Do we still need proof?
Do we still need proof?
so many still need proof...great video from France...
Do we still need proof? Evidently, some still do…
I read Sash L’s post yesterday, and I’m not going to repost it. I simply will no longer engage her and I don’t even want to alert her to the fact that I even read some of her posts. But, I never throw the baby out with the hydrogel, so I do occasionally read what she has to say, but I have seen her go off into insane accusatory rages when asked a totally legitimate and honest question. Too close to bipolar rage, for my taste.
The SL post is titled “Internet of No-Bodies” if anyone cares to see it, and I couldn’t disagree more with manyof her assumptions and accusations, and was shocked (although I should not have been) at the level of hubris and disrespect for the microscopy work by all of our esteemed micronaugts and all of the amazing people doing research on our blood, the massive poisoning and the changes to our biology.
And I felt that many times her accusations would have been better suited if they had been addressed to her mirror. It seems to me that there was no “due diligence” on her part in researching the contamination of our blood and the nanotech in our bodies. She even brings Katherine Watt onboard to bolster her claims, and as much as admire Katherine, her work on other topics has been monumental, but I don’t think she is up to speed either on the nano tech.
IMO, unfounded assumptions declared as facts are dangerous for those who follow you. It’s one thing to NOT know and be searching for answers, and posting information without absolute declarations, and quite another thing to dismiss everything out of hand, because you think you know everything there is to know…about. everything.
It reminded of the time, early on in the Covid con, when Whitney Webb “attempted” to debunk La Quinta Columna’s assertion that there was graphene in the jabs. She dismissed the whole notion of graphene being present and mocked them with her crooked smile. She has never apologized or recanted that claim. And as much as I admire her investigative prowess, I never felt the same about her, feeling that she might have spent a bit more time digging into the nanotech research before ridiculing LQC - and perhaps looking into GO and GH (Andreas Nocak’s reveal) - before making such a dangerous claim, although I’m fully aware that giving Epstein a literal and literary colonoscopy likely sells more books than screaming into the void about graphene.
The reason I mention this is because these people have scores of followers who hang on every word they say. And way too many followers, who seem to be genuinely seeking answers - I’ve read their comments - will remain convinced that we have nothing at all to be concerned about - and we can ignore it all (detoxing is for fools) and it’s all been debunked - the LPNs, CDBs (cross domain bacteria, as per Carnicom) the hydrogel, the nanotech in our bodies, in our blood, the interface with frequencies, DNA alteration, et al. - and unfortunately their followers will never revisit the issue, since their omnipotent hero has told them how ridiculous it is to even consider doing so.
That said, as always, come to your own conclusions - discernment is key - I have no problem if anyone disagrees with me on anything, but respectful debate is always appreciated, but there is no time left for bipolar rage.
I’m leaning in certain directions as most of you know, but I have no definitive answers…just some information that rings true to me from my own research, just presenting info for us to consider in our quest for truth.
And just for the record, I would love to be wrong about. it. all…
adding to this post…
Onward, frenzz
This was very fair, well-reasoned and expressed. I can't disagree with anything you've said here and I'm very familiar with the people/issues you referred to.
I truly hate to say this but I'm now of the opinion that almost every "luminary" of the "resistance" is part of a limited hangout/controlled opposition psyop. So many of the people I began following almost 4 years ago have proven to be unreliable. It seems if they are well-known at all, they're highly suspect and that is extremely unfortunate.
Some of those who provided the most earth-shaking evidence of intent to harm may have done so as part of this psyop (an opinion/conjecture at this point but not a groundless one). It's as if the perps wanted parts of the truth to come out but only as controlled by them through their assets. That way they could shoot it down and change the subject, very possible if you control both sides of the debate. It also gives certain people a kind of street-cred which allows them to opine about things having nothing to do with the issues that brought them into the lime-light to begin with, which is a point you alluded to. I note that those who make sweeping and often derogatory comments about the honest research of others often fail to specifically address in detail, what it is they object to. This is a well-known technique, known to practitioners of the ancient art of rhetoric and employed by operatives.
There is a great deal more that can be said about this. I look forward to seeing what your followers have to say. Thanks for discussing this.
I read that post too. Dismissing everyone who disagrees with her as stupid is not the way to go. Also, the commenters saying 'gee thanks, now I don't have to worry about THAT because your big brain just told me what to think' was disappointing.
The part that keeps cropping up that anyone who doesn't agree with everything another person says means they're a gatekeeper doesn't ring true to me either. I really like Meryl Nass, but she's railing on how stupid the 'no virus' people are right now. Unfortunately, she was indoctrinated in western medicine. You'd think realizing how corrupt it is, she'd be willing to look into terrain theory, but maybe not. Also, I noticed when Reinette Senum brought up the no virus claim with Dr Lee Merritt (twice, I think), Dr Merritt skirted right past the comment. Maybe they aren't willing to give up their 'expert' status by calling it like it is.