Ms. Owens is all over my screens today, dominating both mainstream and social media alike, for her theories about - over the former medium - Brigitte Macron, and - over the latter - Charlie Kirk.

Owens asserts to believe that the former is a man, and the latter was assassinated by Israel.

Thus perpetuating into the dominant discourse the idea that "conspiracy theorists" are all rabid antisemitic transphobic misogynists, which indeed will be "proved" when it is ruled that Brigitte is a woman, and Israel had nothing to do with Kirk's "death" (of course they didn't, because he isn't dead).

In short, I believe that Candace is intentionally disseminating theories she knows will be shown to be false, in order to discredit "conspiracy theorists".

She has been playing the long game in this respect for quite some time, and I called her out years ago as controlled opposition (the eponymous 'CO'), writing in 2022:

"I agree with a lot of what [Matt] Walsh and Owens say... but I recognise that to have the level of visibility they have achieved... without being de-platformed by the mainstream social media vehicles, means they are establishment assets. You are simply not permitted to play a prominent role on the world stage if you are not."

Candace Owens currently has 7.2 million followers on Twitter and 5.2 million on YouTube.

As we are all battle-worn enough to know by this stage, nobody is permitted to develop such an extraordinary level of visibility unless they are establishment through and through. For contrast, I was kicked off YouTube when I had less than 5,000 followers and Twitter at less than 3,000 (I now Tweet under a different name, as I was told if I tried to open another account under my own name, it would be instantly banned).

Genuine opposition is easily prevented from ever reaching big numbers by simply being relentlessly de-platformed, shadow-banned, and unfavoured by the algorithms - and of course, by being completely ignored by the mainstream media (I asked MSM to do a big hit piece on me, to help raise my profile, as hit pieces invariably do, and even though I went to all the trouble of writing it for them, they have still failed to oblige).

So, the only reason Candace has been permitted to build up such phenomenal visibility, - in mainstream and social media alike - is because she's an in-the-club asset, and now, the purpose of her in-the-club mission is coming to full fruition.

She basically fulfils the same purpose as all prominent CO - to make conspiracy theorists look deranged and dangerous, and hence, prompt the demand that we need more laws to stop them.

Note that a lot of Zionist assets pretend to be wildly antisemitic, in order that the public - and law-makers - can react to them with revulsion and demand action is taken. It's pretty standard problem-reaction-solution. If, as a Zionist, you want more laws against antisemitism, what's the best way of getting them? Planting assets to be virulently antisemitic, of course, so the establishment has an excuse to clamp down on them with more laws.

There is no evidence Israel was involved in Charlie Kirk's "assassination", since Charlie Kirk so clearly wasn't assassinated, but nevertheless, Owens is perpetuating this false theory precisely so that when it's proven unequivocally to be false, the Trump administration, and even law-makers abroad, can come down on "dangerous antisemitic conspiracy theories" like a ton of bricks.

Owens is playing exactly the same game with Brigitte Macron, and her very high-profile campaign to get Brigitte "exposed" as a man.

Is Brigitte a man?

I don't know, and the point is that we can never know, because even DNA tests and so forth can be faked. So even if Brigitte produces that kind of proof (which I believe she will), Owens will dismiss it as "fake". So it's a totally purposeless argument that can never be definitively proven either way.

However, the courts and world's media will most certainly take the results of a DNA test as definitive, and hence, Candace will be made to look a very public fool, if and when the results show that Brigitte is all woman.

As if to corroborate this, Candace has made a very strange, and telling, declaration about the matter: she has stated that she is prepared to stake "her entire professional reputation" on the "fact" that Brigitte is a man.

So she is overtly telling us that, if it's proven Brigitte is a woman, Candace's entire professional reputation, including all her work and theories, will be entirely dismissible - rendered thoroughly null and void.

Why would anybody be so reckless and high-stakes with their own career? No matter how sure you are about something, there's always that tiny possibility you might be wrong (or, in Candace's case, be made to look wrong), so why would you gamble everything on this single - and not actually that important - case?

Personally, I don't really care if Brigitte is a man. A lot of "women" on the world stage evidently are, and it's thus far more important to expose "EGI" (elite gender inversion) as a whole, and the reasons for it, rather than focusing on one specific person, as if she's some kind of anomaly or outlier - and this is, obviously, especially so if she is in fact a woman.

Do you see how this could be used to discredit the entire field of EGI, as well as both "conspiracy theorists" and "TERFs"?

If Brigitte is confirmed as a woman, then it not only makes conspiracists look crazy (and cruel), but it also gives enormous ammunition to the transgender activists who claim that "transphobia is misogyny", precisely because so-called transphobia leads to real women being persecuted and falsely accused of being trans, when they are not (this is ultimately what I think the 'bathroom battles' are about, too).

In other words, Candace Owens is immaculately embodying all of the worst and most extreme stereotypes of the "far-right Nazi transphobic conspiracy theorist", in order to ultimately discredit alternative and right-wing thinkers.

This is not particularly surprising when you dig a little into Owens' background.

Candace Owens was first launched into the public eye, just like Charlie Kirk, at the tender age of 17. She was presented, as one article says, as "the new Rosa Parks", after allegedly experiencing racism at school. The article continues:

"The NAACP came to  Ms. Owens' rescue by representing the Ms. Owens  family, who sued the Stamford Board of Education in federal court, alleging that the city did not protect her rights, resulting in a $37,500 settlement in January 2008.  Was this a contrived false flag?  Candace Owens gave a TEDx talk on the subject--which has been suspiciously scrubbed from the internet and TEDx talks archives."

It goes on:

"Candace Owens pursued an undergraduate degree in journalism at the University of Rhode Island then dropped out, similar to other, Deep State players, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Lex Wexner, etc-- no time to waste in University."

Charlie Kirk also dropped out of university, going on to instantly found multi-million dollar conservative advocacy organisation, Turning Point USA, at the age of just 18.

Owens then went on to complete a highly-coveted internship for Vogue magazine (a position usually reserved for top graduates), before becoming the CEO of Degree 180 at the age of just 26.

Whilst resident in this position, she was a staunch left-winger, writing in 2015 on the company's blog about the "bat-shit-crazy antics of the Republican Tea Party," adding, "The good news is, they will eventually die off (peacefully in their sleep, we hope), and then we can get right on with the OBVIOUS social change that needs to happen, IMMEDIATELY."

Well, her organisation (rather like Charlie Kirk's) certainly turned out to have a prophetic name, when Ms. Owens appeared to do a complete "180" herself, declaring in 2017 that she became a conservative "overnight".

By May 2018, according to this source, she "was hobnobbing in Jerusalem with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump at the opening of the US Embassy there."

Jared Kushner, being a hardcore Zionist and generous donor to orthodox Jewish movement, Chabad (and Ivanka a Jewish convert), this would rather seem to corroborate my theory that Owens is an undercover Zionist plant tasked with behaving as "antisemitically" as possible in order to induce revulsion against the terrible scourge of antisemitism which we will need a lot more laws to stop.

Ditto the terrible scourge of transphobia, when poor, persecuted real women - and elderly women at that - like Brigitte Macron get brutally harassed by deranged ghoulish conspiracy theorists such as Candace Owens.

See? It serves the ruling classes perfectly. The ruling classes that Candace is indubitably a member of, through her high-profile roles starting from a young age, and, of course, through her marriage.

Candace's husband, businessman George Farmer, is a member of the British aristocracy as the son of the Lord Farmer, Baron of Bishopsgate, life peer and former treasurer of the Conservative Party.

Baron Farmer has publicly responded to his daughter-in-law's "antisemitic" comments, stating:

"As a teenager, growing up in the wake of WW2, I became very aware of the cruelty meted out, before and during that conflict, against Jewish people – because they were Jewish. I found it impossible to comprehend how humans could, intentionally, be as cruel as possible to others. Then, as a young man, I worked with many Jewish people in the city: the boss in one of my first jobs had come to Britain on a Kindertransport. I often experienced kindness and thoughtfulness from Jewish friends as well, at a time when I had few close relationships.... To conclude, I should point out that I am the Christian Deputy Chair of the Council for Christians and Jews. This was founded in 1942 as a bulwark against antisemitism, and our monarch has always been its patron."

So, is it more likely that Owens is genuinely publicly challenging her immensely wealthy and powerful father-in-law with her rabidly anti-Jewish views... or that their views are, in reality, exactly the same, and she is just playing the role of "crazy antisemitic conspiracy theorist" on the world stage, for the reasons laid out in this article?

Similarly, is she giving the Macrons such a high-profile platform to publicly discredit her, by "staking her entire professional reputation" on the theory that Brigitte is a man, when she knows full well that Brigitte will be able to prove otherwise?

Time, as it notoriously has a tendency to do, will tell.

Thanks for reading! This website is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.