No, no, not this Brigitte!
It goes almost without saying that the “elite” referenced here is located in the collective West. It would be exceedingly difficult to associate the leading segment of any other society or civilisation, as a class, with degeneracy.
Our archetypal case study are the Macrons, the French power couple situated at the apex of their country’s political pyramid. Our French sources assure us that in France anomalies concerning the birth gender of the allegedly female member of that pair have been suspected for a long time. Those suspicions, however, have had to be voiced sub rosa, because of the establishment’s extreme hostility to any speculations on that subject.
The few investigative journalists and investigators who had ventured to question those anomalies, many of which are obvious even to the naked eye, have been hounded by the media and persecuted by the French judicial system in a variety of vicious ways. That plainly gives the lie to what remains of France’s historical reputation of being a haven of enlightened tolerance for diverse views.
American journalist Candace Owens has assembled evidence that compellingly (and almost conclusively) demonstrates that the individual passed off to the public under the identity of Brigitte Macron, the official wife of the French President, is neither Brigitte nor a biological woman.
Candace Owens’ professional trajectory parallels in many ways that of her colleague Tucker Carlson. Like Tucker, Candace laboured for many years in the ranks of establishment media until her conscience became so conflicted by the constraints on truthful reporting and honest commentary that for her remaining within the system was no longer an option. Like Tucker, Candace was able to parlay the respect and trust that she had built up over the years into an independent investigative journalism platform. There, without censorship, she can discuss topics and articulate opinions that are off limits in the discourse of the pseudo liberal democratic world of mainline journalism that had expelled her, as it did Tucker, from the ranks of its licenced professionals.
Intrigued by the rumours swirling around France’s “first lady,” Candace Owens made the bold decision to dig into the story and share the findings with her audience, which by now numbers in the millions. The result was Becoming Brigitte: Gaslighting the public, a series of investigative reports that for the first time brought to the attention of the Anglophone world the tangled web of lies and misrepresentations surrounding not just the true identity of Emmanuel Macron’s putative spouse, but also his own vertiginous (and it appears unmerited) rise to prominence and ultimately the Presidency of a major European country.
In essence, Candace’s disclosures are that “Mme. Macron” has been, so to speak, misgendered, but by deliberate design, having been born a male and subsequently undergoing surgical procedures to alter her sex. But by degraded contemporary criteria that revelation is standard fare compared to the really sleazy part of the story. It turns out that most of what we have been told about the inception of their relationship is provably false. Even the assertion in the official account that at seventeen Emmanuel was almost of legal age when he and his teacher, the allegedly thirty-six year-old Brigitte, “fell in love” is as false as “Mrs.” Macron’s official gender identity. Meticulous research has revealed that at the critical stage when he succumbed to the charms of his middle school literature teacher, Emmanuel was in fact a child of fourteen, whilst his seductress (or perhaps more precisely, seducer) was thirty-nine. Not only does that significantly increase the age difference between the lovers, but more importantly it places the affair within the legal ambit of statutory rape, even by the notoriously permissive French standards.
That, of course, is just the bare bones of the polemical contentions that Candace Owens corroborates with ample proof, leaving little room for reasonable doubt. No summary of the details can do justice to what Candace calls “a look back at the murky, hidden background of Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron,” so viewing the entire series of six episodes, culminating with the just posted incisive recapitulation, Epilogue, is highly recommended to all wishing to savour the particulars of this sordid tale of debauchery, deceit, paedophilia, and betrayal of the public trust.
For her trouble in exposing the moral rot at the very heart of French public life, Candace Owens was rewarded with a stern letter from a US law firm hired by the Macrons (“Mr. and Mr. Macron,” as she sarcastically but probably not inaccurately refers to them in one of the episodes) demanding she cease and desist from completing her disruptive investigation and threatening dire consequences unless she dropped her inquiry.
But far from achieving the desired chilling effect, the legal threat predictably made Candace Owens more determined to carry on with her investigation. In America she could afford to do that thanks to the protection provided by the First Amendment and a judicial system still largely resistant to the more egregious abuses. During the recent Presidential campaign, Owens conducted an in-depth investigation of comparable scope into the murky background of Kamala Harris, uncovering a similar mass of alarming inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies, and information gaps in the biography of the individual who was a hair’s breadth away from one of the most powerful political offices in the world. Needless to say, unwelcome as her snooping was to powerful individuals and interests, in America Candace was still free to complete her task and post her findings, unlike her French colleagues who were harassed and silenced or, like investigative journalist Xavier Poussard, had to move their family abroad to safety.
Needless to say, publication of piquant details from the private lives of the French Presidential couple is not the real motive behind Ms. Owens’ investigation or of this reflection on the results of her professional work. That is, rather, the consternation provoked by the question which Candace Owens asks in one of the episodes of the Macron series and which we could also echo: what explains the sudden appearance of so many Manchurian Candidates (the Macrons and Harris are but the tip of the iceberg) in the top political echelons of the Collective West? Who controls them through blackmail, whose orders are they taking, and what unspoken and murky agendas, totally at variance with their public commitments and utterances, are they being instrumentalised to promote?
Granted, these contrived public personae without a verifiable biography and seemingly without even much substance as human beings, are but proxies for the actual rulers, in effect only the visible, external layer of the complex and fraudulent system which governs the “Western Democracies.”
But how much longer are Western nations prepared to tolerate that farce, submitting to directives transmitted through anonymous figures of fictitious provenance and charged with a dubious mission?
