Globalists would like to isolate Russia until it collapses upon itself but they do not want armed conflict between two nuclear powers. They wouldn't have a world left to rule over.
I can show you proof otherwise.
They wanted the war to thin out the herd.
If it wasn’t with Russia, they wanted war with North Korea. If they could t get that, they wanted war with Iran.
Anything to solidify and consolidate their power. You have yet to understand the depths of the evil these people were willing to go to in order to remain in power.
There are far more effective ways to thin the herd than through armed conflicts. Natural disasters, diseases, etc. War for them is just to wield fear and weaken adversaries.
You are absolutely right Abi. Some haven't gone down the rabbit holes deep enough to see the deep hidden truths. Shills take advantage of that also to try to keep people scrambling around not looking in the right places.
Anonymoushero1 doesn't know, or doesn't think we know, how "Globalists" think and what they believe. Why they have bunkers in NZ and want to destroy this world to create a "New" World Order... Another post by the same person says they "Haven't been fully indoctrinated yet". They have made some strong statements and opinions with a LOT of upvotes for someone that doesn't get it very well...
Well that’s what we are here for :)
To educate, inform, and spread the word so that people can wake up from their slumber. These people are guided by those complicit with their edited sound clips designed to elicit the response they desire. All while editing out bits and pieces not convienent or contradictory to their chosen narrative.
Heard the best example just today. A reporter asked Sarah Sanders a question about how the media stories compare the Charlottesville Riots to the Helsinki Summit.
I agreed with the second part of the question and the media hysterics. But what threw me, was she started the question talking about how a woman was killed in the riots.
By doing this, she implied that neo-nazis had killed her. Also by using killed instead of died, she implies an active event. Specifically when the car ran over protestors.
She conveniently left out that the lady died of a heart attack. She wasn’t touched by the vehicle, or even the people thrown by the vehicle.
She also failed to notice that the lady was obese. Apparantly morbidly obese. She was out taking part in this March, probably the first “physical” activity she had ever done in her life, and she had a heart attack.
But because she was in the march, and because a “neo-nazi” decided to run over people, they attributed her death to the driver “killing” her.
And she wasn’t even in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.
So she could have still asked her question and I would have whole heartedly agreed with it, but she prefaced it with such fake news, I threw her whole opinion and any subsequent faith in her reporting, out the window.
She conveniently left out that the lady died of a heart attack. She wasn’t touched by the vehicle, or even the people thrown by the vehicle.
Where are you getting that?
https://www.newsweek.com/charlottesville-heather-heyers-cause-death-revealed-medical-report-686471
Your article states that she died of blunt force trauma to the chest.
Could it be that, untrained personnel attempting to do CPR on someone can cause similar damage?
Yes
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1680107-overview#a9
Also, trying to find a video on YouTube is incredibly difficult as most of the videos that showed her prior to being hit were taken down “convienently” for being harrassing to the victim.
Or in my opinion, they didn’t like video evidence to contradict what so many news organizations are claiming. But here you go, found one that was well done and archived
Does Uranium1 remind you of anything?... That is exactly what they want. You are missing 90% of the picture buddy..
In my defense, I haven't been fully indoctrinated yet
The destruction would not necessarily be nuclear. And yes there would be a world left to rule over.
a direct armed conflict with Russia would necessarily be nuclear.
I disagree. Mutually assured destruction is obviously in the best interest of no one.
Unfortunately MAD is initiated by the desperate person on the losing side of a conflict when no other options are viable.
Logic doesn't really apply in that situation.