We have already explained comprehensively ‘why it’s not’. Now you need to engage with your counter argument by answering the simple question above. That is how adult conversation works. If you are unable to answer it, then we can’t help you any further.
We have already explained comprehensively ‘why it’s not’. Now you need to engage with your counter argument by answering the simple question above. That is how adult conversation works. If you are unable to answer it, then we can’t help you any further.
I seem to be responding to resolute "conspiracy theorists" (the term in vogue these days) who magnify the possible negatives wherever money is involved and discount the positives of a serious effort to counter the darkness of group-think and severely constrained speech. It's hard to have a constructive conversation about ARC when you've effectively labeled it suspect and focused entirely on suspicious (in your eyes) funders.
Couldn’t agree more David. I’m sympathetic as to why people have become conspiratorial given the last few years but exactly what do these people think it’s going to take to counter the mainstream? A bunch of unknown anarchists? The notion that we need to tear everything down is very strong right now but entirely misguided. We need to conserve, and the best parts, and dismiss the shit. I find the “so and so is connected to x and they had lunch with y and wow they must all be some version of what we are fighting” completely unconvincing.
We’re still waiting for a logical, evidence-based response to our question. Shall I spell it out again for you? “Why, when ARC are clearly integral to the impact investment Legatum, which are paid by and also fund Omidyar, Gates, WEF and the World Bank, etc would any sane person think that ARC are supportive of bodily sovereignty, free speech and a non-digital surveillance, social-credit-scoring future?" Answers here or privately are very welcome indeed. Literally no other comments are required or necessary for our readers. Thanks.
Show me a Venn diagram of NGO’s and global enterprises right now and I’ll show you crossover everywhere. Assuming it’s all malfeasance is naive and a mistake.
But McExpat, let's make this clear. Some of us realise we have a choice: where ever possible we choose NOT to support (in ANY way) any entity (NGO or other) which demonstrably supports the globalists' agenda. Are you saying you want to ignore all that evidence and continue to support them anyway? ARC or another similar scam? That's fine, that's your choice. Now please, with respect, take your choices and attention elsewhere. Thanks.
To suggest ARC is a scam just doesn’t stand to reason given the calibre of the people present. There may be some that have different intentions but I struggle to take opinion and advice from someone who feels the need to put ‘PhD’ in their Substack handle and tells me to piss off ‘with respect, mind you’ because I won’t jump down the conspiracy rabbit hole with my eyes shut.
Trust the baby-jeebus, he will take you places and nobody said they would be good places
that said our leaders of the alt-covid scam are just as stinky as the big-pharma covid enablers, me thinks its totally plausible that PFIZER put both teams in place prior to mRNA al
I don't think you're intentionally thick, but I've tried to be pretty clear about why I feel ARC deserves better than deep suspicion. Peterson and Weiss are natural figureheads due to their attitude to inquiry, their communication skills, the usefulness of their communications, and the acclaim/notoriety that has accrued as they attracted much attention. An endeavour such ARC needs the involvement of at least one person with a high profile to have a chance of succeeding. Suspecting nefarious underlying principles may be your thing, but I doubt that you'll find many other than conspiracy-minded folks to buy in.
We have already explained comprehensively ‘why it’s not’. Now you need to engage with your counter argument by answering the simple question above. That is how adult conversation works. If you are unable to answer it, then we can’t help you any further.
I seem to be responding to resolute "conspiracy theorists" (the term in vogue these days) who magnify the possible negatives wherever money is involved and discount the positives of a serious effort to counter the darkness of group-think and severely constrained speech. It's hard to have a constructive conversation about ARC when you've effectively labeled it suspect and focused entirely on suspicious (in your eyes) funders.
Couldn’t agree more David. I’m sympathetic as to why people have become conspiratorial given the last few years but exactly what do these people think it’s going to take to counter the mainstream? A bunch of unknown anarchists? The notion that we need to tear everything down is very strong right now but entirely misguided. We need to conserve, and the best parts, and dismiss the shit. I find the “so and so is connected to x and they had lunch with y and wow they must all be some version of what we are fighting” completely unconvincing.
"Sometimes you gotta tear it ALL down. Start over again! Heading for somewhere, leaving something behind...just drive." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BErtcFhhmIY
We’re still waiting for a logical, evidence-based response to our question. Shall I spell it out again for you? “Why, when ARC are clearly integral to the impact investment Legatum, which are paid by and also fund Omidyar, Gates, WEF and the World Bank, etc would any sane person think that ARC are supportive of bodily sovereignty, free speech and a non-digital surveillance, social-credit-scoring future?" Answers here or privately are very welcome indeed. Literally no other comments are required or necessary for our readers. Thanks.
Show me a Venn diagram of NGO’s and global enterprises right now and I’ll show you crossover everywhere. Assuming it’s all malfeasance is naive and a mistake.
But McExpat, let's make this clear. Some of us realise we have a choice: where ever possible we choose NOT to support (in ANY way) any entity (NGO or other) which demonstrably supports the globalists' agenda. Are you saying you want to ignore all that evidence and continue to support them anyway? ARC or another similar scam? That's fine, that's your choice. Now please, with respect, take your choices and attention elsewhere. Thanks.
To suggest ARC is a scam just doesn’t stand to reason given the calibre of the people present. There may be some that have different intentions but I struggle to take opinion and advice from someone who feels the need to put ‘PhD’ in their Substack handle and tells me to piss off ‘with respect, mind you’ because I won’t jump down the conspiracy rabbit hole with my eyes shut.
Trust the baby-jeebus, he will take you places and nobody said they would be good places
that said our leaders of the alt-covid scam are just as stinky as the big-pharma covid enablers, me thinks its totally plausible that PFIZER put both teams in place prior to mRNA al
I don't think you're intentionally thick, but I've tried to be pretty clear about why I feel ARC deserves better than deep suspicion. Peterson and Weiss are natural figureheads due to their attitude to inquiry, their communication skills, the usefulness of their communications, and the acclaim/notoriety that has accrued as they attracted much attention. An endeavour such ARC needs the involvement of at least one person with a high profile to have a chance of succeeding. Suspecting nefarious underlying principles may be your thing, but I doubt that you'll find many other than conspiracy-minded folks to buy in.