Intelestia

⚡

Truth. Integrity. Honor.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@IgnoredMomof2 @RealCandaceO @grok who is lying in this thread? @IgnoredMomof2 or @intelestia

[Intelestia @intelestia]

You wrote exactly what I said you wrote. Screenshot attached.

Now you are denying it and shifting to an entirely different topic, again.

So either you replied to the wrong thread, or you are lying, much like Candace often does.

I replied respectfully and would not have done so if I had realized I was dealing with someone relying on lies, deflection, and insults instead of honesty and good faith.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

You are posting under a thread that provided screenshots of a direct lie.

I also supplied a video documenting numerous lies with dates.

I would understand a response like, “Humans lie sometimes.” That would at least be honest. But you are ignoring direct evidence and stating affirmatively that she does not lie, then changing the subject.

I have no issue responding to your question in detail but that only works if both people are acting as honest brokers. That means acknowledging what is directly in front of you before moving on.

You can still be a fan of Candace and also admit she has been exposed lying many times. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I am not saying she lies every sentence. Most humans lie at some point. But the claim that she does not lie is simply indefensible.

And this is not just a social media issue she has. Remember when people were exploiting eviction systems while living in luxury apartments? Candace got in on that too, claiming mold despite no company or person backing her claims. Didn't pay for months and refused to move, something she was totally capable of doing if her claims were actually true. They werent. The unit was inspected. She lied. She just made up something, stated a malicious claim as fact, without valid evidence to support her imagination. The court ultimately ordered her to pay her former landlord $21,022.89 in rent related damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

So again, I am completely open to a respectful exchange where both sides seek the truth. But that requires honesty first. You cant ignore documented lies, deny they exist, then pretend you are the rational one. Let's be honest first, always, and discuss anything you want.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@IgnoredMomof2 @RealCandaceO She repeatedly lies, assumes, and asserts unsupported claims as fact.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

Your assumptions about me are false but I appreciate your passion because we may actually agree on more than it seems.

My account history has never defended Israeli influence. I have been highly critical of Israeli influence, Islamist influence, and the Vatican. I also never said positive words about Erika or her organization. My allegiance is not to a country, religion, tribe, personality, or audience. My allegiance is to the truth.

That is exactly why I have become so critical of Candace.

I used to be a Candace fan. But I fact check obsessively and after seeing too many assumptions presented as facts, too many selective omissions, and too much false framing, I could no longer ignore the pattern. Also, Tucker and a few other personalities who went pro-Islam pointed at something else.

Her shift on Islam is especially notable because it fits the Islam influence model.

Islamist linked funding does not require someone to openly praise Islam. Their playbook is different , a more useful arrangement is: stop criticizing Islam, avoid scrutiny of Islamist linked money, and aggressively direct public outrage toward Israel.

To be clear, I oppose both. Israeli influence and Islamist influence should both be scrutinized. Never defended either, ever.

Anyone who only attacks one side while protecting, ignoring, or softening the other is not operating as a neutral truth seeker. They are either an operative or manipulated by one. Candace fits that perfectly.

When floods of invaders entered Western countries, the #1 propaganda tool was not persuasion. It was redirection.
Islam paid influence is many times more than Isreal. Now Isreal arguably is more effective in some ways but certainly not in others.

The mass migration tool made the public obsess over one foreign influence machine while another moves through politics, media, universities, activism, migration networks, and social media. It's exactly what's happening in the states. All of these personalities are enraging you to focus on ONE while the other floods the country. It's already been successful.

It is magician logic.... make everyone stare at one hand while the other hand does the work.

That is what I believe Candace is doing. She is directing attention almost entirely one way while another Islam gets a free pass. She is not the only one either. Watch her buddy’s clips too, because his narrative changed as well.

And beyond all of that, look at what she has done to Charlie Kirk’s legacy.

Of everyone attacking Charlie, Candace has released some of the most damaging material in existence. Those texts became a major character attack because they showed him speaking badly about someone behind their back. That did more damage than almost anything his enemies released.

And Candace gets paid for all of it.

That is why people need to speak out. She is not fighting for you. She is fighting for herself and she is very effectively diverting your attention elsewhere while other serious problems move forward with far less scrutiny. You've looked at other countries and thought "how could this possibly happen". This is exactly what they did. Candace will never ever ever go back to her old narratives or call out Islam again. Question why. And here are some videos of her lying and her buddies advanced handling of the agenda.

Im not against you, we want many of the same things, I just have a different vantage point of Candace after extensive scrutiny. It's great she is going after Israeli influence but watch her other hand.

Most everyone else was fooled by this same trick, the masses were led by various paid pipers

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@sjmckie @Deniseisms @CarriePrejean1 No, she misled viewers into believing she had shared direct text messages between her and Charlie after 2019.

It is not your fault for thinking she did. That was the point of the framing. She made sure people walked away with that impression.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

Theory: Bryan Johnson's illness may have been triggered by intimacy with Kate.

Hear me out. The timeline appears to line up and there is evidence that various bacteria can trigger a wide range of downstream disease states.

Given the level of intimacy these two passionate love birds likely participated in....in and out of every hard to reach inch...

it is not unreasonable to consider whether microbial exposure played a role.

There are countless bacteria we still barely understand are not routinely tested for.

So while no one can state this as fact without evidence, it seems like a serious variable worth investigating.

I call for full microbiome testing from both: stool samples, oral swabs, and a detailed breakdown of bacterial overlap.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

Theory: Bryan Johnson's illness may have been triggered by intimacy with Kate.

Hear me out. The timeline appears to line up and there is evidence that various bacteria can trigger a wide range of downstream disease states.

Given the level of intimacy these two passionate love birds likely participated in....in and out of every hard to reach inch...

it is not unreasonable to consider whether microbial exposure played a role.

There are countless bacteria we still barely understand are not routinely tested for.

So while no one can state this as fact without evidence, it seems like a serious variable worth investigating.

I call for full microbiome testing from both: stool samples, oral swabs, and a detailed breakdown of bacterial overlap.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

Even a long video of her lying nonstop on a variety of topics wouldn't wake you up:

Here:
https://t.co/OPdEDytWSr

Or back when it was a trend to fleece landlords across the country, how she participated not paying rent on her luxury unit but lost.

She sued her landlord over alleged mold, lost, and the court ordered her to pay $21,022.89 in rent related damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Breakdown:
$17,719.90 in unpaid rent and related charges
$2,657.99 in attorney’s fees
$205.00 counterclaim filing cost
$440.00 trial de novo filing cost

No one has done more to attack Charlie Kirk's legacy than Candace Owens. She is making money from it.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@AndrewKolvet Over 8 billion people on this planet and Candace Owens is the ONLY one publicly claiming she had direct intel that Bibi Netanyahu offered to take TPUSA to the next level and that Charlie turned it down.

Coincidentally, she relies on income from her claims.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@AndrewKolvet Over 8 billion people on this planet and Candace Owens is the ONLY one publicly claiming she had direct intel that Bibi Netanyahu offered to take TPUSA to the next level and that Charlie turned it down.

Coincidentally, she relies on income from her claims.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@LemmeReact Over 8 billion people on this planet and Candace Owens is the ONLY one publicly claiming she had direct intel that Bibi Netanyahu offered to take TPUSA to the next level and that Charlie turned it down.

Coincidentally, she relies on income from her claims.

Wake up.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

In fairness, on the religious spectrum, I have consistently called out Christians(and the Pope), Israel, and Islam. I have been even handed and heavily critical across the board.

You are Muslim, and you have consistently defended Muslims in almost every context while repeatedly attacking Israel.

There is nothing wrong with you being who you are but let’s be authentic. I am a neutral party who wants fairness and truth across the board. You are defending your religion and your agenda.

Both of us can coexist with mutual respect but let’s be open and honest about who we are and what lens we are speaking from.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@baxfar325 @DanBilzerian I posted screenshots of his own statements here on X. He protects Islam broadly.

That is completely independent from his own personal grievances, whatever he believes he experienced, which also only further establishes the extent of his bias.

Be against all outside influence.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@MrBeast 2,502,502 #Promotion

[Intelestia @intelestia]

Thanks for sharing understanding of your perspective. I think we agree on much of the history. Where we seem to differ is the timeline of their closeness and Candace's intent today. Possibly also the relevance of the broader topic of influence which Kirk and Candace didn't agree on. Nothing I've written has been clearly countered, so I'll approach the reply as a lateral move and with appreciation of you showing me where your mind is gravitating most on. If my points didn't stick it may be perhaps because you have issues more pressing to you and I can respect your interests.

I never said they were never close. I agree they were at one point. But undated video clips and public messages of support during major life events only demonstrate past closeness, not the deep, ongoing relationship she is now presenting.

People publicly support former friends, colleagues, and even exes all the time. That alone does not establish an active, personal relationship. How often we see someone shower others will love during a firing, hiring, or direct question.

I've pointed out several times that Candace has not produced personal texts with Charlie after 2019, despite repeated requests, while simultaneously encouraging Laura Loomer and others to release theirs. In the process, she released messages that burned Charlie's character. That is an unusual choice if your primary goal is protecting someone you deeply cared about.

The undated video actually fits my timeline question. I also noticed editing. For example, one clip from roughly 20 days before Charlie's death snipped out the part where he said, "I disagree with Candace on Israel."

I am not defending Israel. I oppose foreign influence from all sides. That is why relentless criticism of Israel while minimizing or ignoring influence from Islamic states does not look honest.

Charlie was openly critical of Islam. Candace and Tucker rarely are.

Kirk leaning toward disagreeing with Israel does not mean aligning with Candace. Charlie's own final public comments about her emphasized their disagreements. If anything, his position was closer to mine, possibly yours ...skepticism toward foreign influence regardless of its source. He was directly against Islam influence.

How do you view influence from Qatar, Turkey, and other Islamic states? Even setting ideology aside, Qatar alone has committed hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. investments while also spending heavily on lobbying, universities, organizatios etc. I oppose undue foreign influence whether it comes from Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or anywhere else.

That may be another area where we genuinely disagree, I'm interested in your perspective.

Every time Candace, or anyone else, aggressively calls out Israeli influence while giving little or no attention to foreign Islamic influence networks, I find that suspicious.

Especially because the scale of Islamic political influence is larger...all Israeli influence often appears more visible or more concentrated, heck maybe even more effective at times.

Either way, there is enough foreign influence from both sides for me to oppose both openly and consistently.

I’m against foreign influence from Israel, Islamic states, and anyone else trying to shape American policy from the outside. It seemed like that's where Kirk was at.

Are you?

[Intelestia @intelestia]

@ElleRen7 @CrossbBritt @RealCandaceO In fairness, she wrote only a few words and included a video.

If that was enough to overwhelm you, it explains why you think no one has proven anything.

You are not reading deeply or researching. A tiny post exceeded your reading comprehension comfort zone.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

That was great of you to bring up for context, in case anyone interpreted it differently.

Candace is a huge talent and Kirk ran a business. Professional friendliness is not the same thing as the closeness Candace is now presenting.

I never intended to imply they had zero relationship or were not on friendly terms. The public evidence simply does not support the level of closeness she is trying to sell.

And on the referenced 2019 text being the latest example, yes, that is a little odd.

She has been pushed to show something, anything, proving this deep ongoing closeness. Instead, she has released group texts and other people’s threads without always making it clear they were not her own direct exchanges.

Even worse, who releases private texts of someone they supposedly cared about when those texts make him look like he was talking badly about someone behind their back? Would you do that?

Of everyone currently attacking Charlie’s character, no enemy, no ex, no rival has released anything more damaging to him than Candace did.

She used Loomer as the cover. Candace pushed Loomer to release texts, Loomer did, and then Candace turned around and claimed that was not how the texts looked, springing the trap and damaging both Loomer and Charlie in the process with her own old 2019 text thread. That was a clear setup.

The entire exchange started with Candace making a very specific demand and ended with character damage.

I was originally an Owens fan until I fact checked, which is a consistent habit you can see on any topic I touch. I am not out to get her. It genuinely seems like people are trapped in a bubble and sometimes all that is needed is a gentle nudge toward the truth.

She is not all bad. Not is she genuinely good. She is human. But in my personal opinion, she is consistently participating in things that are selfserving and disingenuous.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

One of X’s biggest mistakes was allowing everyone to believe their posts deserve payouts.

The idea was noble but it massively underestimated human entitlement.

Some of the biggest personalities in the world built massive audiences for years without direct platform payouts. Joe Rogan has said he did his podcast for about five years before making money from it.

And most of these people are not pouring hours into long form content like a Rogan podcast. They are playing with AI, posting slop, and demanding to be paid because people watched their AI playtime.

[Intelestia @intelestia]

In fairness, everything you wrote adds credence to the idea that Charlie Kirk was not on “bestie” terms with Candace, despite her public framing.

I likely agree with many of your positions. Where we diverge is Candace Owens.

I originally liked her content. But I fact check obsessively, and over time it became clear to me that she is not simply making mistakes. She leans into false framing, selective omissions, and manipulative certainty. I went from being a fan who believed she simply heavily relied on assumptions too much to being repulsed by what she does and the minds she poisons. I really did not want that to be true.

The “reality” you are referencing seems to heavily concern Israel.

I am strongly against foreign influence from any side. That includes Israel, foreign Islamic influence networks, and any others.

When someone goes hard against Israel while becoming strangely quiet or protective around Islam, that does not look like truth seeking. It looks like selective bias.

About 20 days before Kirk’s death, he said in a Q&A that he disagreed with Candace about Israel. No one asked him about Israel in relation to her. He chose to name it as one of the defining disagreements he had with her.

I simply believe his words over hers, especially given Candace’s exposed falsehoods. I cannot think of a comparable pattern with Kirk.

Also, to your point about those names: Charlie Kirk publicly criticized Islam. Tucker Carlson now speaks far more positively about Islam, and Candace appears to avoid criticizing Islam while focusing heavily on Israel.

Maybe you are right that Kirk was realizing Israeli influence was a real problem. Good.

But what stands out is that he did not trade one foreign influence machine for another.

If someone is hard on one side but strangely silent on the other, I do not trust them. It defies logic not to call out both. That usually means they either have an agenda or they have been manipulated by one.

Those names are talented, charismatic, and useful for views. That does not make them honest. An invitation makes sense. It does not imply agreement.

Again, I am looking at three things:

1. Kirk’s own last words on the subject.
2. Kirk’s own actions.
3. Candace’s actions, which have been more harmful to Kirk’s legacy than anyone else.

What I do not trust is Candace’s words.