Becoming Brigitte: Candace Owens x Xavier Poussard
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (71)
sorted by:
Watch it, I think it is definitely true.
That's nice. But does it advance the Maga Agenda, or is it designed as distraction. (True things and facts can also be promoted as a distraction.)
As for watching it, on a personal level, there are about 300 other topics I care more about.
We've seen numerous 'distractions' injected into the Awakening movement over the past 7+ years. Personally, I'm suspicious of Owens. At first, I thought she was simply 'uninformed', and a good faith commentator. Then, I observed who she switched loyalties when the Ron Desantis thing came out (which its not unreasonable was an operation to flush out the fair-weather "maga' folks (controlled oppo) who promptly blamed Trump for the 2022 election results and dumped him to cheer over DeSantis, Vivek, etc.
My suspicions might be unfounded, but I think its more than reasonable to question what Owens is doing and why, and in the face of so much cheer-squading that goes on in our camp, I kinda feel like its important to voice, on occasion, a devil's avocado viewpoint.
Probably doesn’t do anything for MAGA. But it does point to Q. The lying people in power positions needs to be revealed to the public. If this is true, and I think the evidence is good, I think this will wake up people to seeing that we are ruled by liars and cheats and cons. When people stop trusting their governments, then they can overthrow them. Macron is a liar and checks need to be put into place. The legacy media needs to be shown as complicit with these governments so people don’t trust them ever again too. And in the end I believe this will show that satan is real. These people switch genders and have sex with children because their handlers are satan worshippers. Once people see they worship satan then they will start to believe in God and every knee will bow, which is much more important than MAGA.
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.