8 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
L1's avatar

I'm not 100% sure myself, but I lean towards it being on purpose to depopulate. I also think that even if Kirsch knows that it was, he might not be ready to say it yet. The timing matters. People are still resistant to even the idea that the shots were unsafe. That's the point they need to accept to stop them from continuing to take them. That's first priority. If he just yells out that it was depopulation, he will be disregarded. We need everyone to understand they are dangerous first, even it that means easing them into the truth. Most are catching on, but some still can't admit it.

Expand full comment
Hannahlehigh's avatar

I really wish he would stop calling them "vaccines" though, that doesn't help people to understand how dangerous they are. He could at least call them genetic injections. We won't defeat the enemy unless we name it first, he has to start naming it.

Expand full comment
L1's avatar

I think genetic injections would be very appropriate. I would prefer him to say that as well. I just feel that some of those like him, who are in the public eye, trying to get the truth out there are being cautious to not say everything they know to be true yet. I think they give information and see how it is received before they dish out things that are even harder to accept. We are all in slightly different stages of being red-pilled. It's more of a course of pills than a single dose. If I had heard everything at once, I would have rolled my eyes and walked away.

Expand full comment
Heterodox Introvert's avatar

I don't know if you saw Jeff on Steve's podcast last night. At the close, Jeff made a comment about how we can't sue the DoD since they have sovereign immunity. Steve just smiled and nodded his head. I believe Steve has had Sasha Latypova on his podcast but it would have been quite some time ago. Point being he knows about the DoD's role. He never writes about it. Why? Curious, no? And Jeff gave him a great big wide opening he could have driven a truck into. Nothing from Steve. What's up with that? There's plenty of factual information he could be pointing to. No conjecture necessary. But, nope, complete silence on the elephant in the room. How is expending all his energy on the pharmaceutical firm angle helping a vast audience understand what has really *really* happened? He could take it one step at a time, but he's not taking step #1. Why? I said somewhere else earlier in comments I think he's another limited hangout. This Consumer Reports low rating on mpg. ...Everybody's got an opinion.

Expand full comment
Politico Phil's avatar

If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....! I don't think there is much to debate about your conclusions. The only reason people don't see this is a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

Expand full comment
Based Florida Man's avatar

Thanks for the observations. Interesting, and lots of questions.

Expand full comment
L1's avatar

Well, that’s possible. I guess time will tell.

Expand full comment
Kathy's avatar

That is a very good point. He may be keeping his opinion to himself. It is hard enough to be taken seriously when you are showing the data, much less when you are saying that there is an intention to the populate. I know I did not used to want to believe it either. Now I have no choice.

Expand full comment