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!
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!