5,008 words
I wanted to believe it so badly. But the story was too delicious, too outrageous to be true. We are talking about the recent conspiracy theory according to which Brigitte Macron, the wife of Emmanuel Macron, is in fact a man.
However far-fetched it may sound, it is currently doing the rounds in American and French media after being presented to a mass audience by black influencer Candace Owens (6.8 million followers on Xitter) in a six-part series on YouTube (part 1 has 3.8 million clicks to date).
It has received further exposure through advertising by Tucker Carlson, arguably the most influential American conservative journalist at the moment. (Meanwhile, also Joe Rogan has taken the bait, so the whole thing will probably soon become “alternative mainstream”.)
Carlson described how sceptical he had initially been about this theory ardently promoted his clever and nice friend Candace. Despite all his love for her, he felt it was “flat earth” territory that he would rather not enter.
But now, lo and behold, he is amazed to admit: “And then it turns out – she’s right! My mind is blown!” His interview partner, a former Fox News colleague named Clayton Morris, invited to shed light on the infamous Israeli attack on an American ship in 1967, enthusiastically agreed:
The Candace Owens pieces on this are phenomenal. I’m giving Candace Owens full credit for really opening up this story from the French journalists who first broke it, and then were I think, like, ostracised and basically told not to report it.
I don’t know whether Carlson and Morris sat through the tedious, more than six hours during which Owens presented the matter and “asked questions” interrupted by announcements from her (now probably very happy) sponsors, or whether they, like your humble narrator, have actually read the English translation of the book Becoming Brigitte by the right-wing French “investigative journalist” Xavier Poussard, which is now being marketed under Owens’ brand (seemingly a poorly edited AI translation; for example, the personal pronouns constantly change, sometimes within a single sentence).
Even though I only listened to parts of the series on YouTube, I was hooked and ordered the book. It proved to be a captivating and rather illuminating read that kept me enthralled for a few days, but for entirely different reasons than those intended by Xavier Poussard.
What’s the story? I’ll sum it up for you, so you don’t have to go down that rabbit hole.
It all started with a lady named Natacha Rey, who is described by Xavier Poussard (a frequent guest on Alain Soral’s Égalité & Reconciliation, which regularly promotes his work) as an “ordinary, self-taught citizen”, i.e. not a journalist who has “investigated along the usual methodology”.
She was irritated by Brigitte Macron’s “unusual” physique, as she wrote on Facebook:
[T]he width of her neck, her shoulders, the length of her ribcage compared to her narrow, waistless lower body. Hence this unbalanced silhouette, her virile gait always with long strides, this way of sitting naturally with her legs apart.
The striking, somewhat harsh and masculine appearance of Brigitte Macron (born 1953) is one of the reasons why the transgender theory seems instantly plausible or at least conceivable to many people. Another is the unusual optics of the Macrons themselves.
Emmanuel Macron (born 1977) is a handsome, relatively young man who looks a bit like Alain Delon. Since 2007, Macron has been married to a woman who is almost 24 years older than he is and who, in terms of age, could be his mother.
Since the sexual attractiveness of men fades more slowly than that of women for biological (and socio-biological) reasons, this is a constellation much less common than the opposite-sex variant. The story is made even more unusual by the fact that the love affair had already begun when Emmanuel was still a teenager and Brigitte was his 40-year-old teacher.
On top of that, the couple presents themselves in an extremely “LGBTQ”-friendly way, and Macron, apart from repeating rumours, has a certain narcissistic, suspiciously homosexual aura about him (this is my impression at least). And I guess you have all seen the photos of him embracing sweaty, half-naked black thugs with visible excitement gleaming in his eyes. Whatever the case may be, there seems to be something odd about him and his sexuality.
In the 2018 documentary Un Roman Français by Virginie Linhart, Natacha Rey came across a photo of the Trogneux family (Brigitte’s maiden name) from 1954 that seemed suspicious to her.
It was supposed to show baby Brigitte on her mother’s lap, but Rey had the impression that another person on the far left of the picture looked much more like Brigitte today, even a “spitting image”. As it turned out later, this is “officially” Brigitte’s older brother Jean-Michel Trogneux, born in 1945.
The first version spun by Natacha Rey on the basis of this intuition was as follows: Brigitte is in fact the boy on the left, not the baby on the right in the photo. After a sex change, this Jean-Michel called himself “Brigitte” and is identical to the Brigitte Macron we know today.
Before his “transformation” (still according to Natacha Rey), Jean-Michel fathered three children with a woman named Catherine Audoy, who are now considered Brigitte’s official offspring from her first marriage to a banker called André Auzière: Sébastien (1975), Laurénce (1977) and Tiphaine (1984).
According to Rey, they carry the surname “Auzière” because they were adopted by a man named Jean-Louis Auzière when he married Catherine Audoy. “Brigitte Trogneux” and “André Auzière” are merely fictitious characters in this version of the story, invented to conceal Brigitte’s true identity and biography.
According to Mr. Poussard, the following occurred: In June 2021, Madame Rey sent Madame Audoy two sets of photos via WhatsApp which were supposed to prove that Jean-Michel is identical to Brigitte and Jean-Louis is identical to André, accompanied by the words “I know everything. I know everything about you, Jean-Michel, Sébastien, Laurence and Tiphaine!”
Three weeks later, the police were at Rey’s doorstep, arrested her and subjected her to a harsh interrogation, during which she was threatened and harassed. At least that’s how she told it (among others) to journalist Emmanuelle Anizon, who wrote a book aiming to debunk the “fake news” of this conspiracy theory.
Poussard reports also that, after Rey named him as one of her journalistic contacts, his house was searched and the webmaster of his own site Faits & Documents (which had taken up the theory in May-April with a large dossier) was arrested.
Natacha Rey got into trouble again when she presented her accusations and theories about the identity of Brigitte Macron in epic detail in a four-hour (now deleted) YouTube interview (which was simultaneously streamed on Twitch, Facebook, VK and Odysee) with a clairvoyant who goes by the stage name Amandine Roy on 10 December 2021.
Both ladies with the “royal” surname were sentenced to pay damages of 8,000 and 5,000 euros respectively to Brigitte Macron and her brother Jean-Michel Trogneux, who, together with the Auzière offspring and his sister, was one of the plaintiffs – and thus, apparently, does actually exist.
These harsh reactions naturally fuelled the zeal of the amateur detectives even more. Had they really uncovered a state secret? And why, why didn’t Brigitte just publish documents that would confirm the identities of everyone involved beyond any doubt, why no photos from her “former” life as Madame Auzière and mother of three children? That would have settled the matter once and for all!
The lack of publicly available photos and documents from the time before Brigitte Trogneux-Auzière met Emmanuel Macron is one of the main suspicions of “conspiracy theorists”. They suspect that something is being deliberately hidden.
The perception that little material is available about Brigitte’s life as Madame Auzière is apparently accurate. The family seems indeed to be very keen to keep their private affairs out of the public eye. Poussard quotes Virginie Linhart, the director of Un Roman Français:
The interviewees, apart from her former students, all had the authorization of the Élysée Palace and were very careful about what they said. There is a thick wall of silence. The level of control and checking is, well, quite astounding. (…) [The film] is a 90-minute very personal portrait. For it, I needed photos of young Brigitte Macron, small children… that would show an itinerary, not those approved by the Bestimage agency. What doesn’t come out is everything to do with her past life. It’s a total blackout.
I guess this is another reason why the theory catches on with many people: Poussard & Co are undoubtedly right when they emphasise that both Brigitte Macron’s and Emmanuel Macron’s public personas are media-made shiny facades.
Macron, originally an investment banker in the service of Rothschild & Co., was from the outset a kind of “test-tube” politician, carefully groomed and pulled out of the hat to be presented to the electorate in 2016 as a centrist saviour from the “right-wing populist” danger. Jacques Attali, a grey eminence of the globalist elites in France, even openly boasted: “I discovered Emmanuel Macron. I invented him.”
The media offensive in favor of Macron also had to present his strange relationship with Brigitte in a palatable way. This apparently involved a number of “cosmetic corrections” (such as Emmanuel’s age when the two met), which the investigators are now pouncing on. As is so often the case, the driving force is a profound mistrust of the ruling political elites, which is of course completely justified.
In the wake of the first version of the theory, which spread like wildfire on social media, various investigators set out to either refute or confirm it.
Poussard as well found birth announcements of Brigitte Trogneux (mentioning her brother Jean-Michel) in old newspapers, as well as of Sébastien, Laurence and Tiphaine, of course under the name “Auzière”. When he confronted Natacha Rey with this, she dismissed all these finds with the same old answer: “It’s all fake!”
Now that there was sufficient confirmation that Brigitte Trogneux and Jean-Michel Trogneux are (or at least were) two different people and that Brigitte had indeed married a real, now deceased man named André Auzière in 1974, the theory had to be modified.
In the revised version by Xavier Poussard, it now reads as follows: a Brigitte Trogneux, born on 13 April 1953, did in fact exist. She is the person who can be seen on the few photos that officially show today’s Brigitte Macron before 1986: the family photo from 1954, a first communion photo from 1963 and a wedding photo from 1974 published in April 2019 in the magazine Le Point.
And now comes the banger. According to Poussard, this Brigitte Auzière née Trogneux is not identical to the Brigitte Macron we know today.
This Brigitte Auzière is said to have died sometime in the 1980s. After that, her brother Jean-Michel took over her identity. Brigitte Macron is therefore not the mother, but the aunt (or rather uncle) of Sébastien, Laurence and Tiphaine. So there are two Brigittes in this mysterious family saga, a real one (Trogneux), who has died; and a false one (Macron), who has assumed her identity.
This is the crux of the matter, on which Poussard’s theory stands or falls, and it is precisely what he is unable to substantiate or prove in any way.
Since there is no death certificate for Brigitte Trogneux and no grave, her family must have covered up her death. How is that possible? Was there no one outside the family who noticed her disappearance? Was there no one who noticed that a completely different person was now acting under her name? And what happened to her body? Was it buried in the Auzières’ garden?
As outlined in the book, all of this is pure invention, to fill the crucial gap in the theory of how Jean-Michel could become Brigitte. Because we have no proof whatsoever this supposed “identity theft” actually happened, we are left with our own imagination. Poussard speculates that maybe the real Brigitte Trogneux “knowing she was doomed by a serious illness, entrusted the custody of her children and her identity to this brother to whom she was so close and who had always felt like a woman.”
But such an improbable, melodramatic scenario still doesn’t explain why this whole manoeuvre was carried out and why the entire Auzière-Trogneux clan went along with it.
There is now another complication for Poussard’s theory, one that completely undermines it.
In January 2022, the journalist Jonathan Moadab, a Jewish (yet anti-Zionist) opponent of Macron who has written for the conservative weekly Valeurs actuelles and RT France, published a number of documents proving that Jean-Michel Trogneux is not only a real person, but that he still lives in Amiens under that name today: An extract from the birth certificate, an entry in the city’s electoral roll, and a marriage certificate from 1980 documenting Jean-Michel’s marriage to a certain Véronique Dreux (with Brigitte as the maid of honour). In a footnote, Poussard himself confirms the existence of a social security number and a car and licence plate under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux.
Moadab reported that he visited this Jean-Michel Trogneux at his official, easily found address in Amiens (where there is also a Trogneux family shop), but that he refused to speak to him.
Finally, Moadab published a video of Macron’s inauguration on 14 May 2017 at the Élysée Palace, in which a man can be seen who he claims is none other but Jean-Michel Trogneux, identical to the gentleman he saw face to face in Amiens. This man appears in several photos and videos of official events with the Macrons.
Poussard is naturally not satisfied with this. Where is the proof, he asks, that this man, whom he refers to as “the chubby guy” (le petit gros), is the same person who lives in Amiens under that name and who turned away Moadab at the front door? He has no explanation (not even a theory) who le petit gros or the guy named Jean-Michel Trogneux in Amiens really is (Ockham’s razor: he is Jean-Michel Trogneux, Brigitte Macron’s brother, née Trogneux, and also the “chubby guy”).
And now enter Poussard’s big trump card. Since the whole theory is based on perceived similarities, which are often interpreted very subjectively depending on the observer, he examined the existing photos using the Chinese facial recognition software Face+++.
Stamp-sized black-and-white reproductions with the AI’s assessments take up a considerable part of his book, including comparisons with the youth and old age photos of several celebrities from Brigitte’s generation (like Kim Basinger or Isabelle Huppert) or Jean-Michel’s former schoolmates.
(Almost) every time, the AI provides him with the desired – because suspicious – results. Some other childhood portraits of Jean-Michel that Poussard tracked down show between 57.73% and 66.97% similarity with “the chubby guy.” The similarity of these images with pictures of the later and present Brigitte is however only slightly higher, between 62.2% and 68.29%. Matches between the 1974 wedding photo of Brigitte Auzière and various photos of the present Brigitte Macron range between just 48% and 57.7%, which Poussard presents as proof they are not the same person.
Funnily enough, there is no AI comparison between the photo of Jean-Michel which started it all (the family photo from 1954) and photos of today’s Brigitte. Poussard merely mentions in a footnote that both “Brigitte” and “the chubby guy” only achieved a 55% match with the family photo boy.
According to Poussard this picture is unusable anyway, because Jean-Michel’s teeth were “obviously” changed afterwards to match the “repaired” teeth of today’s Brigitte (also a lampshade was retouched!!). Of course, this makes no logical sense, because the conspirators would rather seek to obscure the traces between Brigitte and Jean-Michel than to align them.
It is obvious, of course, why the AI method is weak evidence. The poor quality of the photos, the camera angles, the facial expressions, the fact that Brigitte has had several facelifts, etc., all this naturally affects the results.
The “bombshell” that is supposed to dispel any doubt finally explodes on page 287 (of the English edition). Candace Owens and Xavier Poussard present this find as the great, decisive proof that should convince even the last sceptic.
After a long, obsessive search, Poussard finally managed to recover a youthful portrait of Jean-Michel from 1964 from the depths of an archive.
I can only imagine how excited, almost ecstatic Poussard must have been when he found this photo. On it, Jean-Michel indeed looks remarkably like Brigitte Macron. At least that was my immediate impression. However, I showed it to several friends, all of whom were less impressed and saw more differences than similarities.
The problem for Poussard is that Jean-Michel is wearing glasses in this picture. This ironically makes this one crucial trophy photo unsuitable for AI verification.
Poussard’s reliance on visual similarities also backfires when it comes to “the chubby guy”, whose existence creates a huge problem for his theory. Because this man, even though he has grown old and fat, clearly has features of the Trogneux family, especially in terms of his nose, ears and mouth-chin area.
Now a sceptical friend of mine, just for fun, used a Face app to make “the chubby guy” look younger. The result is crude, but bears a clear resemblance to Jean-Michel’s childhood photos. What are the chances that “the chubby guy” is just some actor with no family connection to the Trogneux clan?
So the simplest explanation is the official one: Jean-Michel from 1954 and 1964 looks so much like Brigitte simply because he is her brother. With age, the resemblance faded because Jean-Michel has gained weight and Brigitte today is a scrawny bean pole with multiple facelifts.
That would be the “Brigitte Macron is a man” theory in its essential features. I have to leave out countless details, assertions and associations that Poussard brings into play, which are without exception weak or downright irrelevant, for reasons of space and to spare the reader more rabbit hole spergery.
However, I cannot leave two particular delicacies unmentioned.
First, there is the male-to-female transsexual “Véronique”, who appeared anonymously in silhouette on a French television programme in 1977. It is striking that his voice cannot be distinguished from that of a woman (a friend of mine claims she can hear the subdued male pitch, which is impossible for me). According to the extended theory, this person is identical to Jean-Michel Trogneux and thus to Brigitte Macron.
Poussard, for example, believes that one can clearly tell from the intonation, the choice of words and the voice that they are the same person, always considering the fact that Brigitte Macron’s present voice has of course aged quite a lot since. A graphic, taken from the Audacity programme, is also supposed to prove the identity of the voices.
It seems particularly striking to Poussard and Candace (whose French is the most atrocious rape of a language I have ever heard) that Véronique uses the phrase “c’est à dire”, which Brigitte Macron has also done (and practically every living Frenchman and -woman). Véronique mentions Chopin, and decades later the French press reported that Emmanuel likes to play Chopin on the piano for his wife. Do you need more proof??
At some point, I sat there and started comparing the two voices and characters over and over again like a maniac, but without coming to a definite conclusion. Because it was so exciting, I wanted to find Brigitte in Véronique, but it didn’t really “click.”
Now, if “Véronique” is Jean-Michel (and thus Brigitte Macron), then Poussard’s theory faces serious problems (which he doesn’t seem to realise). The moderator explicitly states that Véronique has already had her operation. She, in turn, explains that “women” of her kind can “copulate, but not procreate” (copuler, mais pas procréer).
However, according to official documents that Poussard not only does not doubt but incorporates into his narrative, Jean-Michel Trogneux married in 1980 and fathered two children. How was that possible if Véronique had already been “post-op”? Did she retain her reproductive organ? And did she re-identify as a man for the purpose of the wedding?
Neither Poussard nor Owens bother to explain, let alone address blatant inconsistencies and contradictions like these. They simply sweep these elephants under the rug. Poussard wriggles his way out by evasively stating that Jean-Michel and his wife “declared” these two children as theirs “whatever the materiality of the couple they formed.”
As for Jean-Michel’s children, they lead us to the second delicacy, the absolute cherry on the top of the theory cake.
His son Jean-Jacques Trogneux, born in 1982, bears a striking resemblance to Emmanuel Macron, according to the unmaskers. At least in some photos of Jean-Jacques, such a similarity can indeed be seen; see for example this sample poll video shot in a French city centre – almost everyone questioned immediately associates Macron with the image of Jean-Jacques.
But what would be the implication? Poussard only hints at it: since he also believes that there are gaps and inconsistencies in the biography of Emmanuel Macron, the whole thing implicitly amounts to the fact that Macron and Jean-Jacques Trogneux are related, possibly half-brothers, possibly both sons of Jean-Michel.
And because Jean-Michel, as we all know now, is in fact Brigitte, this in turn would mean that Emmanuel married his own sex-changed father.
To add fuel to this mind-boggling suggestion, Poussard gives his book an epilogue about “The Blood of the Rothschilds”, whose long-lived dynasty he attributes to extensive incestuous-endogamous practices. In doing so, he relies on statements from Nathalie Reims, the cousin of David de Rothschild, who in turn is one of Macron’s most important supporters.
I’ll leave out the references to Satanism (Satanists also love incest, as you all know) and a wedding cake that is supposedly decorated “with the horns of Baphomet” (they look more like an antelope antlers). Paedo-satanic allegations of course belong to the standard repertoire of QAnon and related conspiracyland flavors. Poussard does not explain what this mixture of sinister allusions, which he tries very hard to link to his theory, is supposed to really mean.
Politically, of course, the Brigitte thesis boils down to bringing down the French arm of the global “cabal” by exposing this one swindle (which, if true, wouldn’t be that evil after all in my humble opinion, unless you are buying into the “statutory rape” and “paedophilia” frame Poussard and Owens are trying to impose on the story, which I don’t.)
In this script, Brigitte Macron is not just a transsexual (like supposedly Michelle Obama), but a puppet-master connected to the Rothschild clan, paedophile rings and the LGBTQ mafia, who truly rules the Élysée Palace while the gay, weak-willed cocaine-addicted Emmanuel is just a puppet. This probably also explains the missionary, fanatical zeal of the devout Catholic Poussard (Owens is a Catholic convert as well).
I have the impression that Poussard is seriously, almost religiously convinced of the truth of his theory and sees himself as a kind of crusader of God. The introductory page to his chapter “Looking for Jean-Michel Trogneux”, in which he – after 240 pages – gets to the heart of his research, is heraldically adorned with quotations from Nietzsche, Chesterton, Malraux and Pierre Schoendorffer (a film director much appreciated by French right-wingers), all of which revolve around the theme of lies and truth.
Owens, who is far less clever than she and her fans think, is probably sincerely convinced as well, but she is also an extremely business-minded American who has stumbled upon a goldmine for her sponsors.
Since people like Tucker Carlson are now picking up this theory and promoting it, it is becoming “respectable”, if not proven, in parts of the right-wing bubble. But as I have shown, this is not the case at all. Rather, it is one of the most poorly reasoned conspiracy theories I have ever seen (and I’m a staunch 9-11-Truther and Oxfordian). Carlson and Owens have (once again) done significant damage to the reputation of the “alternative media.”
This is, of course, only in the eyes of that remaining minority for whom content is more important than mere click quantities. Exciting, sensational stories like the Brigitte Macron theory will always have a greater reach than sober analysis and factual presentations.
I realise that the label “conspiracy theory” is often used as a weapon to ridicule dissidents and critics of the powers that be. Any doubt that the rich and powerful of this planet may be something other than benevolent humanists and democrats will earn you this badge of shame. As a means to stigmatise doubters and adversaries it has grown weak however, mainly because it has been overused. During the Covid years we often saw “conspiracy theories” turn miraculously into truth after only a few months or even weeks.
My own approach to any “conspiracy theory” would be simply to check how strong its arguments are. It would be foolish to deny that conspiracies, false flag operations, media manipulations and cover-ups really happen. Also, the problem of cognitive bias is a general human phenomenon, not just of “conspiracy theorists” but also of their “debunkers.”
In this respect, Poussard is, in my opinion, a fascinating case. Becoming Brigitte is meticulously researched, with endless detailed biographies of the main and supporting actors in the drama, both in the text and in the footnotes.
But as a critical reader, you constantly stumble over Poussard’s distortions, suggestions, insinuations, interpretations, plot holes and cognitive twists until you almost get dizzy or want to throw the book against the wall in anger.
Poussard reminded me of two characters in films: on the one hand Jake Gyllenhaal in the thriller Zodiac (2007) by David Fincher, playing a journalist who, for over a decade, manically tries to find out the identity of a mysterious serial killer (who actually existed and whose case was never solved).
His obsessive search leads him into a labyrinth of clues, suspicions, bizarre coincidences, false tracks and dead ends. When he believes he has finally identified the culprit, he escapes again, this time for good.
The other is David Hemmings in the arthouse classic Blow Up (1966) by Michelangelo Antonioni. A hip fashion photographer in 1960s London becomes obsessed with the idea that a few photos taken by chance in a park show evidence of a murder.
To this end, he makes ever larger prints (“blow ups”) of details of these photos, until only the grain can be seen. He does indeed find a body in the park one night, but it has disappeared the next day. The film leaves it open whether his imagination has played a trick on him or whether he was really on the trail of a murder case.
I see Xavier Poussard as someone who, based on his subjective perception, has become fixated on an idea and built a house of cards of cathedral-like proportions on it, which grows ever larger the more “indirect” evidence he finds to support the structure.
Like the characters in Fincher’s and Antonioni’s films, what he is looking for eludes him every time he finally thinks he has it in front of his nose. After a long search, he finds a phenomenal photo that seems to confirm all his theories, but he cannot use his main tool, the Chinese facial recognition software, because the object of his search is wearing glasses in the photo.
He repeatedly comes into contact with supporting actors of the drama who refuse to provide him with evidence even when he promises not to publish it and to withdraw his claims if they are conclusive. As a reader, you find yourself rooting for Poussard as he plunges into the next and the next investigation, only to return empty-handed and with a few more speculations in tow again and again.
Towards the end of the book, this Captain Ahab finally seems to get his “white whale” in his sights. He manages to track down the phone number of Jean-Michel’s ex-wife Véronique (she has the same first name as the transsexual in the 1977 TV show!) and arranges to speak to her on the phone.
Poussard describes the essence of the conversation with Véronique Dreux, formerly Madame Trogneux, now Madame de la Simone, which lasted about thirty minutes:
“Listen sir, I have been divorced from Jean-Michel Trogneux for many years. Listen sir, I have remarried and my children are here, I don’t want any problems. But I can tell you that Jean-Michel is not Brigitte; that’s ridiculous.” (…)
I take her at her word and ask her of photos of her shared past with Jean-Michel Trogneux, promising, if they are conclusive, to close the case without even publishing them.
“Brigitte told me not to get involved. I don’t want any trouble about my children, or about uh… it’s not relevant to the family anymore.”
As I argue she should hold Brigitte Macron to account, because it’s because of her silence that her own photo, as well as those of her children (Jean-Jacques in particular) are circulating on social networks, she cuts me off and inexplicably blurts out: “… and also I know Macron’s father…. Well, I don’t know him very well. He was a surgeon at the Amiens hospital. But I didn’t even know Macron. We lived in Toulon, I didn’t even know him. I saw him at my daughter’s wedding. First time I’d ever seen him.”
I can hear another person in the line. Véronique Dreux stops, visibly embarrassed, as if she’s gone too far. She pulls herself together and asks me: “Well, and what is your name?”
The whale dives down again, the oasis has once more proved to be a mirage. I can well imagine that Poussard has been driven to madness by repeating frustrating scenes of this kind.
Now he has no choice but to stick to this story if he wants to keep face. Likewise Candace Owens, who has now stuck her neck out as far as possible, including in a full-throated tweet in which she staked her “entire professional reputation” on the claim that Brigitte Macron “is in fact a man.”
She added: “Any journalist or publication that is trying to dismiss this plausibility is immediately identifiable as establishment.”
Well, that would probably expose me as a stooge of “the elites” too.
Martin Lichtmesz is on Substack. Be sure to follow him and subscribe!
59 comments
Brigitte Macron’s alleged maleness cannot be a “conspiracy theory” because it does not involve anyone conspiring. What has happened to people’s sense of language?
Come on, it’s very simple: The “conspiracy” lies in the alleged cover-up of her true identity and the alleged reasons for it. That’s why it is a “conspiracy theory”.
I’m quite sure Brigitte Macron’s true identity is Brigitte Macron.
Obviously you haven’t even bothered to read my article.
Owens is an idiot who has no “professional cred” to lose, so that is an amusing statement she makes. Maybe Owens is a tranny, she looks a bit mannish. She should investigate herself.
I watched a few episodes of Owens’ series, and they quickly became tedious. I concluded that I don’t care whether Brigitte Macron is a man. There was a time when Owens might have stimulated some old-school Southern virtue-signaling neurons (i.e., “I know a few good negroes”), but thank goodness that phase has passed.
Another film this reminds me of is Under the Silver Lake.
The Dissident Right got excited that Owens, a black, could get away with saying controversial things that whites got punished for saying. But I think instead, over the long term, she will undermine the credibility of our arguments by cashing in on stories like this.
The Owens’ series appears to have been a money-making venture, a soufflé that fell flat.
5000 words of going down an insane rabbit hole to further prove the right wing are hysterically obsessed with transgenders.
“Satanists also love incest, as you all know”
t. Christian website
Maybe because in the last 2 decades transgender propaganda has been pushed in every western country? Perhaps leftist openly destroying the life of young white kids with chemicals had something to do with right-wing ppl being worried about this?
Indeed, it is really dishonest to say that it’s “the right wing” who is “hysterically obsessed with transgenders.”
Transbrit Claire Rae Randall’s excellent book The War on Gender accurately called these people “trans”trenders. Kids of Halloween do a much better job of being cowboy or spaceman then the extremely bizarre question mark “community.”
You need to work a bit more on your reading comprehension.
Macron being childless and with a granny as wife is weird enough. Working for rotschild also.
Social democrat party member then turned liberal postmodernist and a freemason. This are more important details. I do believe he is closed homosexual
Gimme dat old time Priory of Zion want-to-believe stuff, any day.
Why would anybody even consider going down this rabbit hole? The age difference is weird enough.
“The age difference is weird enough.” Quite so. Doesn’t shock many people in France, though.
Poussard getting lost in his own narrative is a great reminder that one must always keep tabs on the amount of time that was already sacrificed to prove an idea, to not be swallowed by the “rabbithole” created by one’s own efforts.
In my experience, the most obsessive conspiracy theorists only count info that seems to confirm their idée fixe, meaning that the longer they search for clues, the greater their conviction will become in any case, because they don’t “keep score” of all the info that contradicts or is neutral to their narrative.
My favourite example of this species is Tom O’Neill (“Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties”, 2019), who apparently wasted 20 years and got half a million dollar into debt to not find anything substantial or compelling on his case.
I disagree, he found actually quite a lot and for example can demonstrate very well that Bugliosi lied and was very likely asigned for a cover-up mission.
Where he went wrong I think were the speculations about MKUltra (Candace loves to talk about it as well) in respect to Manson.
You’re right re Bugliosi and the cover-up, I was referring specifically to the mind control angle that O’Neill introduced into the Manson saga. The cover-up and Bugliosi’s lying had already been well-established by Nikolas Schreck’s ealier investigation (The Manson File, first published 1988), and O’Neill met with Schreck early on to exchange info.
“Drawing on unprecedented interviews with those deeply involved in the case from all sides, and police evidence suppressed during Manson’s trial, Schreck exposes the “Helter Skelter” legend as one of the twentieth century’s greatest cover-ups, unveils the hidden Mafia drug-dealing background of the “Manson murders” and traces the underworld connections linking the victims to their killers.” [https://crossbankpublishing.com/product/the-manson-file-ultimate-edition/]
–
I’m not surprized that Candace Owens loves the MKUltra story. I’ve tried to get to the bottom of all the whole MKUltra mythology and it’s quite a ride. For a good overview over the historical background of its inception, I can recommend:
“Redefining Watergate: Surveillance, Paranoia and Pop Culture in America’s Long 1970s” [https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/-/media/departments/humanities/documents/pdf/dissertations/ewan%20paterson.pdf]
Basically, anti-state paranoia (de facto meaning paranoia against Anticommunists in power) was the Current Thing of the mid 70s, and MKUltra had the greatest potential for mythologization. The mind control meme was subsequently promoted by people who were, for the most part, on the Far Left (e.g. Walter Bowart, Lyndon LaRouche, Mae Brussell), MKUltra being the first time the American Left could credibly accuse the (then Anticommunist) US state of “Nazi” experiments (as some of the MKUltra subprograms were quite gruesome).
This quite political 70s background was semi-forgotten over time, as the mythology developed a life of its own, and as later on, non-Leftists with conspiracy leanings began to adopt it.
Yes, Nikolas Schreck is definitely the King of Mansonology, though the Manson File in its present (allegedly final) form is somewhat a mess (I wish it was more concise and structured). He also called out O’Neal for the weaker MKUltra part of the book.
Candace certainly loves MKUltra because it is very gruesome and dramatic and enables the wildest speculations and fantasies.
The evidence that “Brigitte” is Jean-Michel is overwhelming and conclusive, Martin has mentioned only a fraction of the real evidence: http://pressibus.free.fr/gen/trogneux/indexgb.html
Meanwhile, the chubby guy has never claimed to be Jean-Michel and never gave an interview. And of course, there are no photos of “Brigitte” as a teenager, pregnant wife or young mother. The girl seen in the family photo isn’t even Jean-Michel sister, but his niece (an illegitimate daughter of his older sister adopted by his parents).
“Well, that would probably expose me as a stooge of “the elites” too.” Correct.
There are no plot holes in the transgender case. The Pressibus investigation shows this clearly. It’s better than Poussard’s book, which cannot provide audio and video analysis. Video of “Brigitte” the teacher already shows she is a man. The Veronique interview also shows she is “Brigitte”. The ears and facial features match perfectly. We know her hair and breasts are fake, and she had surgery with a doctor specialized in transgender surgery. Martin, you have been duped.
Let’s face facts. I’ve never seen her and Iggy Pop in the same place at the same time. Coincidence? You decide…
Damn, I have never considered this! And same is true for Jill Biden and Alice Cooper if you think of it…
I had been trying to figure out who BM reminded me of…Iggy Pop! Of course; thank you Mark. Seeing that she’s a bit younger than ol’ Iggy, it’s not too late for BM (certainly not a BB, if you know what I mean) to put on some black leather for a tasteful version of ‘The Endless Sea’ on a dimly-lit street, or maybe a version of ‘Shades’.
golda meir as the trans lyndon johnson? bill maher as hugh hefner’s son?
Martin falsely believes there are two gotchas:
1) “the 1977 interviews proves Brigitte/Veronique was already operated and could no longer father any children.” Wrong: we don’t know if/when he was castrated, and he could still have fathered the children through sperm donation and IVF. In the 1977 interview, Veronique didn’t say she was castrated.
2) “Jonathan Moadab proved Jean-Michel still exists.” Wrong. First, Moadab believes the documented birth of Brigitte as the sister of Jean-Michel proves they are two separate people. Of course they were two separate people! But Brigitte died within a few years, and Jean-Michel later assumed her identity. So Moadab obviously knows very little about the case. Moadab claims that Jean-Michel still exists, but he has provided no evidence whatsoever, and the fat guy never publicly claimed to be Jean-Michel. Most other family members have given interviews, but not Jean-Michel!
The case is clear. Martin has been duped: http://pressibus.free.fr/gen/trogneux/indexgb.html
Sorry, but you have not paid attention.
1. The moderator in the 1977 interview adresses “Véronique” as being post-operation; “she” herself emphasizes that women of her kind can “copulate, but not procreate”. So I guess it is rather safe to assume this person has been castrated.
Even she wasn’t and had still a functioning penis and balls it’s rather odd to think that Jean-Michel would father two children post-op with a woman and then turn gay later in his life with Emmanuel.
2. When Moadab made his investigation the theory was still at the Natacha Rey stage 1, claiming that Brigitte Trogneux never existed. So when he and others got the proof that Brigitte and Jean-Michel Trogneux are two different people, and that a man under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux is confirmed to live in Amiens, the theory had to be modified.
Yes OK, there is no official anouncement by “chubby guy” he is Jean-Michel, and all we have is Moadab’s word that he is indeed the guy he met in Amiens under the address of Jean-Michel Trogneux.
But apart from chubby guy having clearly Trogneux family likeness, the real problem here is that there is no proof whatsoever that a Brigitte Trogneux-Auzière died in the 1980s. And that is the thing that needs to be proved before you complain chubby guy = Jean-Michel Trogneux living presently in Amiens isn’t sufficiently proved, and that this is proving anything.
No Martin, it is you who didn’t pay attention:
In the 1977 interview, “Veronique” did NOT confirm that he himself was castrated. But even if he was, he could STILL father children through sperm donation and IVF. Also, if he wanted to have children, he HAD to find a women to serve as mother, even he himself was gay or bisexual.
The chubby guy does NOT look like the child Jean-Michel at all. In fact, his ears EXCLUDE that he is Jean-Michel, but they perfectly match Brigitte (which is yet more strong evidence). Moadab didn’t show that the chubby guy is Jean-Michel NOR that the real Jean-Michel lives in the Amiens flat (other researchers couldn’t confirm it, either). Moreover, the chubby guy never even claimed to be Jean-Michel!
Yes, in the very beginning it was assumed that Brigitte may not have existed, but today nobody claims this anymore, so it is no counter-argument at all. In many ways, Moadab strengthened the transgender case, because it now is clear that Jean-Michel assumed the identity of his deceased sister (or adopted niece).
All of these points have already been addressed in the Pressibus investigation, which you didn’t even mention. If the transgender theory were incorrect, it could be debunked very easily in minutes, but it has never been debunked. No photo of young or pregnant Brigitte, no Jean-Michel confirmation, nothing.
Meanwhile, the evidence that Brigitte is Jean-Michel is simply overwhelming. Voice, speech pattern, gestures, facial details, ears, body, movements, everything matches.
“Véronique” is being presented as a post-op tranny, and that’s a fact. Of course, anything might be possible behind the curtains of that show. “Véronique” may even haven been an actual woman, being presented as a tranny. We simply do not know. All you can say is “even IF he WAS, he COULD”, “IF he wanted he HAD to” etc. These are all nothing but arbitrary “ifs” and “coulds”, but there is no evidence for any of these. And without them, they remain fantasy, and a rather bizarre one.
To my eyes, “chubby guy” clearly and easily could be the child Jean-Michel. In any case he evidently has Trogneux family features. The resemblance between Jean-Michel 1954 and 1964 and Brigitte today is not a mystery at all, if you consider they are siblings.
As for the rest, I won’t repeat myself. Even apart from Moadab’s alleged visit or the chubby guy question (CGQ), it has been sufficiently proven that a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux lives in Amiens, and he was a plaintiff in the Rey/Roi libel trial (ask anybody in the law business – this would be extremely difficult to fake). Now you are free to imagine a thousand reasons why he really isn’t THE Jean-Michel Trogneux nor the chubby guy, but there is no clear evidence here either. But if you go for “circumstantial evidence” as Poussard exclusively does, then the easiest explanation remains that Jean-Michel Trogneux in Amiens really is Brigitte’s elder brother and also “chubby guy”.
I find it a bit nuts that you would harp on allegedly lacking evidence on the debunker’s side, while there is none whatsoever for the crucial part of the story: That Brigitte died and Jean-Michel took her identity. This is not even “underwhelming”, it’s “not-whelming-at-all”.
No Martin, Veronique did NOT confirm he was castrated, merely that he was in transition. A transgender woman can still have a fully functional penis. But even if he was castrated, it doesn’t debunk anything! Your claim has clearly been wrong!
And no, the chubby guy has VERY different ears than Jean-Michel (did you even compare them?). In contrast, “Brigitte” has the exact same ears! And everything else matches, too.
The fact remains: the chubby guy cannot be Jean-Michel, hasn’t been shown to be Jean-Michel, and hasn’t even claimed to be Jean-Michel! It’s a complete non-starter.
Finally, we’re not talking about circumstantial evidence, but about direct multi-modal scientific evidence as strong as it gets absent an independent DNA test.
For whatever reason, you’re simply in denial.
Debunking a transvestigation is in itself a transvestigation. This is how it’s perceived by the outside world. This is a transvestigations article.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-wild-investigation-of-transvestigators-the-people-who-think-celebs-are-all-trans/
“Vice” is a propaganda rag and not “the outside world”. Let’s not be naive. Besides, it doesn’t matter how anyone “perceives” this topic. Only facts matter, and they are clar.
Ok then, so it is a “transvestigation” article. So what?
This is the guy Martin relies on, even though he hasn’t provided ANY evidence. Not a good look at all, Martin: https://x.com/MoadabJ . Martin, if Jean-Michel still exists, why has he never said so? Where are the photographs of Brigitte as a teenager, pregnant wife, young mother? Read the full evidence here: http://pressibus.free.fr/gen/trogneux/indexgb.html
Simply untrue, he has provided several documents that show a Jean-Michel Trogneux exists in Amiens. All your other points are addressed in my article, you may want to actually read it. They however aren’t proofs either, just clues that can lead to doubt.
As for your “full evidence” link, it is stuffed with the same inconclusive, twisted, irrelevant, false and delusional stuff as Poussard’s book.
Of course you relied on the Moadab counter-investigation. And no, Moadab showed neither that the fatty guy is the real Jean-Michel (he himself never said so!), NOR that the real Jean-Michel now lives in Amiens. Moadab’s documents don’t prove anything, and if you had actually read the Pressibus investigation, you’d have known this. Embarrassing.
Look, there is a guy called “Jean-Michel Trogneux”, and he lives in Amiens. This is proven, and also Poussard accepts it. But like you, he doesn’t believe that this is “the real” Jean-Michel, not because he can prove otherwise, but because it doesn’t fit the theory.
If Moadab’s documents don’t prove anything to you, then things look much worse for Poussard’s “proofs”, if you apply the same measures. You don’t, because you are very biased.
It is up to Moadab or you to prove that the “Jean-Michel” in Amiens (if this is his real name) is the Jean-Michel in question. Moadab could have done so but didn’t do it. The chubby guy himself never claimed to be Jean-Michel! So why just assume it?
In contrast, the evidence provided by Pressibus and others is scientific and conclusive. None of it has been refuted. Everything matches perfectly. The Macrons themselves could easily refute it but didn’t even try! It is clearly you who is biased and naive.
We know Macron is gay. We know “Brigitte” is a pedophile. We know she invited transgender dancers to the presidential palace. We know she chose transgender dancers to perform the Olympic Games opening ceremony. We know she wanted to redesign Notre-Dame as a phallus (do you really think a woman would do that?!?)
None of this is surprising if you know his/her story!
Also, if you care to read what I wrote, I do not “rely” on Moadab but on the very same stuff that Poussard himself is presenting.
So! I take it that the final consensus on Emmanuel Macron is that he has a granny fetish and that he probably watches granny porn on the internet and this passes for normal in modern day France? 🤪
We thought that Macron is a monster. It turns out he looks like a decent fellow, after all!
Now that we know this Brigitte taxpayer unit is actually a woman, France is saved! We can be relieved.
The appeal of this theory is at least clear.
In fact, I would be more surprised to learn that Emmanuel Macron himself is a man. (I prefer thinking he’s a Deep One.)
Don’t believe your lying eyes:
Clear photo evidence of a (suppressed) beard:
https://i.imgur.com/NJ2FiCh.jpeg
Men’s feet:
https://imgur.com/ov704Kf.jpeg
With “Amanda Lear” (also transgender):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GkzbMkWWUAEd2vA.jpg
Another nice one:
https://imgur.com/a/iqyyaoD
Another classic:
https://imgur.com/a/f2gvbaE
Martin has been duped. He wanted to do a quick debunk but has failed badly.
I believe my “lying eyes”, and I see just an old haggard lady who had multiple faceliftings. Many women look more harsh and masculine in their old age, some even grow facial hair. There is literally nothing unusual here, except for Emmanuel’s gerontophilia. If anything these super skinny matchstick legs are a very female feature.
I also believe my eyes when I see that “chubby guy” clearly has features of the Trogneux family and could very well be the boy on the 1954 family photo etc.
There is also no proof that Amanda Lear is transgender. It’s just a rumour that has been aroound for decades. Poussard treats it as if it was a fact.
Martin, no healthy elderly woman has this type of clear beard pattern above and below the lips and chin. Prove the opposite if you can! Few have such large feet, almost none show such male movements. The guy is obviously anorexic and we KNOW he wears a wig and fake tits (this is not even contested).
The facial features and ears of young Jean-Michel and “Brigitte” are a 100% perfect match, including small details such as wrinkles and moles. Meanwhile, the chubby guy has completely different ears (he may well be a relative, but that’s not the question!). And again, the chubby guy never even claimed to be Jean-Michel!
Moreover, “Veronique” exhibits not only the exact same voice (confirmed by frequency analysis), but also the same posture, gestures, word usage and speech pattern.
Martin, it is the official story that has a hole in it. It is a giant 30-year hole! That’s not even contested. And the transgender analysis finally closes this hole. The Macrons could *very easily* disprove the transgender accusation, but they never did!
That’s why you have to rely on shady figures like Moadab, who couldn’t disprove it, either! They only showed that the story is a bit more complex than initially assumed (JM assumed the identity of his sister/niece, and there was a Brigitte born Auziere).
Why didn’t you mention that Auziere senior was an intelligence operative involved in identity switches? Why didn’t you mention that Macron’s alleged mother was an expert in transgender transitions working for the French state?
And of course “Amanda Lear” (born Alain Tap) is transgender. This has been well established, and multiple witnesses who knew him as a transvestite dancer confirmed it. You never even studied the case, at most you read a Wikipedia article.
Martin, I don’t know why you felt you needed to write this article, especially when you obviously didn’t study the story in any detail. But it’s been a huge own goal for sure.
The case is closed: “Brigitte” is a transgender pedophile who abused a gay Macron at the age of 14. An incestuous connection is quite possible, but we don’t yet know for sure.
Look, there is no “beard pattern”. What are you talking about? In any case, as a student I worked in an old people’s home, and I saw many old ladies with impressive beards and facial hair.
Apart from that, those photos you have posted could easily be used as a proof of the opposite of what you say. F.e. Brigitte may have rather large feet (many women do), but few men have skinny thighs and legs as she has. I’m sorry to say, but you are extremely deluded to think that those photos prove anything at all.
Jesus CHRIST people, I might disagree with a lot of the takes on this Far Right site but THANK GOD not everyone on the Right believes this.
She clearer Looks And Sounds like a BIOLOGICAL WOMAN.
Sure, just like these two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IvApmtKO9U
The irony is that Jonathan Moadab calls himself a “photojournalist”, yet he didn’t take a single photo when he allegedly met “Jean-Michel”, and nobody else has since met “Jean-Michel”, and “Jean-Michel” himself never even claimed to be Jean-Michel!
What is more, Moadab himself has acknowledged that the documents he received don’t prove anything (and nobody else got them). In particular, the Brigitte Auziere mentioned in these documents isn’t Brigitte Trogneux/Macron, but Brigitte born Auziere!
All of this is explained in the comprehensive Pressibus investigation that Martin apparently knew but refused to even mention!
Martin also tries to ridicule the Rothschild connection, when we know Macron mysteriously became the youngest partner of the French Rothschild bank, and there may well be a familial connection with Elie de Rothschild (this is acknowledged even by those who don’t think Brigitte is transgender).
We also know that Macron’s alleged mother was the medical expert on transgender surgeries for the French state, but we don’t really know who his real parents are.
I’m not “ridiculing” the “Rothschild connection”, I explicitly mentioned it, and also Jacques Attali’s boasting how Emmanuel was his “invention”. I’m ridiculing Poussard’s ridiculous attempt to suggestively link incest and satanism to the Macron story via Rothschild.
I think I have adressed your fallacies and errors enough. Unless there is proof that Brigitte Auzière died “sometime in the 1980s” this is not going anywhere.
Is the subject worth 5000 words ? That something has already got to this stage as just another wrong turning… Who remembers QAnon ? And although I agreed with Greg’s views on PizzaGate at the time, I do think that wasn’t a great influence on the political landscape for us. Suddenly there’s a lot of energy looking for Satantic pedos hidden in towers instead of focusing on the serious stuff.
It’s the path of least resistance. It will keep coming up. Very tempting to certain kinds of people, and the way it animates the mob, the effort that goes into this. The noise.
“We can just expose the whole lot of the satanist… tranny…pedos… with this new…. THING! THIS TIME WE WIN.”
Many things to criticize about Macron, and I think that’s where this really comes from – this globalist banker parachuted into office against popular will, people then notice his older wife.
But you also have a black female attacking an older white female here and that’s very apparent to me.
“BUT CANDACE IS BASED. SHE TALKS ABOUT THE JEWS”
Some people need to grow up and develop, and take a break from the internet.
It may not be “worth 5000 words”, but I felt a need to clear this one up for good.
I think it was worth every sentence because:
a) the possibility itself was interesting
b) the scenario not too far-fetched
c) if proven wrong (as was the case), nonetheless a good exercise in discernment and providing insight into the minds of conspiracy obsessives (and their followers)
Right. Do you think they are satisfied? I would think as soon as we engage on their terms, pore over all their arguments, they’ve kind of already got what they wanted. To push this stuff into the brains of others, wasting their time, taking the focus off of actionable topics, while advancing their own spite. They have shifted their retarded version of the Overton window as it were. But this story was obvious mind blowing crap right from the start. The only person this story makes sense to is someone looking to attach this particular claim to someone else.
What I didn’t know earlier, but have learned, is that much of this stuff originated from women. It’s women bitching at other women who they see as a target, that they can glue the trans thing on, and then sell this conversation to men. They take advantage of one problem, the trans question, and use it as a vehicle for something else. And it’s pushing people who do have concerns about trans straight into a new black hole. It’s not dealing with the trans question, it’s exploiting it for the most petty spiteful reasons.
Their claims of ‘scientific evidence’… Is this their evidence in the comments ? Jesus.
I’m not saying the Macrons are perfect people, far from it, but those people pushing this, if this was your mother or your wife and people are creating this content about her online, all the time, trying to attach this claim to her, how would you feel ?
“No no I can prove it with science. It’s never been disputed”. I’m sure it all makes perfect sense to them. Congratulations. Great work. They’ve saved the world.
Things have always been bad online, but there has been a further mega collapse of information, filtering and quality since covid. People just believe anything that suits them or gives them a dopamine hit. And nice people, like the based sheboon egging this on, come along and facilitate this.
Why should I care? If he loves his spouse isn’t that what matters? If we’re expecting honesty from a politician, then we need to reassess our expectations. Does it seem mysterious? I’d say yes, but in the end it matters nothing to me. If they’ve broken laws, then prosecute them. Otherwise it’s a big talk to the hand moment for me.
Have my last comments been suppressed? I wouldn’t be surprised.
I summarized how Martin was duped: how he falsely thought it had been proven Jean-Michel still existed, and how he falsely thought the 1977 Veronique interview proves Jean-Michel had been castrated and could not have fathered any more children. All wrong.
I also discussed *why* Martin made these obvious mistakes.
I also showed how “Vagrant Rightist” perfectly illustrates how clueless and biased many people are who have tried to discard or “debunk” this story.
Finally, I summarized how strong and conclusive the evidence really is, how the official story has a giant 30-year hole in it, how the Macrons could easily close this hole but never even tried to.
The case is closed, and it really doesn’t matter if a few people remain in denial.
You are a liar and an asshole, Jake. You are henceforth banned from commenting here.
The very first picture on the right could easily be Steve-O’s father and the third picture progression after macron and trogneux looks like it’ll be Eddie Redmayne.
Wait. Was this all one big April Fool’s s Day joke? Say it ain’t so Joe. But it could be a really good one. I’ve been fooled for less.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.