1 Like
This post reminds me that I believe a discussion needs to be had about some of the elephants in the room here on DG and nuances of a so-called truth forum and what to do about them.
Iâm sure avid readers know what I am referring to?
Pray tell.
It's the lack of clarity about what should or shouldn't be said hereâand why. It's the dissonance, the discomfort, the elephant in the room surrounding these questions:-
It's not just the question, "What does Brigitte Macron have to do with defending Gibraltar?"âit's that the answer is fairly straightforward. In our highly connected world, events like the fires in Maui or L.A., as well as figures like Obama and NASA, all are connected to Gibraltar in a way or other.
This, along with the handfull of other issues that I do not think should be ignored and that I've striven to point out for the past few days that I believe need to be clarified for there to be harmony here.
I'm hoping to compile everything into an article along with scripture, the guidelines and hope to get it all verified and harmonized. I am praying and hoping that the special time of Passover will play an important role in this...
Agreed.
Specifically, to "What does Brigitte Macron have to do with defending Gibraltar?", I would pose the following question: What does the body's heart have to do with the feet? Something in one place affects another and to look at something in a singular fashion can be very limiting. Understood that setting limits in and of itself is not bad.
More specific to the videos posted about Brigitte, at the end of Episode One, Candace says that the main purpose of the subject is pedophilia and her goal is to bring attention to that. In Episode Two, she demonstrates the control of the media over the mindset of the populace particularly how it relates to public relations (paid contractors) to sway and ultimately attempt to determine what people view as real. There is a lot more to the series than transgender. I am not saying it is a "must watch" or a life-altering series, but for those who may be interested it is available here to view.
Yes. That is essential.
Becoming Brigitte: One Coincidence Too Many | Episode 3
Episode three of Becoming Brigitte. As we dig deeper into Emmanuel Macron's past we notice one coincidence too many. - Candace Owens. Aired 7th February 2025.
That is a loaded statement. Not sure what you are referring to exactly.
I'd like to say that your intentions when questioning certain posts and their content for truthfulness or even a point of origin (AI or real people) is well-founded and with good intentions. Though I personally stopped posting TPV, I don't mind or question if another chooses to post it on their channel or here. If it is excessive like posting every single TPV video, then a concern may be valid, but some wiggle room is essential in public forums. You moderated a successful (in the past) website that maintained a level of integrity overall with its content. But, the internet and/or the world is not what it was then. The "truther" community has been infiltrated with high-profile infil(traitors) that mold the mind of many seekers (some sheeples), not to mention the addition of AI influence with bots, fake accounts, fake images and even fake videos. The mentality of the average viewer has changed as well. People are mostly visually-oriented and also reading significantly less (some not reading at all). The web will never be what it was back then due to the corruption that has been introduced. With this in mind, you may want to consider being more open-minded about other posts, others opinion of which you disagree; instead of questioning everything, perhaps be willing to "let go". With that said, I recognise the benefit of your input and appreciate your suggestions. It is good to talk about things to a degree. To ignore such issues can be deterimental because resentments build.
I "loaded" the question to see if anyone could figure out what I referring to and explained it, I believe quite clearly in my next message.
Thank you. I remember you once acknowledged this before along with a bit more but later deleted that message.
To me it is clear that the TPV videos are so embedded falsehoods and deceptive tricks that it's almost as thought he's false opposition, which I believe is even more probable when looking into his history and lifestyle.
Because of this I believe one would very carefully have to estimate if one is helping the state of the world or not when promoting TPV.
This and more that you write just does not make sense but I will do as you suggest and just let it go, for now...
I believe Illogical/contradicting things not only build resentments...
1 Like
This reminds me about something that I did as a test a few days ago. (Referred to here)
Scaffolding for a properly written article? @A_Freeman ?
And yes, perhaps the question if AI should be used at all should be had but I believe that in the same way as these computers, the resources used to create them, mining, etc are satanic but are now a "neccesary evil" AI-usage for explaining things /helping to write things is the same way.
Here's the prompt (the text that I wrote AI). It's very quickly put together and the saying garbate in - garbate out applies.
The concept of "sheeple" is rooted in the idea that a group blindly follows a dominant narrative without critical thought. But what happens when the counter-narrative itself becomes an echo chamber? When those rejecting the "mainstream" just start following a different script, they become their own version of sheepleâjust with a different shepherd.
Are we seeing signs of this happening today? I believe clearly, yes. The scene is wildly different than in 2001 or 1995.
--
I'd like to flesh out the last part considerably bringing up how the critical thinker / "conspiracy theory" scene looked like in 1995 and 2001 and how it's grown and mushroomed and grown branches in the craziest RAND firehose directions etc today with mind control ? programs liek flat earth etc etc and a huge huge mess it is today
Here is what AI (ChatGPT) gave me:-
The concept of "sheeple"âa term used to describe people who unquestioningly follow the dominant narrativeâhas long been a staple of critical thought. But what happens when the so-called counter-narrative, initially born out of skepticism, becomes its own rigid ideology? When rejecting the "mainstream" transforms into merely following a different script, those who prided themselves on being independent thinkers risk becoming their own version of sheeple, just with a different shepherd.
This phenomenon has accelerated dramatically over the past few decades. If we look at the landscape of critical thought and conspiracy culture in 1995, it was a very different scene. The internet was in its infancy, and alternative narratives spread largely through books, magazines, local meetups, and the occasional late-night AM radio show like Art Bellâs Coast to Coast AM. The dominant conspiracies revolved around topics like government overreach (e.g., Waco, Ruby Ridge, the militia movement), secret societies (the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission), UFO cover-ups, and a skepticism of corporate and governmental power. These theories were often grounded in real historical precedents of deception, such as MKUltra, COINTELPRO, and Iran-Contra, which gave them a foundation of plausibility.
By 2001, with the rise of the internet, this subculture had exploded in size. The events of 9/11 created a major turning point. The so-called â9/11 Truthâ movement brought together a wide range of voicesâengineers, political dissidents, alternative media figuresâwho questioned the official narrative. This era saw the birth of the modern, internet-fueled conspiracy ecosystem, where information was more accessible but also harder to verify. Figures like Alex Jones gained prominence, and the conversation began shifting from intellectual skepticism to an increasingly performative, emotionally charged battleground.
Fast-forward to today, and the landscape has splintered in ways that would have been unthinkable in earlier decades. The democratization of information, while a powerful tool, has led to an environment where anyone can create and disseminate narratives, regardless of their validity. What was once a community grounded in critical thought has, in many cases, devolved into an ever-expanding firehose of contradictory, often bizarre theories. RAND Corporationâs concept of the âfirehose of falsehoodâ describes this perfectlyâoverwhelming people with so many conflicting narratives that they either disengage entirely or become radicalized into believing the most outlandish claims.
Consider the rise of flat Earth theoryâsomething virtually nonexistent in critical circles before social media algorithms started amplifying it. Once a fringe idea, it has gained an inexplicable foothold, largely because of how modern information ecosystems function. Similarly, we see a growing number of âmind controlâ narratives, some of which are built on real government programs (like MKUltra) but have since spiraled into exaggerated, cartoonish paranoia where even basic logic is abandoned. Instead of engaging in genuine inquiry, many in the alternative media sphere now operate within closed loops, where dissenting views are dismissed as âcontrolled oppositionâ and skepticism of anything becomes a badge of honor, regardless of its merit.
The result? A paradox where those who claim to be the most critical thinkers are often the most susceptible to ideological capture. Instead of rejecting propaganda, they merely adopt a different flavor of it. Instead of questioning everything, they unquestioningly accept the narratives that align with their pre-existing biases.
In 1995 or 2001, questioning authority required effortâdigging through documents, reading multiple sources, and engaging in real-world discussions. Today, the ease of access to alternative information paradoxically enables laziness; one can simply pick a pre-packaged counter-narrative and subscribe to it wholesale, with little critical examination. The same group that once prided itself on âthinking for themselvesâ is now as vulnerable to manipulation as those they criticize.
The challenge now is to reclaim the spirit of true skepticismânot cynicism, not blind contrarianism, but genuine critical thinking. That means evaluating claims based on evidence, being willing to change oneâs mind, and resisting the allure of simplistic, emotionally charged narratives, whether mainstream or alternative. Without this, the cycle of ideological capture will continue, with each new wave of supposed independent thinkers becoming just another flock of sheeple, following a different shepherd.
US declares âmotherâ is female and âfatherâ is male
The new guidance unveiled by the Health Department is part of President Donald Trumpâs âonly two sexesâ policy
© Getty Images / Jacob Wackerhausen
US Health Secretary RFK Jr. has announced new guidance defining âmotherâ as a female parent and âfatherâ as a male parent. The announcement comes as part of President Donald Trumpâs âonly two sexesâ federal policy.
Since taking office, Trump has issued multiple gender-related orders affirming that US government policy recognizes only two sexes â male and female. He has instructed the health department (HHS) to provide âclear guidanceâ within 30 days on how to interpret sex-based definitions.
The guidance issued by the HHS on Wednesday defines âsexâ as an immutable biological classification, designating individuals strictly as male or female. A âfemaleâ is described as âa person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggsâ. A âmaleâ has a reproductive system âwith the biological function of producing spermâ. Consequently, a âmotherâ is defined as a female parent, and a âfatherâ as a male parent.
âThis administration is bringing back common sense and restoring biological truth to the federal government,â RFK Jr. was quoted as saying in the HHS statement. âThe prior administrationâs policy of trying to engineer gender ideology into every aspect of public life is over,â he argued.
For years, the US has moved away from traditional parental titles, replacing âmotherâ and âfatherâ with âparent oneâ and âparent twoâ. In 2011, the State Department justified the change, arguing that gender-specific parental terms were outdated. Furthermore, in August of last year, the Vermont Department of Health recommended using gender-neutral terms such as âchildâ or âkidâ instead of âsonâ or âdaughterâ to promote inclusive language.
READ MORE: Trump defunds gender transition for people under 19
âIt took many years of effort, but we are finally back to science and common sense,â Roger Severino, who served as director of HHSâ Office for Civil Rights during the first Trump administration, posted on X on Thursday, praising the announcement.
Trump has swiftly rolled back protections for transgender rights, as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which the federal government had established during former President Joe Bidenâs administration.
Trump ended federal support for medical procedures related to sex change procedures for minors, to protect them from âchemical and surgical mutilations.â
Last month, he signed an order barring âradical gender ideologyâ in the military, stating service should be limited to those mentally and physically fit. Another executive order banned trans women from female sports, with plans to block transgender athletes from competing in US-hosted events, including the 2028 Olympics and World Cup.
Several of Trumpâs policies face legal challenges, with federal judges blocking some directives. His administrationâs approach has drawn criticism from civil rights groups and LGBT advocates.