>>513610255
Full Context.

That's why I indicated Option 1s possibility Anon
As in, he just so happened to unintentionally give WEF backing by discrediting the concept of them as a serious issue (since he alleged it was brought up too often), which with the hindsight of right the hell now, we definitely know they are.
It just seemed very strange to bring them up at all, out of the 100's of other things, he could have picked but the one that's a REAL certified threat was picked?

Kinda fucking weird at minimum, like surely there were more other common things that earned the "They brought it up too much and were annoying" top three pick.

I mean shit, think about it this way, has he even mentioned what they said while the Internet Censorship Child Safety Plot is ongoing?