In this case I's say they were gatekeeping for the legal establishment, gathering 'evidence' but filtering out anything they deemed 'dangerous' to the whole establishment like the fact they never had a virus in the first place. I know I'm harping on but it is the key to this whole thing. Without it they will keep playing this game until that one thing is finally exposed. They are keeping the game going by not letting certain people in to play their card.
RE: Marvelous Marvin Versus The Establishment
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Marvelous Marvin Versus The Establishment
I'm stunned that it can be seen that way. I for one have thought at many of the meetings that it is already way beyond what the establishment can bear. From a lawyer's point of view, it may be a matter of timing and one's own personal development as a lawyer on something this big. They were far more cautious at the beginning than they have become over time. You just underestimate that impact because you're very deep into the issue, how shocked the establishment was/is that you can even get the idea that there might be something wrong with the virus theory or AIDS, etc.
You can only hand a person as much responsibility as they are capable of holding. If you overtax him, he immediately shuts down, is unresponsive and stonewalls for all he's worth. Won't he?
This as not about public opinion or what the public can 'take'. It's about cold hard facts and the law. You can't have censorship in this scenario. There was censorship so it was a scam IMO.
I beg to differ. It is all about the established view. What began a hundred years ago (or more), got foot into society and therefor the medicine sector, you will not be able to make go away altogether and maybe even not within your lifetime.
In order to change a worldview (which it is in my notion), strong like it is, you need a steady breath. And, despite things not taking up speed or are not as successful as one likes it to be, to not bother too much. In order not to wore yourself out or become fatalistic, for example.
For me, your argument comes across like this: You live in a house with several rooms, where you find a nice neighborhood, have water and electricity, but some leaky and old windows. You say that this house is all trash and the landlord has scammed you.
Füllmich stated that one of the interviews from which they recorded a session has not been streamed, because Ms. Fischer decided not to put it online. If that is true, I also find it a bad move and would also be pissed if others got no hearing. But I still argue that the rest of their work was worth it and payed into the greater movement itself. I see that you don't see it that way, so it's just two different judgements about one organization.
If I would dump everything where I find flaws as a scam, I would be very busy to find flaws and may oversee where there was the opposite.
Did you read the German critique of the committee's Lanka interview?
It was clear to the 'no virus' camp (using the word camp loosely) that the committee was rinsing people for money and buying time before his interview confirmed it.
I was suspicious way back in 2020 when Fuellmich got himself arrested at one of the London demo's very publicly obviously to garner publicity and sympathy. I thought it odd that a top lawyer let himself be dragged away yet no-one else who spoke that day did.
It's easier to fool someone than to show them they've been fooled.
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2022/02/09/carry-on-at-the-corona-commitee/
German version here: https://telegra.ph/Quoten-Kritiker-02-06