The Great Reset

Gianni Scrawny Steroid

Gianni Scrawny Steroid wrote: »

Agree, the best and simple solution is to simply ignore all reponses to KingBob and JoeDoe, if they're not ever reponded to, then their Raison d'être will suddenly vanish into a dark void.

Along with 8-16k worth of 24/7 instant responding anti-theory (any theory actually) jibes, across what, a decade or so (the mind boggles as to the motivation for such), perhaps Soros is actually indirectly sponsoring them after all!

Exactly. It's just weird behavior... Hold on, are you saying they've been at this for ten years?! Ah, man Here, guys, if you're reading this, seriously. Put your time into something else. This ain't doing you any good :pac: At the very least, how about posting on forums that you're actually interested in discussing :rolleyes:

And I know we can just hit 'ignore', but shouldn't have to. A sensible word should sort it, but then again, (decade) old habits die hard :pac:

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Lol, by asking questions?

You just wrote that you support that, so which is it..



Nothing clear about vague innuendo. The questions remain, they are pretty straightforward and simple..

Go to bed, DoJo

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly. It's just weird behavior... Hold on, are you saying they've been at this for ten years?! Ah, man Here, guys, if you're reading this, seriously. Put your time into something else. This ain't doing you any good

So challenging false or tenuous information is weird behaviour?

But spreading it is "informative" .. indeed

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Go to bed, DoJo

Sounds like repeated attempts to stifle discussion, might want to take some of your own advice there

Back on the topic of the current pandemic being "pre-planned", the simple questions still remain, by who and why..

King Mob

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Go on, enlighten us then. Explain why they're "wrong arguments". Don't just throw around lazy comments such as "obvious nonsense" or "flawed reasons". All that says to me is you don't have much of a case, hence no explanations.

There's a whole subforum for this topic. Currently it's a long history of conspiracy theorists outlining those flawed arguments and then running away from direct questions.

If you wish to discuss 9/11 specific go ahead a post there.

That isn't the topic of this thread though.

The issue here is you are objecting to the notion of people using other people's beliefs as a measure of their credibility.

Now you said that you don't believe in the idea of a moon hoax.
If someone said they did, what would that tell you about their ability to think critically?
Why would they believe something that isn't true?

What if it was a more ridiculous belief like school shootings being fake?
Holocaust denial?
Flat earthism?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Questions for you:
- Do you believe Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide?
- One (so called) 'conspiracy theory' that you believe to be actually true?

-I don't know.
-For my definition of "conspiracy theory": I haven't yet seen one hold up to a basic level of questioning.

Neither question is relevent though.

Ted_YNWA

Gianni Scrawny Steroid wrote: »

Agree, the best and simple solution is to simply ignore all reponses to KingBob and JoeDoe, if they're not ever reponded to, then their Raison d'être will suddenly vanish into a dark void.

Along with 8-16k worth of 24/7 instant responding anti-theory (any theory actually) jibes, across what, a decade or so (the mind boggles as to the motivation for such), perhaps Soros is actually indirectly sponsoring them after all!

You have been requested before to use people's correct names. Cut out this childish antics

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

There's a whole subforum for this topic. Currently it's a long history of conspiracy theorists outlining those flawed arguments and then running away from direct questions.

If you wish to discuss 9/11 specific go ahead a post there.

That isn't the topic of this thread though.

The issue here is you are objecting to the notion of people using other people's beliefs as a measure of their credibility.

Now you said that you don't believe in the idea of a moon hoax.
If someone said they did, what would that tell you about their ability to think critically?
Why would they believe something that isn't true?

What if it was a more ridiculous belief like school shootings being fake?
Holocaust denial?
Flat earthism?


-I don't know.
-For my definition of "conspiracy theory": I haven't yet seen one hold up to a basic level of questioning.

Neither question is relevent though.

You've asked me twice now about different conspiracy theories away from The Great Reset, yet when I ask you about others in return, you reply that those questions are not relevant :rolleyes::pac: Do you even realise the hypocrisy you're spewing?

So you've never believed a single conspiracy theory, yet you spend years on a conspiracy theory forum? That should be a conspiracy theory in itself

If you think Jeffrey Epstein, the most high profile prisoner in the world, on 24/7 suicide watch, still managed to commit suicide, then you're never, ever going to believe anything outside of what you are told by the mainstream media. Even the most hardened of "conspiracy theories are all fake" crowd concede that the Epstein official narrative is laughable. I'll fill in the rest of the story for you anyway: Stevie Wonder was the on-watch prison guard at the time, and the reason CCTV cameras in the cell 'malfunctioned' was because Stevie used them to livestream a gig on Youtube. Epstein hates funk/soul music, so topped himself to escape it. Now you know.

To conclude, besides having no idea why you're even on this forum, myself and others are not here to convince you or Dohnjoe of anything. Please stop getting in the way of discussions and trying to take things around in circles. You don't believe anything, we get it. I think the rest of us would collectively agree that you're better off over on mainstream news forums, where you can positively contribute to the discussion instead.

Ted_YNWA

Everyone is entitled to post in this forum. Nobody is ever going to be on the same page on any thread in CT. Just because a poster doesn't agree with your points doesn't make them the 'enemy'

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You've asked me twice now about different conspiracy theories away from The Great Reset, yet when I ask you about others in return, you reply that those questions are not relevant :rolleyes::pac: Do you even realise the hypocrisy you're spewing?

So you've never believed a single conspiracy theory, yet you spend years on a conspiracy theory forum? That should be a conspiracy theory in itself

If you think Jeffrey Epstein, the most high profile prisoner in the world, on 24/7 suicide watch, still managed to commit suicide, then you're never, ever going to believe anything outside of what you are told by the mainstream media. Even the most hardened of "conspiracy theories are all fake" crowd concede that the Epstein official narrative is laughable. I'll fill in the rest of the story for you anyway: Stevie Wonder was the on-watch prison guard at the time, and the reason CCTV cameras in the cell 'malfunctioned' was because Stevie used them to livestream a gig on Youtube. Epstein hates funk/soul music, so topped himself to escape it. Now you know.

To conclude, besides having no idea why you're even on this forum, myself and others are not here to convince you or Dohnjoe of anything. Please stop getting in the way of discussions and trying to take things around in circles. You don't believe anything, we get it. I think the rest of us would collectively agree that you're better off over on mainstream news forums, where you can positively contribute to the discussion instead.

So you ok want people who agree with you to post in here? That's not a discussion thata just am echo chamber of people agreeing with everything no matter how fanciful the claims made.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you ok want people who agree with you to post in here? That's not a discussion thata just am echo chamber of people agreeing with everything no matter how fanciful the claims made.

Disagreements are fine, and part of any discussion (as mod pointed out). However, people who claim to not believe any conspiracy theories, spending time on conspiracy theory forums trying to discourage/stifle discussion is not fine, in my opinion. It's unusual behaviour, as well.

If I went over to a beer forum, for example, and kept replying to threads with "but beer doesn't taste good. Why do you like it?" over and over... even though I have every right to keep posting, people are eventually going to wonder what I'm doing there.

As someone pointed out before, there's always the ignore button. But I'd rather use that as a last resort, hence trying to address it openly the way I have. But anyway, let's just leave it there and carry on

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Disagreements are fine, and part of any discussion (as mod pointed out). However, people who claim to not believe any conspiracy theories, spending time on conspiracy theory forums trying to discourage/stifle discussion is not fine, in my opinion. It's unusual behaviour, as well.

Who is claiming not to believe any conspiracy theories?

If someone wants to present their own version of current affairs or history on a public forum, okay, but they shouldn't be surprised if other posters ask them questions about it..

So far, from your posts, you seem to only want the former, without the latter

King Mob

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You've asked me twice now about different conspiracy theories away from The Great Reset, yet when I ask you about others in return, you reply that those questions are not relevant :rolleyes::pac: Do you even realise the hypocrisy you're spewing?

But I answered your question directly, clearly and concisely. I'm not sure what your issue is here.

However you've actually yet to address the point I've made twice so far.

The source you have rushed to defend believes in a number of conspiracy theories you don't believe in and know are false.
(I asked my questions to establish which ones you do and don't believe as people tend to get offended when I assume that they believe in one conspiracy or another.)

So why does your source believe in conspiracy theories that are obviously false such as the moon hoax, chemtrails and fake school shootings?
Surely if they were a reliable source they'd be able to check facts and separate truth from fiction.
The fact they don't seem to do this and do promote clearly false theories implies that either they aren't very good at fact checking and critical thinking or they don't bother because they make a tidy sum from promoting these conspiracy theories.

To most people I think that if a source was promoting a lot of time obviously false nonsense, then they would rightly conclude that source wasn't reliable.
I think you would agree if they were promoting even more extreme and silly conspiracy theories such as Holocaust denial or flat earth.

But because you agree with some of his claims, you ignore these issues and declare him to be a good source even though he produces a ton of misinformation.

eleventh

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to post in this forum. Nobody is ever going to be on the same page on any thread in CT. Just because a poster doesn't agree with your points doesn't make them the 'enemy'

But why have people on the forum who have no interest in the topic?
It would be like me going into say, the Soccer forum, with no interest in it, asking things like, who's playing on the team now, what does the offside rule mean - not once or twice, but over and over. What kind of moderator would allow that?

Timberrrrrrrr

eleventh wrote: »

But why have people on the forum who have no interest in the topic?
It would be like me going into say, the Soccer forum, with no interest in it, asking things like, who's playing on the team now, what does the offside rule mean - not once or twice, but over and over. What kind of moderator would allow that?

People obviously do have an interest in the topic though, the problem for you seems to be that they just refuse to agree with you.

If you post a link from someone that says 9-11 was an inside job and I disagree with you then surely its healthy for me to disagree and we can discuss why I disagree and you think your source is right?

Now if your source says 9-11 was an inside job, the earth is flat, Bill Gates wants to kill 5 billion, sandy Hook was a false flag and the government are trying to control us with 5G and chemtrails but you only agree with his 9-11 stance and think his views on other conspiracy theories are silly then of course the first thing I will ask is why is he right about 9-11 but wrong about everything else?

This is like religion for atheists, there are 1000 gods (conspiracies) the difference between you and I is is I believe in one less conspiracy (god) than you.

Dohnjoe

eleventh wrote: »

It would be like me going into say, the Soccer forum, with no interest in it, asking things like, who's playing on the team now, what does the offside rule mean - not once or twice, but over and over. What kind of moderator would allow that?

It would be the equivalent of you going to a soccer forum, claiming all of Man U's games are fixed, then attacking anyone who asks you for the details

Conspiracies and collusion happen all the time, you only have to open a newspaper, but that isn't carte blanche for people to make up their own falsehoods and try to pass them off as fact. And some of this stuff, especially the medical disinformation, can actually be harmful.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

The source you have rushed to defend believes in a number of conspiracy theories you don't believe in and know are false.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If you post a link from someone that says 9-11 was an inside job and I disagree with you then surely its healthy for me to disagree and we can discuss why I disagree and you think your source is right?

Now if your source says 9-11 was an inside job, the earth is flat, Bill Gates wants to kill 5 billion, sandy Hook was a false flag and the government are trying to control us with 5G and chemtrails but you only agree with his 9-11 stance and think his views on other conspiracy theories are silly then of course the first thing I will ask is why is he right about 9-11 but wrong about everything else?

This is like religion for atheists, there are 1000 gods (conspiracies) the difference between you and I is is I believe in one less conspiracy (god) than you.

I think you are all missing the point completely. When referencing a video from a 'conspiracy theorist/analyst' re: The Great Reset, who is sharing direct quotes/material/videos from Klaus Schwab himself (ie the true source material), one doesn't have to agree with the presenter/commenter (Corbett, in this case) to still find the video informative. Because he's going through and sharing a lot of material from the source itself (again, Klaus Schwab/WEF), we can make up our own mind on the subject. That Corbett guy had done a lot of research that's harder to find elsewhere, and then compiled/shared that information in one place. One doesn't need to agree with every opinion he has on the source material, or any other videos of his, to still find that particular video informative.

It's like saying "I don't watch Sky Sports for Premier League matches as I don't agree with the commentators". You can still watch the match and form your own opinions on the game.

Get this "source being right or wrong" out of your heads. The true source is the source material itself, not the person giving their opinions on the source. You're always ultimately forming your own opinion on a conspiracy theory. It's not a case of "this guy says it's true, so that's my source for it being true".

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

People obviously do have an interest in the topic though, the problem for you seems to be that they just refuse to agree with you.

He's referring to the fact that one guy already said he doesn't believe in any conspiracy theories. It's quite unusual to hang around a conspiracy theory forum when you don't believe in any conspiracy theories, don't you think? Therefor, what's the attraction? Does the enjoyment come from trying to shut down discussion or stall conversation by asking the same inane questions, even when the answers were already clearly inferred or stated prior? If so, that's a strange motivation to stick around, and doesn't suggest genuine interest in the topic.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Get this "source being right or wrong" out of your heads. The true source is the source material itself

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of pandemic-related conspiracy videos. If a source lacks any semblance of credibility or even sanity, it's a huge red flag for the material. You don't need to watch every flat earth video out there to dismiss them, it's not like they are "valid until proven otherwise".

And back to the subject of this thread, is there a conspiracy here? if yes, what is it exactly.

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

That Corbett guy had done a lot of research that's harder to find elsewhere, and then compiled/shared that information in one place. One doesn't need to agree with every opinion he has on the source material, or any other videos of his, to still find that particular video informative.

...

Get this "source being right or wrong" out of your heads. The true source is the source material itself, not the person giving their opinions on the source.

But this leads to the issue you have avoided 3 times now.
This Corbett guy does not do research or fact checking.
If he did do research and fact checking then he wouldn't believe in the conspiracy theories you know are false, right?

If he does do fact checking and real research, why do you believe he promotes false conspiracy theories and misinformation?

I don't think he does much fact checking and is more concerned about what conspiracy theory will get him the most views, therefore his opinion is not valid and it would be naive to assume he is presenting the facts honestly.In my experience, that is how a lot of these YouTube hacks operate.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And back to the subject of this thread, is there a conspiracy here? if yes, what is it exactly.

This has been answered to you by many people already. You're doing exactly what you've always done and reverted to your "who/what/why"? You either can't read properly, or you're just content wasting years of your life trolling this forum, for who knows what reason. Either way, good luck to ya. I'll be joining others in not replying to either of you again.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

But this leads to the issue you have avoided 3 times now.
This Corbett guy does not do research or fact checking.
If he did do research and fact checking then he wouldn't believe in the conspiracy theories you know are false, right?

If he does do fact checking and real research, why do you believe he promotes false conspiracy theories and misinformation?

I don't think he does much fact checking and is more concerned about what conspiracy theory will get him the most views, therefore his opinion is not valid and it would be naive to assume he is presenting the facts honestly.
On my experience, that is how a lot of these YouTube hacks operate.

When I said "I don't believe the moon landing is a hoax", that is my instinct. I haven't done a lot of research on it. In fact, I only heard about it as a conspiracy theory quite recently. You're clinging onto this "if you don't believe in one particular conspiracy theory, but Corbett does, then he shouldn't be listened to about anything, should he?" It's a stupid, nonsensical point; let it go.

You, nor I, nor most people can *know* for certain whether certain conspiracy theories are real or not. 100% certainty requires undeniable proof. If you happen to 'know', with proof, that there are 'no real conspiracy theories' (as you implied in a response to me earlier), you should start a YouTube channel of your own debunking everything. You'd make a fortune, and wouldn't have to waste your time on here.

Good luck to you as well

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

This has been answered to you by many people already.

But it hasn't. Aside from the one guy who stated that it was Satan and God behind it all.

Could you provide an example of where you believe this question has been answered?

King Mob

Deleted User wrote: »

When I said "I don't believe the moon landing is a hoax", that is my instinct. I haven't done a lot of research on it. In fact, I only heard about it as a conspiracy theory quite recently.

But you're kind of avoiding the question now.
You seem to be now deciding that the moon hoax conspiracy might be true to avoid answering a simple question.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're clinging onto this "if you don't believe in one particular conspiracy theory, but Corbett does, then he shouldn't be listened to about anything, should he?" It's a stupid, nonsensical point; let it go.

But that's not my point though.

Dohnjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

This has been answered to you by many people already. You're doing exactly what you've always done and reverted to your "who/what/why"? You either can't read properly, or you're just content wasting years of your life trolling this forum, for who knows what reason. Either way, good luck to ya. I'll be joining others in not replying to either of you again.

I haven't come across any coherent conspiracy in this thread yet, anything that has been presented is generally quite vague and varies wildly from one poster to the next

From your posts you seem to want to question current affairs but you don't want anyone questioning your conspiracy ideas - it goes without saying, that's hypocritical

Likewise, your posts demonstrate you don't like the free speech aspect here, rather you seem to be seeking an echo chamber where no one can challenge your views

Ted_YNWA

eleventh wrote: »

But why have people on the forum who have no interest in the topic?
It would be like me going into say, the Soccer forum, with no interest in it, asking things like, who's playing on the team now, what does the offside rule mean - not once or twice, but over and over. What kind of moderator would allow that?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

People obviously do have an interest in the topic though, the problem for you seems to be that they just refuse to agree with you.

If you post a link from someone that says 9-11 was an inside job and I disagree with you then surely its healthy for me to disagree and we can discuss why I disagree and you think your source is right?

This is it in a nutshell.

This is not an echo chamber where only the pro-CT get a voice.

If you post what you perceive as evidence, it is only right that others can ask for further information or check the validity of the source.

Let's not get bogged down with who can/can't post their views, thread has deviated enough here.

Fodla

Peter Koenig wrote an article a few days ago about The Great Reset and the plan to 'reimagine' the world of work. It sounds absolutely horrifying. The article includes a link to the WEF White Paper in question, so it cannot be dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory'. Unfortunately, as I am a new member, I cannot post a link to the article, but here's a quote from it:

"This 31-page document reads like a blueprint on how to “execute” because an execution it would be – “Covid-19 – The Great Reset” (July 2020), by Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO (since the foundation of the WEF in 1974) and his associate Thierry Malleret. They call “Resetting the Future” a White Paper, meaning it’s not quite a final version. It is a draft of sorts, a trial balloon, to measure people’s reactions. It reads indeed like an executioner’s tale. Many people may not read it, have no awareness of its existence. If they would, they would go up in arms and take up arms to fight this latest Nazi-enterprise offered to the world by the WEF.

It promises a horrifying future to some 80%-plus of the (surviving) population. George Orwell’s “1984” reads like a benign fantasy as compared to what the WEF has in mind for humanity.

The time frame is ten years. By 2030 the UN agenda 2021–2030 should be implemented.

Planned business measures in response to COVID-19:

An acceleration of digitized work processes, leading to 84% of all work processes as digital, or virtual/video conferences.

Some 83% of people are planned to work remotely; i.e., no more interaction between colleagues, absolute social distancing, separation of humanity from the human contact.

About 50% of all tasks are planned to be automated; in other words, human input will be drastically diminished, even while remote working.

Accelerate the digitization of upskilling/reskilling (e.g. education technology providers). 42% of skill upgrading or training for new skills will be digitized, in other words, no human contact, all on computer, Artificial Intelligence (AI), algorithms.

Accelerate the implementation of upskilling/reskilling programs. 35% of skills are planned to be “re-tooled”; i.e., existing skills are planned to be abandoned, declared defunct.

Accelerate ongoing organizational transformations (e.g. restructuring). 34% of current organizational set-ups are planned to be “restructured’, or in other words, existing organizational structures will be declared obsolete to make space for new sets of organizational frameworks, digital structures that provide utmost control over all activities.

Temporarily reassign workers to different tasks. This is expected to touch 30% of the work force. That also means completely different pay-scales, most probably unlivable wages, which would make the also planned “universal basic salary” or “basic income” a wage that allows you barely to survive, an obvious need. But it would make you totally dependent on the system, a digital system, where you have no control whatsoever.

Temporarily reduce workforce. This is projected as affecting 28% of the population. It is an additional unemployment figure, in disguise, as the “temporarily” will never come back to full-time.

Permanently reduce workforce: 13% permanently reduced workforce.

Temporarily increase workforce: 5%. There is no reference to what type of workforce, probably unskilled labor that sooner or later will also be replaced by automation, by AI and robotization of the workplace.

No specific measures implemented: 4%. Does that mean a mere 4% will remain untouched? From the algorithm and AI-directed new work places? As small and insignificant as the figure is, it sounds like “wishful thinking”, never to be accomplished.

Permanently increase workforce. A mere 1% is projected as “permanently increased workforce”. This is, of course, not even cosmetics. It is a joke."

The WEF was recently in the news over a tweet with a link to an article written in 2016 about how by 2030 we will own nothing and be happy.

What do people think about the future 'reimagined' world of work?

For those who'd like to read the article, and the WEF White Paper it discusses, both can be read on dissidentvoice.org.

Dohnjoe

Fodla wrote: »

Peter Koenig wrote an article a few days ago about The Great Reset and the plan to 'reimagine' the world of work. It sounds absolutely horrifying.

You are linking to a blog post on it (one from a well known alarmist website)
https://www.globalresearch.ca/world-economic-forum-step-two-resetting-future-work-agenda-after-great-reset/5729175

I strongly advise to read the actual paper yourself
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_NES_Resetting_FOW_Agenda_2020.pdf

Having paged through it there, it's fairly normal stuff, about how the world will likely move more toward remote-working due to the current crisis, etc.

dissidentvoice.org.

A self-described radical blog. You won't be receiving objective information from these types of sites, just a distorted version of the facts carefully framed to fit an extreme narrative.

Fodla

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You are linking to a blog post on it (one from a well known alarmist website)


I strongly advise to read the actual paper yourself


Having paged through it there, it's fairly normal stuff, about how the world will likely move more toward remote-working due to the current crisis, etc.



A self-described radical blog. You won't be receiving objective information from these types of sites, just a distorted version of the facts carefully framed to fit an extreme narrative.

I read the White Paper and, while my interpretation of it differs somewhat from the author's, it seems to me to be a push to make the world of work a digital one. I'd be wary of that.

They also appear to be pushing this 'new normal'. Indeed, Klaus Schwab has said that the world will not be going back to normal.

And then there's the thing about owning nothing by 2030 and being happy about it. What's that about?

On Peter Koenig, I don't know much about him, but he seems to be a man of some pedigree. He worked for the World Bank and the WHO. Is he well respected as an economist and journalist?

milehip

JJayoo wrote: »

Any dip**** posting a book review that long on amazon has clearly nothing better to do than talk ****r

It's a book itself sure.

King Mob

Fodla wrote: »

And then there's the thing about owning nothing by 2030 and being happy about it. What's that about?

Why not explain what you think it means and why it's something to be concerned about?

Fodla

King Mob wrote: »

Why not explain what you think it means and why it's something to be concerned about?

An end to private property. I can't think what else it could mean.

Does that not concern you?