So let's drop this sanctimonious snowflakery of rending your garments declaring some kind of "extraordinary" and "defamatory" statements about Fuentes. Fuentes is a big boy, and everybody knows that it's the price of fortune and fame, to be subjected to extaordinary scrutiny.
We know that there's a presumption that anybody who's at the top echelons in terms of fame, fortune, audience size, funding, etc. ... that AT THE VERY LEAST they pose no threat to the powers that be or their agenda. If they did, since these powers (by their own admission) control the media, social media, big tech, etc. ... then they would not have been permitted to get so famous, but would have remained in relative obscurity, like a Jeff Rense or the like. But had they somehow managed to break through those formidable firewalls, they'd simply be eliminated or, if they didn't want to martyrize them, they could hack into their computers (easily, as they have backdoors into everything) and be arrested for child porn on their computer, and hauled out of their office in the old perp walk, completely shamed and discredited, along with whatever message they had.
Distrusting them and suspecting them is not only permitted, given their potential for negative influence, but even mandatory. Presidential candidates, for instances, MUST be subjected to extraordinary scrutiny due to the great potential for harm they could pose if some scoundrel gets through, and that sometimes means some false positives. Priests who exhibit effeminate mannerisms or behaviors ... they should be submitted to scrutiny as well. Much harm has been done by the false "chawity" of "oh, my, you can't commit detraction". There's no "detraction" in pointing out that, say, this priests has a lisp, a limp wrist, and registers a 9 on the 1 to 10 gαydar, and if we notice it we even have an obligation to point that out for the public good, instead of getting into this neurotic state of pretending you don't see what you see.
Now, not all gatekeepers are necessarily willing or wittingly serving as gatekeepers, but that's irrelevant, often something that remain in the internal forum, and will be judged by God. We simply judged the ACTUAL PURPOSE and ROLE they serve. Now, sometimes their duplicity and dishonesty comes out when they blatantly contradict themselves or other stuff leaks out, but even then it's less important WHY they're dishonest than simply that they ARE dishonest, harmful, and misleading.
Some individuals can stop the sanctimonious self-righteous garment-rending about "defamatory" and "extraordinary" claims. It's morally certain that Fuentes is some kind of gatekeeper or controlled opposition ... whether it's conscious and deliberate, whether he's being used, whether his motivation is to mislead or to lie, or whether he just serves that purpose since he's out for money, paid off, or blackmailed ... we can't know that. Or he could even just, quite sincerely, be WRONG. That has no bearing whatsoever on the objective reality of what role he serves, and we leave it up to God to judge his interior dispositions and culpability.
Declaring that Fuentes is a gatekeeper does not "defame" him in any way ... as he could just as easily be a useful idiot gatekeeper, string along by his avarice or some blackmail to which he's subject, or even just sincerely mistaken. But that doesn't change the fact that he's a gatekeeper.
Topic: Candace remembers Charlie Kirk (Read 120863 times)