@Connect2First@Connect2First our internet is down - your phone tech support couldn’t help (that was Friday), has to send someone out….but nobody is available until MONDAY! It’s Super Bowl weekend - not acceptable!
NICK SHIRLEY: "I don't drink alcohol, I don't do drugs, I'm a virgin, I don't have sex with random girls, I don't have addictions, I don't have vices, so what are they going to get me for? I believe in God. I'm religious. I'm everything that they hate."
Dear Alex,
@RealAlexJones
If one were a gentleman with basic manners and understood the history of the suppression of freedom of speech and the mechanisms of slavery, one simply would not act in the way that you and others seem to be acting.
You are far from alone in such actions.
There is a particular moment when a free voice stops being argued with and starts being diagnosed.
It is an unmistakable tell.
The facts are no longer confronted, the reasoning is no longer challenged, and debate gives way to insinuation.
"Something must be wrong with her", they say.
"He is unstable."
"She needs help."
The Old Trick, Reheated: Psychiatry as a Political Weapon
When you suggests that Candace Owens @RealCandaceO has mental-health issues, we are not witnessing a medical opinion. We are watching an ancient political reflex try to reassert itself.
It is the reflex of capture.
This is not disagreement. It is attempted character liquidation.
And worse than that, it is not the behaviour of a gentleman.
From Argument to Asylum - Historically, psychiatry has been the velvet glove over the iron fist of power. When states encounter voices that will not bend, psychiatry is mobilised to do what censorship alone cannot: to delegitimise the speaker, rather than the speech.
The Soviet Union perfected this technique.
Dissidents were not refuted, they were diagnosed with “sluggish schizophrenia,” a convenient condition whose principal symptom appeared to be disagreement with the state.
The asylum replaced the courtroom. The white coat replaced the black robe. One could be locked away not for being wrong, but for being dangerously correct.
This was not an anomaly. It was method.
Elsewhere, political non-conformity was routinely reframed as psychological deviance. Psychiatry became a bureaucratic solvent, dissolving inconvenient truths into supposed disorders. The pattern is consistent and deeply instructive: when truth threatens power, diagnosis is cheaper than rebuttal.
Western democracies flatter themselves that such crudities belong to history. They do not. They have merely been rebranded.
The modern rebranding - Today, the asylum has been replaced by the smear, the section order by the insinuation, the padded cell by the social-media whisper. The language is softer, the intentions unchanged. “Concern for wellbeing” now does the work once done by iron bars.
To suggest that Candace Owens has mental-health problems is not concern. It is an attempted rhetorical kill-shot. It signals to the audience that her arguments need not be examined.
One may dismiss the ideas by discrediting the mind that holds them.
This is the language of institutions, not of honourable debate.
It is a trick usually reserved for committees, compliance departments, and state-adjacent NGOs. When it appears in supposedly anti-establishment circles, something has gone badly awry.
Capture Is Revealed by Conduct - Capture rarely announces itself.
It reveals itself in tone.
In habits. In the sudden adoption of the very methods one once claimed to oppose.
There was a time when questioning a woman’s sanity in public argument was recognised as coarse and unbecoming.
One might call her mistaken, reckless, even dangerous, but to imply mental instability was understood to be a breach of basic standards of conduct.
A gentleman does not behave this way.
Gentlemanly conduct is not about class or affectation. It is about restraint, proportion, and the refusal to reach for dishonourable weapons when losing an argument.
To accuse an opponent of mental illness is to concede that reason has failed.
It is not courageous. It is mentally lazy.
Psychiatry and Power: A Brief Reminder
Psychiatry’s entanglement with power is not accidental. From its earliest institutional forms, it acquired the authority to define what is “normal,” “acceptable,” and “safe.” That authority has always been tempting to those who govern.
Once such a framework exists, it becomes irresistible. Criminality can be reframed as illness. Dissent as imbalance. Conviction as pathology. The dissenter is no longer wrong, he is unwell.
This manoeuvre is seductive precisely because it bypasses debate. One cannot argue with a diagnosis. One can only submit to it.
Why This Matters Now - Candace Owens represents something profoundly irritating to the managerial class: a coherent, articulate voice that refuses to be managed. She speaks plainly. She does not ask permission.
She does not accept the approved vocabulary.
Such people have always attracted psychiatric suspicion from those who cannot defeat them intellectually.
When figures who claim to oppose authoritarianism begin deploying the same diagnostic language as the authorities, we should take notice. Capture does not always involve money. Sometimes it involves the erosion of standards, the abandonment of good conduct, and the quiet decision that expedience matters more than principle.
The line that must not be crossed - There is a line in civilised discourse. On one side lies disagreement, however fierce. On the other lies dehumanisation. Psychiatry used as insult sits firmly on the wrong side of that line.
To cross it is to admit defeat.
It is also to reveal one’s manners.
A gentleman reaches for facts, logic, wit, or silence. He does not reach for the asylum. He understands that sanity is demonstrated, not proclaimed, and never weaponised.
Final Word - The suggestion that Candace Owens suffers from mental-health issues tells us nothing about her and a great deal about the climate in which such remarks are now made. It is the old authoritarian reflex, lightly polished, deployed by those who ought to know better.
History is unforgiving to those who mistake diagnosis for debate.
And public discourse is poorer for it.
I hope this helps you Alex.
There is so much good work left for you to do. It is a shame to sully your name in this way.
Warmest Regards and a Very Happy Christmas to you and may you receive, all the blessings of the season.
John and Irina Mappin.
@ImMappin
P.S. For those reading this letter who would appreciate simplicity in this matter. Candace is simply seeking clarity over who killed her friend Charlie Kirk, what happened that day and why.
She has some valid questions.
If you can help her get them answered please do so.
You can watch her entire investigation on her U tube Channel.
If you can help her debunk any of the information that is coming to light, please do so.
She would appreciate it.
Just do so politely and with grace, with honesty and with accuracy and we are sure that any disruption that naturally occurs when someone is publicly executed and such a crime is investigated for the truth of what happened, will be kept to a minimum.
N.B. Dont lie.
N.N.B. Don't cover up the lies of others.
I hope this communication is received in the spirit with which it was written.
There are one or two others that might do well to understand this so perhaps you might share it with them too.
Thank You.
🚨Candace Owens Just Dropped The Most EXPLOSIVE New Timeline Yet On The Charlie Kirk ASSASSINATION — and it’s DARK.
On July 11, Tucker Carlson went completely off-script at TPUSA, torching Epstein, foreign armies, and Bill Ackman’s mysterious billions. Tucker later told Candace it “just came out of his mouth” — no plan, almost spiritual.
Days later: Egyptian government-linked “yellow planes” suddenly fly to Nebraska → secret off-record meetings → Nebraska announces massive Egypt trade deal. Planes hit Wilmington (classic money hub) then back to Cairo.
End of July: Pro-Israel mega-donor Y Rifi inexplicably becomes the #1 sponsor of Charlie’s Fall Tour — super late, after the tour allegedly wasn’t even planned.
Early August: TPUSA suddenly demands Charlie only speaks in open-air amphitheaters (specifically the UVU courtyard).
Then the undenied bombshell: Benjamin Netanyahu personally calls Charlie Kirk and offers to “take Turning Point to the next level.” Candace: “In exchange for WHAT?”
Charlie says NO.
Ten days later the Egyptian planes return — same weird route through Wilmington.
French Foreign Legion training in CA ends. “Operation Valhalla” military-civilian drills in Minnesota. Massive US-Egypt “Bright Star” joint op begins.
Sept 2: Charlie suddenly demands a full DOGE audit of Turning Point’s finances and brings in a new COO.
Sept 10: Charlie is assassinated in broad daylight. Same exact day Operation Bright Star officially ends.
Candace’s haunting question: What did Charlie learn from Netanyahu’s offer that made him suddenly terrified about where the money was really coming from and going to?
He turned down the deal. He died with his soul intact.
No one — not Charlie’s team, not TPUSA, not Netanyahu’s office — has denied that phone call happened.
This isn’t conspiracy theory. This is a timeline they don’t want connected.
Pray for Candace. She just painted the biggest target on her back for laying this out.
FOLLOW @RealCandaceO and Watch Her Latest LIVE to find out more. Link posted in the comments below.
I used to love my wife because she earned it.
When she was kind, I was kind.
When she respected me, I respected her.
When she didn't—I didn't.
Marriage was a transaction.
A balance sheet.
I gave what I got.
Nothing more.
Then one Sunday our pastor said something I couldn't shake.
"The way you treat your wife is the way you treat the Lord."
I thought he was being poetic.
He wasn't.
That night I looked at my wife.
Really looked.
She was exhausted.
The kids had been brutal.
The house was chaos.
And I was keeping score.
Waiting for her to earn my kindness.
That's when it hit me:
I wasn't loving a woman.
I was worshiping myself.
Every act of service I withheld was worship I stole from God.
Every cold shoulder was an altar to my ego.
Every "she started it" was a prayer to my own righteousness.
Marriage isn't a contract between two people.
It's an offering to the One who made them.
I started loving her differently.
Not because she deserved it.
Because He does.
I served her when she didn't thank me.
I pursued her when she pulled away.
I led when I didn't feel like leading.
Not for applause.
For an audience of One.
She noticed.
Not right away.
But one night she said:
"You're different. What happened?"
I told her the truth.
"I stopped loving you to get something back."
"I started loving you to give something up."
She didn't understand at first.
Now she does.
When you love your spouse as an act of worship
Everything shifts.
The scoreboard disappears.
The transaction ends.
And marriage becomes what it was always supposed to be.
A daily death to self.
A living sacrifice.
An act of worship disguised as a Wednesday night doing dishes.
Your spouse isn't your enemy.
They're your offering.
Treat them like one.