ONE OF THE FEW VALID QUESTIONS...

..., given that we are clearly facing a situation arising from clear motives rather than from chance, is whether they all agree or not.

In my thesis — which I reproduce below — my answer is yes, because:

1. The previous balance — globalization, free energy, the dollar as the sole reference currency, the exchange of goods — had been possible for decades thanks to an agreement, more or less explicit, among all the superpowers, including Russia and China.

2. The destruction of the previous balance began from a situation in which, indisputably, all countries proved to agree with the measures imposed by the World Health Organization, which I consider a criminal organization.

3. The innovations of the new paradigm — above all, artificial intelligence and digital currency — are also shared.

4. In various situations in the past, under the previous paradigm, I did not see any real battle over issues that were nevertheless important, such as the Moon landing and 9/11.

Given that my theory explains the need for agreement — in our part of the world we rushed to accumulate money, while in the other part they made people rush in order to give our money value, thereby controlling both sides — I ask those who disagree to dismantle the four points, one by one, word by word.

Your assumption is that the balance according to which “America and the Western world are in charge” has been broken, and that other peoples had the potential to dictate the guidelines of the new paradigm.

But then... why, in the destruction of this balance, were Xi Jinping — twice — and Putin — once — in absolute agreement with the choices made by our mafiosi? I mean, wouldn’t it have been better, if anything, to expose the misdeeds of our own people — and this also applies to 9/11, for example — rather than, in practice, fall in line?