the look on their faces if a BLM caravan showed up demanding to be let in so they could collect their reparations.

I'm not going to go much further unless this meets the smell test. Re the globalist hierarchy per se, I place the Western central banking system near the top, the hub of which is the Bank for International Settlements. The City of London also looms large -- not to be confused with London. It's a corporate city within a city, and a very good example of where real power resides. Control of national money supplies is the ultimate power. Those who have the gold make the rules, and decide who does and doesn't go to war, and for how long. Financing wars was instrumental to gaining that power. Over time, financing destruction was coupled with financing reconstruction, wash, rinse, and repeat. "Globalism" is really just global oligarchy. If you think competing interests preclude this, John D. Rockefeller stated that "competition is a sin". He was a made man in the Rothschild syndicate, and probably it's greatest asset, then and now. A team player for a team that has attained the pinnacle of human achievement in terms of conquest.

Who, or what, lies at the very top, I don't know, and probably never will -- which is fine by me. I know enough to know where I stand in relation to this hierarchy.