The guidestones were not suggestions.This guy plays his part very well. Hey...doesn't he bear a striking resemblance to that new argentine trickster guy... I mean, president? Perhaps even shares a less obvious likeness with the the ukraine "leader" too. He says his concerns are not just US but the west as a whole. Yeah, right. The rest of the "west" are not our allies and this guy knows exactly why things are happening the way they are and who the primary operators are.
Interesting, Cigartsar, that Weinstein didn't include Cuba as one of the countries where "refugees" are fleeing to the US from. Probably just an innocent oversight as there are so many others. No doubt.
I fully expected down-votes on this. Not a surprise at all. Their sleight of hand abilities are impeccable. For many not to see it is their intent. Therefore...down votes. Some of the down votes may very possibly be from the magicians themselves.
I’m fairly sure TC is aware of all who are funding the invasion. He started by asking BW, “Gee, who’s building that big bridge?” and BW played dumb there, why TC went on to later ask him the direct question about other funders (besides the US, UN and China). So it wasn’t just once BW skirted the issue, but twice. Apparently his role is to point at China and scream loudly (figuratively, of course) to make sure all eyes are on them and NOT on the players behind the Chinese. Sleight of hand, indeed, but omissions set red flags off in my tired, old brain.
The thing is, the evasion and topic-slide tell us something in the very fact they were put into practice - for those paying attention who aren’t emotionally-attached to the personalities. (Or the magicians themselves, as you posit. I got that feeling also as a distinct possibility).
Interesting that you’re being downvoted. I don’t know much about this guy, what he knows or doesn’t, but it’s a good idea in general to be cautious about those who appear to be on the right side lest they turn out to be merely controlled opposition.
See my other comment here. It’s worth pondering WHY Tucker asked Bret if he’s aware of any other entities funding the invasion. It’s also worth considering WHY this direct question was never answered and the topic was switched.
BW did not appear to be avoiding the question, imho. To me, it appeared he was eager to reveal the phenomena that many things were having exactly the opposite effect as they were originally designed.
It’s called topic sliding, a clever ruse to, instead of addressing a posed question, slide it peripherally to an adjacent topic. If you look at the link to the funding issue this HIAS influence is right there in Darien Gap where BW went to research this issue, noticing other entities that are funding this invasion, but somehow missing the HIAS connection. Or, as politicians (who are adept at this tactic) say “Answer the question you’d hoped they would ask, not the one they actually did ask.”
In his defense, if he (BW) is aware of the HIAS influence it may not be due to misplaced loyalties that he didn’t answer TC’s direct question on this, but due to fear of reprisals, perhaps severe/fatal, if he should bring them to light on a major news outlet. Not everyone can afford military-grade protection for themselves and their families. I know very little about Mr Weinstein other than he’s a leftist and whatever was disclosed in this TC interview. He seems intelligent and affable, if not cautious, but then that doesn’t mean he can’t be controlled opposition either. For practiced game-players, this kind of deception comes as naturally as breathing air, but BW may just be an innocent observer. It remains to be seen, but it would be wise to be cautious and take everything in when considering why an omission may occur during an interview.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Luminosity. My senior class voted: most naïve: Karen, runner-up: Karen. Since then, I became a felony investigator and am one of the least naïve of my peers. I’d say I’ve become more discerning, and imagine practiced game players can still fool me. But at this point, I will give BW the benefit of the doubt because my guess is TC vets his guests pretty well. I have visited CFP quite often since 2020 and this is perhaps my second(?) time doing a private chat like I am with you right now. 😁 Thank you again, Patriot!
The guidestones were not suggestions.This guy plays his part very well. Hey...doesn't he bear a striking resemblance to that new argentine trickster guy... I mean, president? Perhaps even shares a less obvious likeness with the the ukraine "leader" too. He says his concerns are not just US but the west as a whole. Yeah, right. The rest of the "west" are not our allies and this guy knows exactly why things are happening the way they are and who the primary operators are.
Are you speaking about Bret Weinstein?
He is legit.
He lost his tenure as a professor at a university for crazy reasons.
Then he lost his dark horse YouTube channel for hosting Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch, discussing the lies of covid and Vax in early days.
He paid a huge price for telling what he thought was the truth.
He is an intellectual warrior, imo.
Interesting, Cigartsar, that Weinstein didn't include Cuba as one of the countries where "refugees" are fleeing to the US from. Probably just an innocent oversight as there are so many others. No doubt.
Most likely.
I fully expected down-votes on this. Not a surprise at all. Their sleight of hand abilities are impeccable. For many not to see it is their intent. Therefore...down votes. Some of the down votes may very possibly be from the magicians themselves.
I’m fairly sure TC is aware of all who are funding the invasion. He started by asking BW, “Gee, who’s building that big bridge?” and BW played dumb there, why TC went on to later ask him the direct question about other funders (besides the US, UN and China). So it wasn’t just once BW skirted the issue, but twice. Apparently his role is to point at China and scream loudly (figuratively, of course) to make sure all eyes are on them and NOT on the players behind the Chinese. Sleight of hand, indeed, but omissions set red flags off in my tired, old brain.
The thing is, the evasion and topic-slide tell us something in the very fact they were put into practice - for those paying attention who aren’t emotionally-attached to the personalities. (Or the magicians themselves, as you posit. I got that feeling also as a distinct possibility).
Interesting that you’re being downvoted. I don’t know much about this guy, what he knows or doesn’t, but it’s a good idea in general to be cautious about those who appear to be on the right side lest they turn out to be merely controlled opposition.
See my other comment here. It’s worth pondering WHY Tucker asked Bret if he’s aware of any other entities funding the invasion. It’s also worth considering WHY this direct question was never answered and the topic was switched.
BW did not appear to be avoiding the question, imho. To me, it appeared he was eager to reveal the phenomena that many things were having exactly the opposite effect as they were originally designed.
It’s called topic sliding, a clever ruse to, instead of addressing a posed question, slide it peripherally to an adjacent topic. If you look at the link to the funding issue this HIAS influence is right there in Darien Gap where BW went to research this issue, noticing other entities that are funding this invasion, but somehow missing the HIAS connection. Or, as politicians (who are adept at this tactic) say “Answer the question you’d hoped they would ask, not the one they actually did ask.”
In his defense, if he (BW) is aware of the HIAS influence it may not be due to misplaced loyalties that he didn’t answer TC’s direct question on this, but due to fear of reprisals, perhaps severe/fatal, if he should bring them to light on a major news outlet. Not everyone can afford military-grade protection for themselves and their families. I know very little about Mr Weinstein other than he’s a leftist and whatever was disclosed in this TC interview. He seems intelligent and affable, if not cautious, but then that doesn’t mean he can’t be controlled opposition either. For practiced game-players, this kind of deception comes as naturally as breathing air, but BW may just be an innocent observer. It remains to be seen, but it would be wise to be cautious and take everything in when considering why an omission may occur during an interview.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Luminosity. My senior class voted: most naïve: Karen, runner-up: Karen. Since then, I became a felony investigator and am one of the least naïve of my peers. I’d say I’ve become more discerning, and imagine practiced game players can still fool me. But at this point, I will give BW the benefit of the doubt because my guess is TC vets his guests pretty well. I have visited CFP quite often since 2020 and this is perhaps my second(?) time doing a private chat like I am with you right now. 😁 Thank you again, Patriot!