Hmmm, that's an interesting word. Be careful what you ask for. Big Mike might just show up to expose himself to you and you'd wish you had a gallon of eye bleach.

Thanks Chuck.

Do you think there's no cost to what she does?

No.

Do you think she should work hard, employ people, pay them, make content (LOTS of which is available freely on YouTube), but she shouldn't make a living from what she does?

No.

Or maybe you think she or her husband should work full time to support their family and then do this truth telling on the side for free?

No.

BUT, I am exceedingly skeptical of individuals who seem to be much more focused on building a business brand WHILE touting themselves as "unfiltered truth tellers".

I support content creators who should be paid for the hard work they do. This does not mean that ANYONE who makes money while telling everyone they are 'unfiltered truth tellers' is automatically honestly motivated.

She should make money. She can make money. But the great awakening, she is not.

Since the dawn of Q, 'telling truth' has become a big business. Plus, there are many, many operations deployed by the bad actors to infiltrate the 'truth sphere', and work controlled opposition and gate keeping.

I used to be ignorant of this concept. But I am no longer.

So, there is a big difference between making a living, even making a decent living, and making "I'm telling you unfiltered truth" into a big glossy business, especially when it is NOT 'unfiltered'.

There are bona fide Awakening operations out there that make a living off the support they get, but who do not restrict access to "truth". I contrast them with what Owens is doing. In addition, I look this particular issue in conjunction with other aspects I consider to be red flags with Owens.

It's OK to be skeptical. It's NOT ok to just give someone a pass just because they tout themselves as truth telling.

we wonder why journalism, music, literature, television, etc, are in the state they are--because people can't make a living doing those things even if they love them without selling their souls to some machine to make them viable.

A final note, Chuck. The reason why artists cannot make a living in these areas without "selling their souls" to the machine is because the machine infiltrated and took over and corrupted these areas to the power-concentrating and tyrannical ends.

This is changing. Firstly, with the discrediting and destruction of "entertainment" and the corporate mainstream media complex, and secondly, with the freedom that the internet has fostered starting in the last few decades, more and more content creators are able to establish themselves, create a niche, and work independently.

A question: Do you think that the bad actors, black hats and cabal are OK with this trend? What do you think they might do in order to try to derail this trend, or limit the loss of their control over the information sphere?

That's what we need to ask ourselves at this juncture in the information war. We're at war. Make no mistake.

I am not going to retract that yet because it's still a possibility that Brigite might be Macron's biological father. Cannot confirm nor denied it yet.

Probably doesn’t do anything for MAGA. But it does point to Q

Actually, I was thinking about this in an entirely different direction. You can see a lot of transgender hysteria, but not just on 'the other side' aka the neo-Marxists who have idolized gender dysphoria, but also over here. There are a good number of people who, for lack of a better expression, have escaped the mainstream media silo, and who follow Q, but who see a tranny in every single public person (woman) who does not appear perfectly (in Hollywood terms) the epitome of feminine appearance.

People comment about it all the time, sometimes half joking, but so often its just "oh, that woman is obviously a guy".

But for all the goings on in this area - probably triggered mostly by the michael/michelle obama thing - not of this is actually Q based. Are there any Q drops that point to any public person as being a secret and clandestine transgender? I do not recall a single one.

In that sense, the entire 'transgender people masquerading as straight people" narrative is not Q based, and is only, in the faintest sense of the word, Q-adjacent.

And yet, the narrative seems to have taken on the air of legitimacy for many people, even though it is not Q. There are a bunch of things - what have for a long time been known as 'conspiracy theories' that are decidedly not Q.

And that's the very reason why Q stipulated, towards the end of the 3 year drop operation, that there is Q and there are anons, and they are not the same thing.

I don't really mind people giving their belief and attention to the "secret transgender" narrative, but I think its relevant to be very clear that it is not Q based, and to that extent, it's questionable how much attention should be given it on this board.

I might be wrong about the absence of the "secret transgender" narrative from the drops, but I don't recall any real connections.

Aside from this, I agree with you that the liars and satanic nature of those so-called elites (mostly puppets) need to be exposed. But there are a few narratives that I think have come to be accepted by too many people that have very, very limited concrete evidence.

In that sense, they truly stay in the realm of the so-called 'conspiracy theories', whereas a LOT of things that were labelled 'conspiracy theories' have actually been clearly proven to be conspiracy fact.

I prefer to still draw that distinction. based on critical thinking, empirical evidence and data.

On the Macron thing, I haven't watched the video/report, so maybe there is a lot of evidence there; I don't know. But when I see Owens promoting it, I wonder what her real motives are.