It’s obviously effective because the Democrats are driven nuts by it.
Also her dad is 1/2 black (at best), which makes her 1/4 black, 1/4 Irish, and 1/2 Indian. She was raised in Quebec, Canada, by her Indian mother in an Indian family. She looks Indian. When she does her fake black voice that she learned from TV, black people sense how FAKE she is. It’s racial carpetbagging.
Liz Warren had a drop of Native in her but people mocked her when she claimed to be a Native woman. This is like that. Harris might have a bit of Jamaican blood in her but she’s not an American Black like Candace Owens is. She doesn’t come from that world, she didn’t have that experience. That’s why Black People are going nah, this bitch is an INDIAN.
I think it’s interesting that everyone believes conspiracy theories exactly up to whichever particular ones they believe, and that anyone who believes otherwise is stupid or a shill. It’s like I don’t believe in aliens, but I don’t think everyone who does is stupid or a shill. I don’t seek to shut down any debate about aliens. I actually sometimes think those debates are very interesting. I’m not threatened by the conspiracy theories I don’t personally believe.
You honestly don’t think Trump is hip to the Jews? That’s like saying he truly believes the official 9/11 narrative, or that he believes Oswald acted alone. Probably before he was President but certainly after, he was informed or made aware of all kinds of top secret shit. He’s probably read all the JFK files. Think about it logically. Think about what he would have had to deal with building real estate in New York.
The question is how do you go after the bloodlines and the central banks and the intelligence agencies and be effective? Does he come out on day one of his Presidency and start questioning the Holocaust based on secret documents he’s read? That might be temporarily satisfying, but would it be effective? Would people even believe him? Would people be ready to believe him?
Even for Trump to come out against the official 9/11 narrative would be very tricky, strategically, and people should be less attached to that one because it is more recent, and it has these disastrous Middle East wars attached to them. Imagine you are advising Trump and you want to disclose the truth about 9/11. How do you do it? And don’t just say call a press conference and disclose it because the press conference gets censored and there are a thousand articles within about an hour “debunking” it. They also probably misreport what was said and do a “drink bleach” rewrite. So now what? Have you effectively “set the record straight”? Or have you strategically shot yourself in the foot?
I think it’s mostly about attachment to science fiction. Star Wars, Star Trek, all that outer space shit. If they are lying to us about space, all that fiction loses its believability. This more than anything explains the emotional hostility over a debate about the shape of the Earth, which does not directly affect anyone and is in many ways a dry, philosophical discussion.
I also think there is frustration that the FE movement isn’t going away with all the ad hominem and appeal to authority arguments. I keep trying to tell Globe Earthers that this is like Democrats and Trump. The arguments you’re making aren’t working because they are based on false claims of the FE position. This is why they don’t have the effect that’s intended. It’s not because FE people are “dumb” or “bots” or some kind of “cult”.
I’ve noticed that simulation theory doesn’t get one of those warning labels on YouTube, that none of the social media sites ban or censor people for mentioning it, and no one has been cancelled for believing in it. They would however be cancelled if they ever said they believed we were in a programmed simulation, and the simulation was FLAT. I think it’s funny that simulation theory is fine, but only if the simulation is a globe. It MUST be a globe.