Thank you very much, all very good points I think. As far as I am concerned anybody doing something for money who must already have enough is suspect. I can't say I am loaded with money, but my wife and I have enough and I will not ask for donations on my WordPress site.
The truth should be free, and as I already know and understand more than Robert Malone it seems I am really not impressed with him, albeit he has said some useful things.
As regards controlled opposition it seems he is. The narrative cannot go too quickly as we follow a timeline similar to WW2. A pain perhaps but there is a lot of sorting out to do.
Malone has always creeped me out, even before I found out he is creepy.
Intuition, I guess, from the way he spoke.
Perhaps certain characteropathies have telltale signs that the subconscious picks up.
Malone plays dumb, but he knows a lot more than he pretends to.
Originally he said the shots are advised for those with conditions and safe within third trimester of pregnancy. Based on what? There's no data and he knew it! What a lying asshat!
He took the jab for "long con-vid". Ok, sure whatever... But....
According to the scripture of virology of the church of symptoms, not causes:
He's a vaccinologist!
Even vanderbosche said they all know that vaccinating after infection causes issues.
Malone was a part of a shots testing program in Brazil, which later on had issues, blamed on another bs, zika virus. Never mind that virus never caused that before.
Final point... Just by his wealth, he's going to be able to intimidate people by suing.
But it helps us in that it makes him out to look like a litigious jerk, suing people, not corporations or agencies lol.
If Tereza & Co. hasn't had a chance to read Mattias Desmet's The Psychology of Totalitarianism and have been affected by its detractors, then, at the very least, I would advise this review of Desmet's work:
Dec 20, 2022·edited Dec 20, 2022Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Regarding the Malone lawsuit, here's the general definition of defamation: "Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation".
However, Malone qualifies as a "limited-purpose public figure" with respect to the covid vaccine discussion, opening himself up to public questioning and criticism on that subject.
It appears that none of what was the Breggins were quoted as saying qualifies as "intentionally false", but even false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversy are not considered defamatory unless they meet the "actual-malice" test.
I'm wondering if this is the film that you referred to about JFK: https://www.bitchute.com/video/vsT4rOS03wXi/?fbclid=IwAR1_be3zbCSnBRJr58CLto0xaYGCq2V4SaTpZGNYYvhHeqOUJqwhR7FaXbk
Thank you very much, all very good points I think. As far as I am concerned anybody doing something for money who must already have enough is suspect. I can't say I am loaded with money, but my wife and I have enough and I will not ask for donations on my WordPress site.
The truth should be free, and as I already know and understand more than Robert Malone it seems I am really not impressed with him, albeit he has said some useful things.
As regards controlled opposition it seems he is. The narrative cannot go too quickly as we follow a timeline similar to WW2. A pain perhaps but there is a lot of sorting out to do.
It may seem bizarre, but here is my link anyway.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/02/07/timeline-anticipated-events-in-world-war-3/
And forgive me, but if I may summarize the excellent 3 propaganda points:
1) name things the opposite of what they are, - talk balls
2) it's easier to lie big than lie small, - talk big balls
and
3) the best defense is a good offense. - throw your balls at the enemy.
As regards the best approach to dealing with such tactics it is simple: just kick the balls back.
Or kick the enemy in the balls. That should do it.
Malone has always creeped me out, even before I found out he is creepy.
Intuition, I guess, from the way he spoke.
Perhaps certain characteropathies have telltale signs that the subconscious picks up.
Malone plays dumb, but he knows a lot more than he pretends to.
Originally he said the shots are advised for those with conditions and safe within third trimester of pregnancy. Based on what? There's no data and he knew it! What a lying asshat!
He took the jab for "long con-vid". Ok, sure whatever... But....
According to the scripture of virology of the church of symptoms, not causes:
He's a vaccinologist!
Even vanderbosche said they all know that vaccinating after infection causes issues.
Malone was a part of a shots testing program in Brazil, which later on had issues, blamed on another bs, zika virus. Never mind that virus never caused that before.
Final point... Just by his wealth, he's going to be able to intimidate people by suing.
But it helps us in that it makes him out to look like a litigious jerk, suing people, not corporations or agencies lol.
I've got a lot of catching up to do. You've produced a lot of very interesting analyses, Sister. Thank you!
If Tereza & Co. hasn't had a chance to read Mattias Desmet's The Psychology of Totalitarianism and have been affected by its detractors, then, at the very least, I would advise this review of Desmet's work:
https://johnwaters.substack.com/p/the-psychology-of-a-hatchet-job?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Regarding the Malone lawsuit, here's the general definition of defamation: "Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation".
However, Malone qualifies as a "limited-purpose public figure" with respect to the covid vaccine discussion, opening himself up to public questioning and criticism on that subject.
It appears that none of what was the Breggins were quoted as saying qualifies as "intentionally false", but even false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversy are not considered defamatory unless they meet the "actual-malice" test.
Source: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation