Nah. Carroll and Owens are professional Conservative Incorporated inflooencers. They spin the narrative as long as it serves their masters and their agenda.
problem - reaction - solution
Candace Owens displays a perfect embodiment of someone targeting the normie layer of the 'conservative audience'.
I'd just watch how her rhetoric proceeds. Folks of the Great Awakening should be looking deeper than the surface.
Do you mean like Alex Jones? Who instantly turned his attack on Trump when Trump sent missiles in to Syria, missiles that if the Q operation info is correct, actually destroyed certain Isis strongholds?
Some folks give you a red pill because they want to empower you and get you to think for yourself. Others give you a 'crimson pill' because they want you to believe them, trust them, and direct you in the way they want, or are tasked to do.
Or do you believe the act of manipulation is purely restricted to the legacy Mockingbird media?
Would you prefer no Red Pilling at all? The Deep State is taking a beating in public perception. The global system of keeping the masses quiet has been lifted.
Are you saying, we should NOT have a choice? Do you think its wrong for some folks to shill and manipulate and be less than honest but for others its OK?
A red pill is not a red pill if its being used for a purpose other than actually liberating the person's mind. A red pill is <supposed to be> truth. It's not truth if its half truth, partial truth, or has an agenda that is to ultimately mislead and direct.
The global system of keeping the masses quiet has been lifted.
And in the void, all sorts - ALL SORTS - are rushing in to take its place. Out of one silo, into another.
OK. Look, I have my opinion re: Candace, and as for Mr. Carroll, I recall seeing something with his name come out a few weeks/month ago that really raised red flags for me.
I have seen enough bullshite over the past 8 years of the Q operation for me to be wary of people who, just because they jump in on certain narratives, even 'truths', it doesn't mean they do not have ulterior motives.
Its 5G warfare.
But for the record, Sir, I would not presume, or bother, to offer advice to Candace or Mr Carroll on what they 'can do better'. Although I will admit to limited exposure to Mr Carroll, I distrust the motives of both of them, and as for Candace's methods, I'm not a fan.
A lot of inflooencers out there are primarily after .... influence. For me, that's an instant red flag and a turn off.
But as long as people are checking their own biases, checking whether or not confirmation bias is being appealed to, how they process the information that is offered to them, and how it is being offered, then hey, whatever.
There is no freedom without responsibility, and the responsibility to vet what information comes our way, from who, and what they might be motivated by, that's key, to me, anyway.
But if you're such a fan of Carroll, well, I'll keep my ears open and see what I think next time I hear.
Cool. I have only a smidgen of experience with home brewing. I've had three adventures: cherry plum wine (cherry plums being a hybrid of cherry and plum); mango wine, and persimmon wine. No one has died yet.
Agreed but does she have points? There is something that rubs me the wrong way with these two, maybe it’s just because so many before them went through hell saying the same things. But these two get to profit off of it. But that doesn’t make my enmity toward them right exactly.
David Icke said this about Ian Carroll. How David was banned from countries. I guess Ian, if he keeps going, will be too.
And it seems like the information only gets deeper and crazier it seems. Where it makes you look insane. Lizard People for instance. I am completely open to that. Of some form, a gecko? No. Some Satanic or different form? Yes. Hopefully they don’t break like so many others.
Oh, I'm sure she has 'points'. And I'm certainly not saying that everything that she utters is false. But I am skeptical of her trajectory. I mean, there are some folks who I used to listen to a lot, and who I don't particularly think are not good, but that I've found their approach no longer serves my <information war> development.
Then, there are others who I thought were pretty darn good, but who I later concluded were on a trip to lead me and others up the garden path, like a pied piper.
In essence, I think that a form of 'hero worship' tendency is deeply embedded in our modern psyche through the actions of the mockingbird media for centuries. And, I think a lot of folks who give up the mainstream media complex because they see that its an operation can latch on to other sources, tapping into the same tendency rather than really changing the HOW they approach information, regardless of the source.
I don't pay too much attention to Owens, she has made herself pretty obvious for what she is but Carroll is pretty good in certain areas. He does a pretty good job of connecting the dots with what companies/people control everything we consume. As far as I'm concerned that's the lane he should stay in. He's good at it. The rest, not so much.
Can I join this discussion? I want to look foolish too!
But seriously, u/Rooks, is your priority here not to look foolish?
See me before my coffee in the morning, I look pretty darn foolish.
I think that Veritas has a valid point. The question for him (it seems) is not whether it is a good thing (in and of its own) to talk out against stupid racism narratives (which Ms Owens seems to do a lot of - talking out against it, I mean) but rather whether her reasons for doing so are genuine, or part of a strategy to 'win' a certain level of influence with a certain particular audience more to serve her ends (whatever they may be) than theirs, ultimately.
It's a valid question. And testifying: I trust her! Look what she's speaking out against! or... Look at the truth bombs she's dropping!!! doesn't actually address this very important question at all.
If we have learned to reject the mockingbird media because we found out they have been manipulating us and playing us, all for the purposes of <their ends> not ours, should we not be applying the very same lesson to everyone who offers themselves as a 'source of information/truth'?
BUT, and I want to capitalize the BUT here, even here at GAW I see a LOT of participants whose core criteria on whether a given source has <my interests> at heart or <their interests> at heart, appears to be "are they providing information or narratives that support or confirm my bias, my view, my desire?"
I think it would be fair to say that anyone who is here has at some point thought like that. Unconsciously, usually, if not always. But critical thinking and actual free thinking means learning more about HOW I approach and accept and engage with <the information being presented to me>, and imo, this is critical to not only surviving but rising above the storm in the era of 5G warfare and the absolute maelstrom that is the information sphere in our time.
Fren, you are anything but foolish. You are always willing to have a discussion and consider all sides of an issue and your posts and comments are always thought provoking.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
For me it really comes down to, not whether I like what I am hearing, or even whether or not it is true, but I have to ask myself whenever I am being presented with something, "Am I being educated, or am I being indoctrinated?" When someone only ever presents one side of an issue, truth can not prevail.
--MILD WALL OF TEXT WARNING--
Last year a Colorado pastor named Will Duffy started a channel on YouTube called "The Final Experiment." He had heard the debate about the shape of the earth, flat earth vs globe earth (I am not bringing this up to argue about the shape of the earth), and he was unhappy with the fact that the two sides of this debate were not engaging with each other in a productive way, so he created The Final Experiment to bring the two sides together to tackle the issue in a productive way.
He wanted to bring flat earthers and globe earthers both to Antarctica together to see whether there would be a 24 hour sun in the Antarctic summer. Flat earthers had long claimed that there is no 24 hour sun in the Antarctic, and globe earthers obviously believe that there is. Both sides also claimed that this would prove or disprove the shape of the earth. If there is a 24 hour sun, that would prove it is a globe, if there isn't, that would prove it is flat.
He worked very hard to find people from both sides of the issue that would be willing to come together for this experiment, because if both sides are not heard it would be pointless. He invited dozens of flat earthers, offering to pay for their trip. None of the most prominent flat earthers would accept his offer. He eventually found a couple that seemed interested, Jeran Campanella, and Austin Whitsitt. Since he could not find any other prominent figures in the flat earth community that were willing or interested in an unbiased bipartisan search for truth, he opened an invitation for anyone who believes that the earth is flat to apply for a chance to win a free trip to Antarctica. He chose a winner from among the applicants, a woman named Lisbeth Acosta. There were also two globe earthers that went along - Michael Toon, and Dave McKeegan.
So why is all this important? Well, Mr. Duffy had heard that Candace Owens was interested in the topic of flat earth, and he reached out to her to see if she would want to come along with them to Antarctica. Makes sense, she could bring a lot of attention to this issue. She said that she was interested, but that she would not be able to go herself, so she asked if she could send her director, Mark Herman instead. Will Duffy agreed.
So they all went down to Antarctica, to Union Glacier, in December, to witness whether or not there would be a midnight sun. There was a midnight sun and it was livestreamed the whole time on multiple cameras, including 360 degree cameras. So, the results were in, earth is a globe. Jeran Campanella ended up leaving flat earth, but Austin Whitsitt did not, unconvinced that it proved the shape of the earth. (for those that might be interested in The Final Experiement, here is a link to Will Duffy's YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@The-Final-Experiment)
So what did Candace Owens do? She dropped it like a sack of potatos. She never brought up The Final Experiment again. She never invited Will Duffy or any of the participants to talk to her on her show, she never interviewed her director. She never cared about the truth. She only cared about the possibility of supporting the flat earth conspiracy theory, and when she saw that she couldn't, she pretended nothing ever happened.
Candace Owens is only interested in presenting information to her viewers that support one side of an issue. If she cared about truth, she would present all sides and let people come to their own conclusions. She was all gung ho when she thought there was a chance that she could present something to her audience that would support her conspiracy theories, and when she found out she couldn't, she buried it.
She is equally dishonest on other subjects as well, in my opinion. She is all too happy to interview USS Liberty Survivor Phil Tourney so that he can tell her audience all about muh joos USS Liberty conspiracy, but she would never invite someone like Cam Higby on her show to present the other side of the issue. The dishonesty isn't in presenting, or believing Phil Tourney's position, it is discarding all other positions out of hand and pretending they don't exist. If you want to believe Phil Tourney, great! But at least hear what the other side has to say. Speaking of which, USS Liberty Survivor Debates Zionist.
If we do not allow ourselves to be exposed to both sides of an issue, we create echo chambers for ourselves. We create a situation where the things we believe to be true are necessitated to be true simply by our belief in them. We become indoctrinated. When we close our ears to outside perspectives we lose the ability to grow and learn. That is my issue with Candace Owens. She clearly has an agenda, and it is not finding the truth.
Duper's delight or duping delight is the name given to the concept that when someone is lying there are micro expressions that they can not control that are detectable in their body language. They can not contain their glee at manipulating and lying to people.
False. We are Christ first always! I am a Christian before I am MAGA. And if the Trump admin decides that Israel is more important than Christ and America then fuck them. The Conservative Inc. Evangelical grifters are already exposing themselves. Ian Carroll, Candace, Tucker etc. are the real deal. Not Charlie Kirk, DC Draino etc.
It is important to hold our politicians accountable. Trump, Kash, Bondi all of them.
Yeah, I'm not really persuaded by u/pnwhomebrewer 's line of argument.
And, I think his argument actually highlights, inadvertently, the very nature of how a controlled opposition program operates. (Which is not to say that the object of this discussion is controlled oppo. That's a slightly different topic. But if we're to identify who actually could be controlled oppo, we need to understand and be aware of what and how controlled opposition works.)
Hegelian dialectic: problem, reaction, solution.
Applied to a target sector, this becomes "us vs. them".
"If Charlie Kirk, Draino and Ben Shapiro are bad, then obviously Candace, Carroll, and Tucker must be good!!!!"
The fundamental premise of a controlled opposition operation is getting someone to side with THIS side in reaction to, or by pushing away from THAT side (of the binary proposition being offered).
Is it not possible that Charlie Kirk DC Draino and Shapiro (for example) have an ulterior agenda that is not necessarily in alignment with the best wellbeing of their audience, and also that Candace Owens, Ian Carroll, Tucker or whoever, ALSO have an ulterior agenda, that is not aligned with the audience's best interests?
Sure. We HAVE To acknowledge that this is <possible>? The question then goes, is this the case? And the criteria should NOT be "Are they saying what I want to hear?" "does their information align with my (confirmation) bias?"
I think the fact remains, the Q operation was part of a movement that destroyed the power of the mockingbird media (aka legacy) sphere, and cracked open on a global scale, the 'alt-media' sphere.
It should be obvious to anyone with any sort of 5000 ft+ view (or even better, a 10,000ft view) of the infowar that there are hordes and hordes of people and organizations rushing to fill the vacuum that the demise of the Propaganda Media establishment has created.
And this is precisely why, at this time, people - particularly those who have left 'Egypt', need to be wary and full of care.
The Zionists funded the Scofield Bible to make it have a Jewish lean. Cyrus Scofield was a drunkard who abandoned his family. He was also accused of forgery and embezzlement.
Then Sam Untermyer a Zionist lawyer who helped install the Federal Reserve funded him and his Bible.
Yeah she’s not an Evangelical heretic and it’s great. Anyone who deep dives into scripture, church history and theology comes out Catholic, Orthodox or High church Protestant at minimum.
Thankfully young people are joining Catholic and Orthodox churches in droves.
Her and Ian Carroll are dropping Giant Red Pills like never before in American history.
Nah. Carroll and Owens are professional Conservative Incorporated inflooencers. They spin the narrative as long as it serves their masters and their agenda.
problem - reaction - solution
Candace Owens displays a perfect embodiment of someone targeting the normie layer of the 'conservative audience'.
I'd just watch how her rhetoric proceeds. Folks of the Great Awakening should be looking deeper than the surface.
They are Red Pilling the sleeping masses. Once the People are awake, there is no going back.
Do you mean like Alex Jones? Who instantly turned his attack on Trump when Trump sent missiles in to Syria, missiles that if the Q operation info is correct, actually destroyed certain Isis strongholds?
Some folks give you a red pill because they want to empower you and get you to think for yourself. Others give you a 'crimson pill' because they want you to believe them, trust them, and direct you in the way they want, or are tasked to do.
Or do you believe the act of manipulation is purely restricted to the legacy Mockingbird media?
5G warfare.
Would you prefer no Red Pilling at all? The Deep State is taking a beating in public perception. The global system of keeping the masses quiet has been lifted.
I would prefer no manipulation at all.
Are you saying, we should NOT have a choice? Do you think its wrong for some folks to shill and manipulate and be less than honest but for others its OK?
A red pill is not a red pill if its being used for a purpose other than actually liberating the person's mind. A red pill is <supposed to be> truth. It's not truth if its half truth, partial truth, or has an agenda that is to ultimately mislead and direct.
And in the void, all sorts - ALL SORTS - are rushing in to take its place. Out of one silo, into another.
Please tell me what Ian and Candace can do better. I'll send them your advice.
kek.
OK. Look, I have my opinion re: Candace, and as for Mr. Carroll, I recall seeing something with his name come out a few weeks/month ago that really raised red flags for me.
I have seen enough bullshite over the past 8 years of the Q operation for me to be wary of people who, just because they jump in on certain narratives, even 'truths', it doesn't mean they do not have ulterior motives.
Its 5G warfare.
But for the record, Sir, I would not presume, or bother, to offer advice to Candace or Mr Carroll on what they 'can do better'. Although I will admit to limited exposure to Mr Carroll, I distrust the motives of both of them, and as for Candace's methods, I'm not a fan.
A lot of inflooencers out there are primarily after .... influence. For me, that's an instant red flag and a turn off.
But as long as people are checking their own biases, checking whether or not confirmation bias is being appealed to, how they process the information that is offered to them, and how it is being offered, then hey, whatever.
There is no freedom without responsibility, and the responsibility to vet what information comes our way, from who, and what they might be motivated by, that's key, to me, anyway.
But if you're such a fan of Carroll, well, I'll keep my ears open and see what I think next time I hear.
We were warned about the types like Alex Jones. Asking questions is fine and having disagreements are too but what is their end game, is my question.
Lmfao. The people with masters are people like Charlie Kirk who is bought and paid for by Israel.
Who are there masters? Tell me.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say 'serves their purposes', because one can certainly make one's purpose his master.
Um, why? Are you under the misconception that somehow one of us here is trying to win an argument?
On a side note, what do you home brew (if in fact you do)?
I am professional now but when I did home brew I did all styles. But my favorites are German and Belgian beers. Not actually an IPA guy that much
Cool. I have only a smidgen of experience with home brewing. I've had three adventures: cherry plum wine (cherry plums being a hybrid of cherry and plum); mango wine, and persimmon wine. No one has died yet.
lol. Yeah it’s a fun hobby. I have done mead and cider too. Never done wine though my parents neighbor has.
Once you get good at it and good at cooking it‘s a lot of fun to make beer and wine paired home cooked meals
Agreed but does she have points? There is something that rubs me the wrong way with these two, maybe it’s just because so many before them went through hell saying the same things. But these two get to profit off of it. But that doesn’t make my enmity toward them right exactly.
David Icke said this about Ian Carroll. How David was banned from countries. I guess Ian, if he keeps going, will be too.
And it seems like the information only gets deeper and crazier it seems. Where it makes you look insane. Lizard People for instance. I am completely open to that. Of some form, a gecko? No. Some Satanic or different form? Yes. Hopefully they don’t break like so many others.
Have you ever heard the expression 'controlled opposition'?
Asking for a friend....
Oh, I'm sure she has 'points'. And I'm certainly not saying that everything that she utters is false. But I am skeptical of her trajectory. I mean, there are some folks who I used to listen to a lot, and who I don't particularly think are not good, but that I've found their approach no longer serves my <information war> development.
Then, there are others who I thought were pretty darn good, but who I later concluded were on a trip to lead me and others up the garden path, like a pied piper.
In essence, I think that a form of 'hero worship' tendency is deeply embedded in our modern psyche through the actions of the mockingbird media for centuries. And, I think a lot of folks who give up the mainstream media complex because they see that its an operation can latch on to other sources, tapping into the same tendency rather than really changing the HOW they approach information, regardless of the source.
Isn't Ian a she and not a he?
Its a dude. He came from the Stonk community.
Sorry, my fault as I was thinking of someone else.
I don't pay too much attention to Owens, she has made herself pretty obvious for what she is but Carroll is pretty good in certain areas. He does a pretty good job of connecting the dots with what companies/people control everything we consume. As far as I'm concerned that's the lane he should stay in. He's good at it. The rest, not so much.
On the strength of your positive comments, I'll keep an open mind and pay a bit more attention if and when he pops up.
TY.
Oh brother. SMH
Wait.... The Sydney Morning Herald? Nah, I don't read that anymore...
I don't know Ian Carroll but Candace is good.
Shhhhh.... Some people do NOT want to hear that. It upsets them.
Candace Owens has duper's delight written all over her face. I don't trust a single word she says.
She's against real racism, and is for blacks getting up and actively improving their roll and tearing up their race cards.
A blanket don't trust against her makes you look foolish.
I don't care if she has positions that you agree with I do not trust anyone with hidden agendas, and to say otherwise makes you look foolish.
Can I join this discussion? I want to look foolish too!
But seriously, u/Rooks, is your priority here not to look foolish?
See me before my coffee in the morning, I look pretty darn foolish.
I think that Veritas has a valid point. The question for him (it seems) is not whether it is a good thing (in and of its own) to talk out against stupid racism narratives (which Ms Owens seems to do a lot of - talking out against it, I mean) but rather whether her reasons for doing so are genuine, or part of a strategy to 'win' a certain level of influence with a certain particular audience more to serve her ends (whatever they may be) than theirs, ultimately.
It's a valid question. And testifying: I trust her! Look what she's speaking out against! or... Look at the truth bombs she's dropping!!! doesn't actually address this very important question at all.
If we have learned to reject the mockingbird media because we found out they have been manipulating us and playing us, all for the purposes of <their ends> not ours, should we not be applying the very same lesson to everyone who offers themselves as a 'source of information/truth'?
BUT, and I want to capitalize the BUT here, even here at GAW I see a LOT of participants whose core criteria on whether a given source has <my interests> at heart or <their interests> at heart, appears to be "are they providing information or narratives that support or confirm my bias, my view, my desire?"
I think it would be fair to say that anyone who is here has at some point thought like that. Unconsciously, usually, if not always. But critical thinking and actual free thinking means learning more about HOW I approach and accept and engage with <the information being presented to me>, and imo, this is critical to not only surviving but rising above the storm in the era of 5G warfare and the absolute maelstrom that is the information sphere in our time.
Fren, you are anything but foolish. You are always willing to have a discussion and consider all sides of an issue and your posts and comments are always thought provoking.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
For me it really comes down to, not whether I like what I am hearing, or even whether or not it is true, but I have to ask myself whenever I am being presented with something, "Am I being educated, or am I being indoctrinated?" When someone only ever presents one side of an issue, truth can not prevail.
--MILD WALL OF TEXT WARNING--
Last year a Colorado pastor named Will Duffy started a channel on YouTube called "The Final Experiment." He had heard the debate about the shape of the earth, flat earth vs globe earth (I am not bringing this up to argue about the shape of the earth), and he was unhappy with the fact that the two sides of this debate were not engaging with each other in a productive way, so he created The Final Experiment to bring the two sides together to tackle the issue in a productive way.
He wanted to bring flat earthers and globe earthers both to Antarctica together to see whether there would be a 24 hour sun in the Antarctic summer. Flat earthers had long claimed that there is no 24 hour sun in the Antarctic, and globe earthers obviously believe that there is. Both sides also claimed that this would prove or disprove the shape of the earth. If there is a 24 hour sun, that would prove it is a globe, if there isn't, that would prove it is flat.
He worked very hard to find people from both sides of the issue that would be willing to come together for this experiment, because if both sides are not heard it would be pointless. He invited dozens of flat earthers, offering to pay for their trip. None of the most prominent flat earthers would accept his offer. He eventually found a couple that seemed interested, Jeran Campanella, and Austin Whitsitt. Since he could not find any other prominent figures in the flat earth community that were willing or interested in an unbiased bipartisan search for truth, he opened an invitation for anyone who believes that the earth is flat to apply for a chance to win a free trip to Antarctica. He chose a winner from among the applicants, a woman named Lisbeth Acosta. There were also two globe earthers that went along - Michael Toon, and Dave McKeegan.
So why is all this important? Well, Mr. Duffy had heard that Candace Owens was interested in the topic of flat earth, and he reached out to her to see if she would want to come along with them to Antarctica. Makes sense, she could bring a lot of attention to this issue. She said that she was interested, but that she would not be able to go herself, so she asked if she could send her director, Mark Herman instead. Will Duffy agreed.
So they all went down to Antarctica, to Union Glacier, in December, to witness whether or not there would be a midnight sun. There was a midnight sun and it was livestreamed the whole time on multiple cameras, including 360 degree cameras. So, the results were in, earth is a globe. Jeran Campanella ended up leaving flat earth, but Austin Whitsitt did not, unconvinced that it proved the shape of the earth. (for those that might be interested in The Final Experiement, here is a link to Will Duffy's YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@The-Final-Experiment)
So what did Candace Owens do? She dropped it like a sack of potatos. She never brought up The Final Experiment again. She never invited Will Duffy or any of the participants to talk to her on her show, she never interviewed her director. She never cared about the truth. She only cared about the possibility of supporting the flat earth conspiracy theory, and when she saw that she couldn't, she pretended nothing ever happened.
Candace Owens is only interested in presenting information to her viewers that support one side of an issue. If she cared about truth, she would present all sides and let people come to their own conclusions. She was all gung ho when she thought there was a chance that she could present something to her audience that would support her conspiracy theories, and when she found out she couldn't, she buried it.
She is equally dishonest on other subjects as well, in my opinion. She is all too happy to interview USS Liberty Survivor Phil Tourney so that he can tell her audience all about muh joos USS Liberty conspiracy, but she would never invite someone like Cam Higby on her show to present the other side of the issue. The dishonesty isn't in presenting, or believing Phil Tourney's position, it is discarding all other positions out of hand and pretending they don't exist. If you want to believe Phil Tourney, great! But at least hear what the other side has to say. Speaking of which, USS Liberty Survivor Debates Zionist.
If we do not allow ourselves to be exposed to both sides of an issue, we create echo chambers for ourselves. We create a situation where the things we believe to be true are necessitated to be true simply by our belief in them. We become indoctrinated. When we close our ears to outside perspectives we lose the ability to grow and learn. That is my issue with Candace Owens. She clearly has an agenda, and it is not finding the truth.
What is 'duper's delight', precious?
~ smeagol
Duper's delight or duping delight is the name given to the concept that when someone is lying there are micro expressions that they can not control that are detectable in their body language. They can not contain their glee at manipulating and lying to people.
Duping Delight
The guy from LOTR thanks you.
I suspected as much, but I had no idea this is 'a thing'. TY
False. We are Christ first always! I am a Christian before I am MAGA. And if the Trump admin decides that Israel is more important than Christ and America then fuck them. The Conservative Inc. Evangelical grifters are already exposing themselves. Ian Carroll, Candace, Tucker etc. are the real deal. Not Charlie Kirk, DC Draino etc.
It is important to hold our politicians accountable. Trump, Kash, Bondi all of them.
Yeah, I'm not really persuaded by u/pnwhomebrewer 's line of argument.
And, I think his argument actually highlights, inadvertently, the very nature of how a controlled opposition program operates. (Which is not to say that the object of this discussion is controlled oppo. That's a slightly different topic. But if we're to identify who actually could be controlled oppo, we need to understand and be aware of what and how controlled opposition works.)
Hegelian dialectic: problem, reaction, solution.
Applied to a target sector, this becomes "us vs. them".
"If Charlie Kirk, Draino and Ben Shapiro are bad, then obviously Candace, Carroll, and Tucker must be good!!!!"
The fundamental premise of a controlled opposition operation is getting someone to side with THIS side in reaction to, or by pushing away from THAT side (of the binary proposition being offered).
Is it not possible that Charlie Kirk DC Draino and Shapiro (for example) have an ulterior agenda that is not necessarily in alignment with the best wellbeing of their audience, and also that Candace Owens, Ian Carroll, Tucker or whoever, ALSO have an ulterior agenda, that is not aligned with the audience's best interests?
Sure. We HAVE To acknowledge that this is <possible>? The question then goes, is this the case? And the criteria should NOT be "Are they saying what I want to hear?" "does their information align with my (confirmation) bias?"
I think the fact remains, the Q operation was part of a movement that destroyed the power of the mockingbird media (aka legacy) sphere, and cracked open on a global scale, the 'alt-media' sphere.
It should be obvious to anyone with any sort of 5000 ft+ view (or even better, a 10,000ft view) of the infowar that there are hordes and hordes of people and organizations rushing to fill the vacuum that the demise of the Propaganda Media establishment has created.
And this is precisely why, at this time, people - particularly those who have left 'Egypt', need to be wary and full of care.
I highly recommend you watch his Red Pilling from yesterday.
The REAL REASON that war with Iran was planned years ago- Cancel Ian Carroll Ep. 1
https://old.bitchute.com/video/N9J9CkpjQ0Hu/
Ok.
I shared it yesterday in the General Section. Here is the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GawSvA4mf5Q
Youtube must not like me. It said video unavailable.
Are you in Continental USA? It works for me in Canada and we are often prevented from seeing videos out of the USA
Yes, I am in US. I will see what I can do to watch it.
Who is Candace's husband...?
Who is/was her dad?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Farmer_(businessman)
AWESOME. We can all now SEE how " Israel for Last" is the last block in the Jenga game that brings it ALL down.
There's still so many defending them.
YEP, thats why I dont attend church any more. And in OZ most christians drank the covid Kool Aid too.
I understand.
Including in this forum.
"Christian" zionism, aka evangelicals, has been an extremely successful infiltration tool for the khazarians.
The part of Christianity that was infiltrated to mislead the gullible? Yes
The Zionists funded the Scofield Bible to make it have a Jewish lean. Cyrus Scofield was a drunkard who abandoned his family. He was also accused of forgery and embezzlement.
Then Sam Untermyer a Zionist lawyer who helped install the Federal Reserve funded him and his Bible.
Jesus spoke about the scribes, pharisees, money changers, and those who call themselves jews but are not.
Yes...The Scofield Bible
Just look at the many baptist or evangelical churches that are preaching its ok to be gay and trans.
Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves"
Many churches are teaching heresy.
Re Scofield Bible.
"Christian" zionist is less christian than most muslims actually.
So yea. 100% wrong.
The teachings of Christ? A manual on how to live your life in divine peace & harmony.
Most 'christian' churches? 100% the opposite of the above.
Isn't she a devout Roman Catholic? Nuf said!
Yeah she’s not an Evangelical heretic and it’s great. Anyone who deep dives into scripture, church history and theology comes out Catholic, Orthodox or High church Protestant at minimum.
Thankfully young people are joining Catholic and Orthodox churches in droves.
The teachings of Jesus are very different than those of the papists.
Hopefully they read the Bible and then do what I did. I was on my way to becoming a priest, now I use the term "papist" regularly.
“Gods chosen people”…
Which god?
The metaphor behind Trump's snake poem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSrOXvoNLwg
If you read the Protocols of the Elder Zion, Protocol 3 on page 16 below, Symbolic meaning of the Snake.
If you read page 9, it mentions the Snake many times, how it encircled many countries and ended up in Jerusalem.
https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/The-Protocols-Of-The-Learned-Elders-Of-Zion.pdf
Candace did hit the Macron story hard. I give her props for that.
She married a Farmer which is a Rothschild. I have to keep that in the back of my mind still.