The FALL of Candace Owens w/ House In Habit, Colonel Kurtz
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: House In Habit @houseinhabit (Instagram) Colonel Kurtz @colonelkurtz99 (X) Robby Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
The fall of Candace Owens is kind of a funny thing to say considering her show has a meteoric rise over the past several months.
It's actually more about the moral degradation of Candace Owens.
And I know a lot of people, they keep doing this thing like, why are you talking about her so much?
And I think it's silly considering how prominent she is.
I'm not going to stop talking about Chuck Schumer either when he's in the news.
And the question right now that we have is, what is the purpose of the lies, the manipulations, and the destruction that we are currently seeing in the right populist movement?
And I mean, beyond just MAGA.
You've got your MAGA people.
They love Trump.
Trump can do no wrong.
I don't really agree with that, but there's a populist movement of people that are moderate to right-leaning that helped the Republicans win, helped Donald Trump win.
And what did this result in?
Well, USAID is gone.
The border is secure.
And Republicans just passed a bill to stop child sex change surgery.
However, if the Democrats win in the midterms, all of this can be undone.
Trump will be impeached, and it'll probably get bad.
There'll be committees, subpoenas, and they're going to exercise power to the most extreme degree capable.
And they probably are going to win.
And one of the reasons is everything that Candace Owens is doing to undermine the suburban female vote that the Maha movement helped bring to Donald Trump and pushed him over the edge.
And you guys know, when it comes to nonprofit fundraising, activism, messaging, you always approach the people with rapport.
What does that mean?
The least effective thing I can do is call Candace's audience retarded.
But I kind of don't care to play a game to convince people who want to live in this world where, you know, Candace is telling the truth, but she's lying nonstop.
So I could probably be more effective if I were to approach with a little bit more finesse.
But I'm just going to be honest.
Candace Owens appears.
I believe that the structure of her show is go into these conspiracy spaces where people just think Israel is controlling everything.
And then she just repeats what she hears back to them and they give her money.
And her recent grift was she went on her show and said, the Zionists are trying to kill me.
So I need you to go to my website and give me money.
Not even for anything else.
Literally, just go to my website and just give money.
And wow, she is really squeezing the teeth of the Israel conspiracy people.
The problem is she's driven a bunch of regular people insane.
They are now suffering from paranoid delusions.
And this is not me being cute.
We actually did a show on the culture where we had psychiatrists and psychologists.
And I asked them, if someone believes things that are not real, but they believe it because they read something that convinced them it was true, what do you call this?
Because typically when we say someone's deluded, we think their brain is misfiring.
And they said it's still just paranoid delusions.
Candace is injecting paranoid, delusional states into people's brains.
The question then is, why is YouTube allowing it, propping her up for so many people when what she does is clearly against their rules?
Now, let me be clear.
I am not calling for Candace to be censored in any way.
I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.
However, it is particularly difficult to disinfect the garbage when YouTube shadow bans and shuts you down and puts her on the front page.
So how do you combat?
There's the question.
Why is she allowed to say things that YouTube has clearly banned?
I mean, in a strictly mercenary sense, I guess, do you think that it's just that she is bringing in so many views and so much money that YouTube has decided just to give her a pass?
I mean, she has, what, 7 million subscribers and she's tearing it up online.
So I don't know.
You think it's more calculated than that politically?
We, like Timcast RL, for instance, typically is one of the largest streams.
We're a political off here.
I got no problem saying that.
And we did split our audience with Rumble when we did this deal.
But for years, we would be doing on YouTube, maybe like 40,000 to 50,000 concurrence, always the top spot for the primetime slot.
And YouTube suppressed our channel.
They deleted, they banned our Alex Jones, Joe Rogan episode.
And we didn't do anything.
And they made up fake reasons to do it.
And I told the people at YouTube, I said, if you just explain to me what I did wrong, we will avoid that pitfall in the future.
And they said, no.
I'm like, okay.
So they actively suppress.
And of course it's not just us.
The issue then is Candace goes on her show and she's a flat earther.
I'm sorry, she's not a flat earther or a round earther.
She's left the cult of science.
She says things that YouTube explicitly stated in their rules and in press announcements they will suppress and bar.
Not her, though.
I think it's actually pretty obvious.
She either intentionally or ignorantly is destroying the right populist movement, making people on the right go insane, and it's going to help Democrats win.
It's going to help the Democrats be able to give children sex changes.
I think the bigger conspiracy, I mean, for everyone addicted to these conspiracy spins, I'm confused why no one's looking into the head of it.
Like, to me, the bigger conspiracy looks like maybe she is part of a deeper, darker, or she's being propped up from really sinister forces because she is effectively dismantling trust within the Conservative Party.
And we're all, everybody's fighting.
If you look at Amphest last night, that's not what Charlie Kirk stood for.
Everybody's arguing with each other and fighting about Candace Owens.
Well, she's definitely distracting a lot of people with silliness and ridiculousness.
I would say, too, though, that if you look back at what she's been doing with the Macrons, that's not a political issue per se, but it seems like that is a kind of harassment that YouTube should also be cracking down on.
In her last episode last night where she had this kind of a freak show of a guest on a former military guy, but also someone who was clearly, I think, disturbed and off his rocker.
And he's saying that he saw Erica Kirk.
He claims that he saw Erica Kirk hanging out with some military guys prior to Charlie Kirk's assassination.
So I think what Candace, what has happened is that she read the room.
She was completely shredded up by her audience after her meeting with Turning Point and after she basically capitulated that day.
She read the room.
She realized that all of her hardcore followers, or most of them, were turning on her.
And so she went right back to serving them the same kind of slot that she's been doing.
And guess what?
It's working.
You talked about how her followers you think are retarded.
I looked at the comments last night on her newest video where she's going back to form and they were all saying some version of, oh, thank God.
We knew that you hadn't turned, Candace.
We knew that we could trust you and they're all back on the train again.
Candace, we'll ignore that for a second and just ask a simple question.
If Donald Trump, they couldn't stop him and he wins, the question then becomes, what else would they do?
So I can't, I'm not just going to jump to like following Hillary Clinton on X. I'm going to say, okay, the first question I'm going to ask is, what is the most detrimental thing to the right populist movement right now?
Clearly, it's the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The right has been fractured.
There's tons of infighting.
Turning point is having issues.
People are fighting on stage.
The loss of Charlie Kirk is a great unifier, fundraiser, and an electioneer.
Maybe electioneer isn't the right word, but someone rallying people to register to vote, getting people to come out to vote, eliminating Charlie Kirk was one of the most detrimental things to the populist right.
Following this, we have questions about who killed Charlie Kirk.
Looks like Tyler Robinson is the guy's a suspect.
We don't know for sure, though.
There are a lot of questions.
I think it's fair to ask a lot of these questions.
But I will say specifically, these individuals on social media who expressed foreknowledge of his assassination, and we've not got any real answers about who were these people?
How did they know?
And they seem to be left aligned, which makes sense if the Uniparty deep state wanted Charlie Kirk out of the way because they knew they couldn't defeat Trump, but they can make sure that nothing will create a new Donald Trump.
unidentified
So you have to gut the roots, rip the roots out of the ground.
And so then the next question is, with Charlie Kirk out of the picture, what is the next most detrimental thing?
And it is the destruction of Turning Point USA, the vessel that he created that was getting out the vote, that was unifying young people and making young people vote right wing.
Now, who is destroying Turning Point?
Candace Owens.
Why would the wife of a British lord whose lawyers work in a building with federal agents be trying to stop the right populist movement?
And her followers just hear the word Zionist and gargle the feces.
So I will say this with complete seriousness.
Conspiracies aside, the most destructive thing to stopping these psychotic liberal economic order warmongers and child abusers is Candace Owens.
It doesn't matter if you think she's in on it or not.
Tracking what is currently happening, she is doing everything she can, whether intentionally or otherwise, to assist the liberal economic order.
And for those that don't know what that is, following what you can look it up.
Actually, I'm going to pull it up because people don't believe this stuff.
I'm going to spell it all wrong because I'm all agitated and typing all quick.
Here we go.
Pull this up.
This is from the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations.
These are intergovernmental international elites.
This is education.cfr.org.
It exists.
What is the liberal world order?
It was created after World War II.
It is a financial system where the U.S. and Europe effectively control other countries through economics.
The Swift Payment System, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, etc.
Read about the confessions of an economic hitman.
These people want to control.
They want a singular world structure.
And there are questions about what are their true intentions.
We don't know.
Do they want to help China rise as a unipolar world power after the United States falls?
There are a lot of questions here.
The point is, these people do not care about the United States.
They view it as an economic block.
They view the world as an order in which they control.
How does it operate?
They will go to a country and they will say, we're going to give you a loan for $10 billion.
We'll put up malls, housing, food, resources for your country.
These countries then sign on and are now in debt.
They now effectively have signed on to the liberal world order plan.
And if they break from it, they can be booted from the Swift payment system like Russia was.
And this is going to cut off transactions for their country.
Or they're going to try and go like it was, they're going to treat them like the U.S. does with Iran.
Not that Iran is innocent and everything.
So what do we see?
We see things like Saddam Hussein wanting to trade oil in Euro.
What happens?
Well, we just have to go and invade and kill him.
Muamar Gaddafi wants to trade oil in gold dinar.
What happens?
We came, we saw he died.
This is the system that has been in place forever, and it is faltering, and it is breaking apart.
And it's before Donald Trump this is happening.
These people don't want to give up.
They believe in the liberal world order system.
They fear World War III will happen without it.
They don't care about the United States.
I do.
I like baseball and apple pie.
But they would break open our borders, flood the country with 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants to shatter our culture so we cannot push back and say there are things in this world that we love.
Right now, the question I have is, who is the greatest force?
What is the greatest force challenging this machine state?
And it is the right populist movement.
It is Turning Point Charlie Kirk.
It is Donald Trump.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
Who did it?
Israel?
Now, certainly there's probably a component of Israel and the liberal economic order in their system.
For sure, it's a great ally of the United States and the military machine.
But no, it's uniparty establishment, deep state, and people aligned with it.
And now who is finishing the job?
It's Candace Owens, who is married to a British lord with hundreds of millions of dollars and is violating all of the rules of these big tech platforms and getting away with it while her lawyers work out of a building with a bunch of federal agents.
So to all of her conspiracy followers, maybe they should ask those questions about how she accidentally hired lawyers who are working in a building with feds.
He had a restaurant, and when COVID happened in Virginia, they came and shut him down.
They raided his liquor.
They stole all his booze.
And we heard the story.
So we said, let's bring this guy to Tim Cast IRL so we can tell the story and we can push back on this government authoritarian BS.
And we even drove down, it was like two or three hours to his restaurant, told everyone to come, and we were going to help his business.
And we did.
And he slid the knife in my back as hard as he could because he loves Candace and he thinks the Jews control everything.
And he didn't before.
He didn't before.
Before, he was just a guy who ran a restaurant and was being abused by the system.
And we stood up for him.
How did he repay us?
He went on X and lied through his teeth about our security and what had happened.
He claimed that, and, you know, however you want to interpret this, he said, I was at Tim Poole's studio a month before that shooting happened where he got shot at.
He had no security and he didn't seem scared.
Now, here's the thing.
He has never been to our West Virginia property where the burglary happened with the shooting.
It was a staff member who fired up burglars.
None of us were working there.
This is a West Virginia property.
We have security and we had security and the doors at our studio were mag locked and we had a guy with a rifle standing next to the door when he walked in.
So the question is, why is he lying?
So this guy who we defended and helped out stuck a knife in my back on X because he thinks the Jews control everything.
Now, I don't know if he actually does.
Maybe he's just another piece of shit like Candace who says, if I say this stupid shit, people will follow me.
And that's probably the reality because he knows we have security.
He knows he's never been to our West Virginia property.
He knows I never said I got shot at.
He just made those things up like Candace did because these people are sociopaths who want clout.
There's another guy, a name I'm not going to mention who claims to be an accountant who keeps lying about Turning Point USA, claiming that there's fraud going on.
So one of the points he made was that Turning Point was giving $1.4 million for social media services to a parking lot.
It was actually is a shopping center with a bunch of different offices and buildings and a UPS store to which people said it's probably an LLC registered to the UPS store.
Or it could be that a local politician owns a bunch of these buildings and they utilize an office in a safe way to do other services from their building.
It's commercial property.
So why then would he lie and say it's just a parking lot?
Because he gets clicks from the conspirator audience who wants to hear it.
I don't know how you defeat an emergent phenomenon like this, but what I can say is YouTube is allowing it intentionally.
YouTube deleted our episode with Joe Roden and Alex Jones.
We broke no rules.
We recently got it back because I went to war and it got, I believe it got reinstated.
But they deleted it three years after it aired.
And then when I they called me on the phone and said, we just want to let you know we took it down for medical misinformation.
I said, bull fucking shit.
That was three years ago and no one had any medical misinformation in it.
I said, tell me where.
I said, I can't.
I'm like, because there was none.
There was none and you're lying.
They took down our episode.
It was our biggest YouTube podcast we had done.
Yet these people who make shit up about Turning Point and Charlie, they let happen, even though it breaks the rules.
So the question is why?
Well, I think it's pretty obvious.
The people who work at Google are largely progressive.
They're in San Francisco.
They want Trump to lose and they aren't going to stop at Donald Trump not going to prison.
They're going to say, what's the next play we have?
And it's going to say, make sure we amplify as many lunatics who will make the right look retarded.
And I called it.
In 2016, 17, 18, all throughout the Gamergate and Woke expansion, I said this.
Go watch the episodes of my morning show, this channel, and IRL.
You have two children.
I'm sorry.
You see a woman walking down the street with two kids.
Two 10-year-old boys.
One is wearing a nice little dapper suit.
Looks stunning.
The other is drenched in chocolate sauce and ice cream.
His hair is all messy.
And what do you think?
You think, that's a problem, child.
That clean-cut kid, he's the good one, right?
That's the assumption you make when you see it.
The reality is the parent doesn't let the clean-cut kid wear whatever he wants, and he's not allowed to have ice cream.
So he only looks clean-cut because the parents don't let him.
The messy kid, the parents say, you can wear whatever you want, you can eat whatever you want.
That's what was happening with the left.
They were not censoring the most extreme of the left voices.
So these lefties were coming out and screaming retarded shit like they wanted to give kids sex changes.
The right, however, was censored in every capacity.
So the only message you were getting was Ben Shapiro.
The right then looked reasonable and moderate, and the wack-aloons were suppressed.
I think they finally woke the fuck up and said, holy shit, we need to actually censor the whack-aloons on the left and not the right.
So the right looks like retards.
So they amplify Candice and people like Robbie.
I'm kidding.
unidentified
I mean, look.
Tim is a very authentic guy.
I've known him since Occupy Wall Street.
He's very genuine in his viewpoints.
But I also think Candace comes across very genuine to me personally in actually knowing that we've been lied to in the past and Charlie Kirk, the stuff that happened with Charlie Kirk and the videos and what we've been, all the evidence we've seen didn't add up.
So I actually do truly believe like Milo, when Milo came on your show and said that she's being authentic.
That's how it comes across to me, whether I'm partially retarded.
I think going through her background too and talking to sources, it's because I'm sorry.
I just think she has a pattern of destruction, anyone who's a competitor.
And I think a lot of it is personal.
It might be genuine in the fact that it's personal, but it is purely rage-filled and vindictive from what I've done.
unidentified
I haven't dug deep, but I do think unity is important.
And I think I'd love to cannot come on right now and sit with Tim and everyone come together and everyone come together because you don't want people, like you said.
You want to hear me do a great advocacy for child sexual if I can make it happen?
unidentified
I think people are fed up with, you know, a lot of people are fed up with Israel because of APAC's involvement with, you know, having a lot of influence.
Are you saying, though, Tim, that you think that Candace's current, well, and actually long-standing conspiracy orientation is a way of inoculating her conspiracy-minded viewers against what their real focus should be, the things that you're talking about?
I just think that's a little too calculated for what's really going on here, which is that we've got a woman with a raw animal intelligence, but a very untrained mind who doesn't have guardrails, and she just pings back and forth from conspiracy to conspiracy.
I can go on YouTube and I can run an ad on any video I want.
I can take your video on YouTube and I can run it as an advertisement.
You won't know what that is or why.
All you'll see on your back end is views skyrocketing.
And you'll be like, wow, I don't know why this is happening.
And you'll get paid for it.
Or I can run ads on your video so your revenue is really high, higher than normal.
So you find a fitness influencer and he's like, I'm going to do 20 push-ups right now.
I'm going to show you proper technique.
And he's like, and then that's it.
Then October 7th happens.
What do you do?
First method is spam blast the comments for five bucks on Fiverr.
You say, I need 100 comments saying Israel.
I want you to ask him what he thinks about it because October 7th is so shocking.
So he sees all these comments and he goes, man, people are really asking me.
I don't really know.
And so he's like, I'll make a video about it.
He makes a video and he says, look, guys, I know you've been asking me a lot about this.
I'm just a fitness guy.
I think it's really terrible what happened.
And, you know, I wish for peace.
I pray for peace.
What happens then?
That video, they then blast with bots to give it 100,000 views and a bunch of comments saying, I love you.
Thank you so much for addressing this.
I think you're wrong.
However, take a look at this link.
Did you hear about Israel did here?
He sees all these comments and he goes, oh, whoa.
He sees how many views he gots.
He gets.
So then what happens next week?
I'll do another one.
I'll address it.
He makes another video.
This time he says, man, it's kind of feeling like a genocide.
I mean, I'm seeing these things because he's getting spam blasted in the comments.
Fast forward two months later, a fitness influencer now is just talking about the Jews because he's making money, he's getting views, and he's bigger than he's ever been.
There's many different ways to control the system, and I can't imagine shows like mine can exist if the machine state gets back on track.
Because explaining the methodology behind mental manipulation, the bot accounts, dead internet, all of these things certainly is bad.
Now, it's possible.
I've explained this before as well, that the shows I do are pressure release valves.
The people who are smart enough to see through it get frustrated.
They ask themselves, how is it possible that the machine state gets away with all of these things?
So what do they do?
They allow a Timpool to exist, but only in a certain amount, so that the people who are looking for these answers find them, but can't actually do anything about it.
This is called the tiny room shadow ban.
We are all in a room where we are recognizing the truth before our eyes and we feel like we're getting something done, but all it really is, is the establishment machine state in control, turning the pressure release so that we calm down a little bit.
Because when people get agitated and feel like there's no future, they go nuts.
I think there were, what is it, 15, 16-year-olds that were being trafficked?
And I think the reality is the true Epstein files would implicate probably U.S. intelligence, Israeli intelligence, British intelligence, but most importantly, the Saudis.
I think that there's going to be a Saudi prince who is partying it up.
They don't have the same age of consent laws.
And so it's not that you were going to find out that a Saudi prince was abusing 10-year-olds, but 16-year-olds.
You think that if a Saudi prince was named as a part of the Epstein mess, that that's really going to have some kind of significant effect on Saudi-U.S. relations or any, or is it going to have any effect on anything important to Saudi Arabia?
I think that in the United States, the Democrats would weaponize that, mobilize, attack the Republican Party for trying to cut a deal, undermining our ability to reestablish the petrodollar.
If the news broke that Trump was working and negotiating deals with men he knew were raping underage girls, they're going to run that 24-7.
But I do also think it's a game of chicken.
Democrats know it's bad for the United States, but they're basically saying we will burn the whole thing down before we let you take over because Trump, you are changing the system as we see it.
Trump wants an American nationalist, semi-isolationist, I don't want to say I don't like the word isolationist, but secure our borders, bring our manufacturing back.
And the liberal economic order, they want our manufacturing sent to China.
I'll put it this way.
We shut down our aluminum refineries.
Why?
We cut a deal with Canada.
Canada imports from Chinese bauxite mines and Brazil, refines it to aluminum in, or refines the aluminum in Canada, and then sells it to us at a premium.
Why?
They don't even have bauxite mines.
It's all economic block trade systems.
The idea for the liberal economic order was very simple.
Trade lines prevent war.
England and France stopped fighting when trade got too thick.
Now, powerful Brits are like, I don't want to lose all my money.
I've got French manufacturers making my cloth.
The French were like, but we got British fishermen supplying the fish for our markets.
That was their play.
So I'll go back to your question.
A Saudi prince says to Trump, I do not want to be a pariah in your country.
I do not want to be banned from Las Vegas or Los Angeles or New York.
I don't want to be Epstein in your media.
Do not let them say my name.
If they do, I'm not working with you.
And Trump says, okay.
Now, I'm not saying it's only the Saudis.
Like I said, I think Mossad, MI6, and U.S. intelligence are going to be implicated in this stuff as well.
The point is, Trump wants to cut deals with powerful people whose names are on these documents in some fashion or another, and it will be bad.
Look what the Democrats have been doing with pictures of Trump with those models.
So anyway, Maybe I'm wrong, but I certainly think Trump did that because he's trying to protect powerful people that he wants to cut deals with.
Trump gutted USAID.
And why did he do that?
This was the machine that the government was able to inject ideology, our ideology, I should say our, but their, into other countries.
That was a massive, that was a nuclear bomb to establishment politics over the past 70 years.
Trump wants control of the international order in a different way to them.
They will burn it down before they let him take it.
So then, again, to the point of Candace Owens and everything that she's been doing, she is the most useful and most powerful weapon they have right now because the people who would vote for, and voting matters, it absolutely does.
The people who would make sure that Trump and the populist Republicans are in power have become, not completely, but many of them, retarded.
It's very, very bad for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
In these emails, we see some weird things.
An email that said, I found a handkerchief with a map on it.
Whose was it?
The hell does that mean?
They're clearly speaking in code.
No, they are.
Another email said, is it more fun to play dominoes on pizza or on pasta?
Well, what could this possibly mean?
It's clearly speaking in code.
One day, randomly and with no sourcing, someone on 4chan posted an image that said, pizza means boy and pasta means girl.
Totally made up.
It was then spread far and wide on the conspiracy space, resulting in people going, and long story short, Comet Ping Pong, a guy fires around into the ground.
There's no basement.
Oh my God, we were wrong.
So what really happened?
Those emails are real.
WikiLeaks published real emails.
How did they get leaked?
Well, there's reporting that one of the top-level guys at WikiLeaks received a thumb drive from someone while in Britain, while the establishment said Russia hacked it.
It is entirely possible that Russia was like, we're going to expose the machinations of our enemies in global affairs.
So what was the point of this post saying pizza mean boy, pasta means girl?
People were actually stumbling upon something legitimate.
What does it mean to play dominoes on pizza or pasta?
Well, if you're in the deep state and you find out that your assets, the people in politics that you fund and direct, whether directly or indirectly, are about to get exposed for some kind of crime, you need to ruin it.
So what happens?
You seed false information.
And as the mob is pointing your direction saying, you did something, this is weird, you dangle the keys over here and throw them and they all run off a cliff.
And what did they do?
A guy shows up at Comet Ping Pong and shoots into the floor.
What was really going on?
My assumption, what does it mean when you say, is it more fun to play dominoes on pizza and pasta?
Let's translate that and what makes the most sense.
Is it more fun to have a party on Coke or meth?
So what I genuinely believe is, when I was a kid, I grew up, people called cigarettes squares.
You're sending an email, you're in politics, and you're cracked out of your mind.
You're not going to message someone and say, hey, we're going to go on an orgy and we want to do meth and ecstasy.
Which do you prefer?
You're going to say, play dominoes with pizza or pasta.
However, what would happen if it turned out the Democrats were having orgies and cracked out of their minds and doing crazy ass drugs?
I heard a story the other day that apparently, I'm not going to name the band because I don't want to drag the wrong band, but they had in their writer a requirement for a bowl of cocaine.
Like that's explicitly illegal, but they would tell the promoters in a contract, give us illegal drugs.
What would happen if the people found out that the politicians they were voting for were whacked out of their mind on crack in an orgy?
They're never getting elected again.
So what do you do if you're intelligence and you see 10 million people all screaming, what does this mean?
You seed false information.
So they sound like retards.
And guess what?
Nothing ever came of Pizzagate.
Those questions about those emails persist and everyone walked away because a retard shot a bullet into the ground looking for a basement that didn't exist.
unidentified
Some of that art, though, was a little conspicuous.
Well, I will agree with you that that is the way that things have worked out.
And I would go so far as to say that maybe now that the powers that be like at YouTube see what's going on in terms of this woman is damaging right-wing cohesion, then they're giving her a pass.
But I just don't believe that she is some kind of a plant in a way who is working to deflect conspiratorial angst in another direction.
Yeah, so the effect of it, I'll agree with you, is that she is, well, she's basically like sucking up all of the energy in the room in a number of ways.
And she's causing these fissures on the right wing.
But I don't think it's calculated.
But I'll agree with you that the effect might be the same.
Well, I think it's fair to point out there's no point.
So let me put it this way.
I was asked about Amfest.
And are they intentionally fracturing the movement?
Like, we didn't get invited.
We got invited after the fact.
And I said, intention is meaningless to me.
The question is, what are they doing and what will that turn them into?
I believe that Turning Point will largely just become like CPAC, suit-wearing conservatives.
It's going to excise out the more moderate, dispected liberal types like myself.
They didn't invite us.
That's what happens.
People like Luke Rutkowski, for instance, my friend's a very Maha guy, very libertarian guy.
And he went from being a stage guest speaker to being an attendee.
I think that's what they're doing.
I don't care if they have a Machiavellian plot.
It's what they're doing.
So I will say this.
When you look at what Turning Point is doing, it actually is kind of simple to just say, well, Charlie was the visionary.
And without him, maybe they just don't know better.
With Candace, I can say maybe YouTube is just propping her up because she's divisive and damaging to the right, but her lawyers work in a building with the feds and she's married to a British lord.
So if there ever was a connection, I'm not saying it's definitive.
I'm just saying of all the people to point the finger at, the funniest thing is Erica Kirk doesn't fit the bill.
For a particular sliver of people, but I really think that I'm sorry, I'm not trying to speak ill of the dead, but I think that he was more of a kind of a campus sideshow a la Steven Crowder than people.
I think people are rewriting his history now that he's dead.
I'm not denying that height has an effect on perception, but I'm just saying that, again, like to say, well, you know, he had these qualities, I just don't think he was as influential as y'all saying.
I don't think he would have been president.
I think he's been kind of romanticized after his death, which I understand.
I always just like to ask what you've gathered from the evolution of her theories and conspiracies.
Because ideally, you would get closer and things would start to narrow, right?
But it seems like every week is a new suspect and it's just so outstretched.
unidentified
It's I don't know the most recent ones, but I mean, I just like- What do you think that's available?
I think just the most basic stuff of like from me growing up knowing that we've been lied to about things such as, you know, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Patsy.
I don't know.
Do you believe JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald?
That's the fallacy that Candace is using, though, to manipulate her audience.
The fact that we have an instance or maybe multiple instances where the government was covering stuff up does not mean, Ergo, that this completely implausible, nonsensical, unproven conspiracy theory is valid.
I mean, I'm not a dad.
unidentified
So you see the guy jump up and go, he did it.
George Zenn?
Stuff like that.
How does someone jump up and celebrate right away when someone gets killed unless they know it's going to happen?
He was creating this big tech, this coalition, and he helped Trump win a second term.
Who benefited the most from the death of Charlie Kirk?
Progressives and liberal elites.
One could argue that Israel might have benefited if Charlie really was going to abandon the Israel movement.
However, like a month before Charlie was killed, he put out a seminar where he was advocating the Gen Z to support Israel.
So I don't think that Israel benefited.
It's not so easy to say they benefited from Charlie's death.
The question then is, who benefited from killing him?
If we're going to start there and then ask questions, liberal elite, because they share ideology with the progressives, and this is the guy who got Trump elected.
That makes the most sense.
So when you look at the guy, George Zinn, who jumps up and says, I did it, it's very strange.
Okay.
What is it?
He's a progressive.
He's not a Jew.
unidentified
But he was involved in 9-11, all these other things.
And then Jack Ruby walks up, shoots him, and then Ruby gets killed.
Didn't Ruby get killed in prison?
A lot of questions about that.
And that's totally fine.
That's totally fine.
I'm not saying I know for sure.
But I sat down with Ron Paul himself and I asked him, and he said the CIA killed him.
I asked RFK Jr., who killed your uncle and your dad?
And I spent a while, but I'm pretty sure he said the CIA killed him.
So, okay, that actually aligns with cost-benefit analysis.
So then when we get to the Charlie Kirk thing, if we apply the same standard, it's the same group of people, established government, internal intelligence, et cetera.
unidentified
It's the same people telling Kash Patel and Pam Bonnie, they're saying the Epstein, right?
And they're saying, no, now he killed himself.
They switched their stories.
Who's feeding them the information to change their stories?
If we were to follow that same logic with the assassination of Charlie Kirk, it points to U.S. intelligence, Democratic aligned, progressive aligned.
But Candace is telling you it's Ben Shapiro turning point and Israel.
Why?
Why does she want you to think the wrong thing?
Why is the wife of a British lord on the front page of YouTube telling you to think crazy things instead of what you already know the U.S. established order does?
Because her history is to go down these rabbit trails.
You can go back to even like her early years and you can see that she's just a wildly untrained mind that has gravitated her entire career to conspiracy theories, even going back to her early 1960s.
When Robbie asks the legitimate question of how did Epstein kill himself?
Why did the cameras go down?
We're all curious about that.
It leads to what?
Powerful elites who don't want to be exposed took out Epstein.
Charlie Kirk got Trump in.
They are trying to arrest.
They did arrest Jonathan Trump.
They're trying to imprison him.
So who is the most like beneficiary of the assassination of Charlie Kirk is not Israel, Egyptian planes, or Ben Shapiro.
So then I'm not saying Candace is part of a conspiracy.
I'm saying she is twisting what you already know to be true into retardation.
That's the point.
If she was doing her show talking about how she thought that Democrats, the intelligent agencies were involved, I'd be going like, well, I mean, look, when the court case comes out, then I guess she'll lose all credibility.
unidentified
If what you're saying is true.
And so, because obviously the evidence will come out in trial, right?
So then you only have a matter of time if that's the problem.
They appeared to be in their late 20s to early 30s, and they were posting on TikTok and Instagram saying things like, you know, one of them is like, Charlie Kirk is going to get it tomorrow.
You'll see.
One of them was, what's about to happen tomorrow at UVU is going to shock everybody, mark my words.
And then they retweet themselves saying, you know, I told you so, stuff like that.
How did they know?
There's also reporting that at Tyler Robinson and Twiggs' home in the week or so prior, a bunch of cars had gathered for meetings.
And people were, so the questions we have there are, who are these people?
But now you get these fake stories like, how did he dismantle the gun?
He didn't.
unidentified
That's the thing.
I don't know if I agree with you because from the video I've seen doesn't look like he's carrying a gun on the roof.
Candace Owens tweeted, and this is very personal, so of course I'm going personal.
The shooting that Tim Poole survived in December of 2022 was committed by his brother.
What did people start doing?
Posting pictures of Chris, claiming that he broke into my house and got shot at by security guards because he was trying to kill me and he fired back or something like that.
Claimed that he broke into my house, we called security, and then he fled from the property.
Candace's intention there was to misrepresent the facts and lie so that people would come to the wrong conclusion.
What's the real story?
Well, at the time, as we published on our website and I tweeted at another property I own where I was not there, burglars broke in and a staff member opened fire on them and they fled.
That was it.
I never said I survived a shooting.
I never insinuated I was at a shooting.
And to imply that there was a shooting I claimed I survived committed by my brother, what did everyone come to believe?
People began posting photos of my brother saying Chris shot at Tim over a dispute.
And I'm just like, holy shit.
Now, what do you think would have happened if Candace instead tweeted, in December of 2022, Tim Poole reported a burglary at a different property in West Virginia, he owned, that was not his studio, where burglars got shot at.
I think his brother was the one who was shooting at the burglars.
People would be like, I don't care.
Who cares?
That's not a story.
but she wants to twist it in a way to make it seem like my brother is trying to kill me because people then started claiming that Tim has domestic issues.
When we play like low stakes and I'm goofing off, Robbie's like, why are you goofing off?
But when I play, well, to be fair, no, I lost money at the lodge.
That happened.
They kind of wanted us to go off.
But this is besides the point.
I agree with you.
She knows that we announced we were doing a professional poker game.
She knows that her audience doesn't understand what poker is.
So she says Tim's frustrated about something.
He must have lost a lot of money, you know, blah, blah, blah, which is just fake.
It's not true.
And then she has these people tweeting things like, Tim's a degenerate gambler who's wasting all his money gambling when this is sponsorship money.
Companies come to me and say, you're going to be on a TV show.
These shows get licensed.
We would like you to represent our brand.
We will give you money.
I use that money to play the poker game, win or lose.
It's a sponsored show.
I can't speak for the other players.
Some of these people are just wealthy and degenerate, right?
But yes, I will agree with that.
However, it was not the worst.
It was half as bad.
She said, I'm not your wife.
Don't take it out on me.
So there is a bit of, it's a stronger metaphor as opposed to if she said something like, well, Tim Poole's been talking about these high-stakes poker games.
I'm not talking about the Tim comment anymore, but in general, her project, would you agree?
Let's say this.
Would you agree that if she is wrong, then what she is doing, if she's wrong about her theories, then what she's doing is very destructive and unethical?
Would you agree with that?
unidentified
I mean, I don't look at it that way because I don't take it literally.
And they were coming, dancing, and celebrating or something to that effect.
And their argument was we were celebrating because now America would understand what we've been going through.
The question then is, how did they know it was Islamic terrorists?
So it's very strange.
Here's the funny thing about that.
There's nothing strong or definitive, just interesting questions.
I have no problem with people bringing that up, bringing up the USS Liberty or any of these things.
What these people do, I will go on a side tangent, is they edited a fake video of me telling Ian not to talk about the U.S. Liberty to make it seem like I was working for Israel and trying to suppress things when I was, I literally talked, say U.S. Liberty, I'll read your super chat.
A case that has faced years of legal battles over foreign sovereign immunity, but recently cleared a major hurdle in August of 2025 when a federal judge allowed the case to proceed under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
This allows victims' families to seek accountability, citing evidence suggesting Saudi involvement.
Though Saudi Arabia has long argued it's not liable.
We actually have court proceedings with evidence on the record for 10 years that the Saudis were involved in 9-11, and yet these retards are still screaming it was Israel.
By all means, I have questions about Mossad and what Israel does and what they want to know about, what they don't know about.
But we actually have for some time, I'm not saying proof, evidence that the Saudis were involved in 9-11.
And where are these people to be like, whoa?
I think Saudi Arabia has undue influence on the United States.
We've had these debates, and the funny thing is someone called me a Zionist in the super chat, and I read the super chat, and they were like, Tim's a Zionist, blah, blah, blah.
And then I said, bro, I literally don't even think the U.S. government should give funding to Israel.
They can fight their own wars.
I don't want to be involved in that.
So how does that make me a Zionist?
And then they super chat it again saying, because you think there is an Israel.
In their minds, Israel is a rubber stamp over Palestine.
And you are supposed to say Palestine, not Israel.
If you believe there actually is an Israeli government and system, you are a Zionist.
You know what I think has gotten lost in discussions of Charlie Kirk's killing and the motivations for it?
For some reason, people are not focusing on the Freudian.
I know Candace hates Freud, but the Freudian psychosexual element of Tyler Robinson's motive.
You know, I think what you have here, honestly, I think it's a personal psychodrama.
I think you have someone who was with Tyler who was into really kinky, weird sex stuff, trannies, furries, all of that.
And he could not handle it.
And so he exteriorized and projected his own self-hatred onto Charlie Kirk and then killed Kirk to get rid of his own internal self-hatred.
And I just think it's interesting that people are so quick to gravitate to the political angles and the political conspiracies instead of what seems patently obvious to me that this was actually a personal psychosexual drama going on with it.
In order for her to make it true that Israel or government agents killed Charlie, you have to then create a shitload of other conspiracies, which is just silly.
Do you think it's what is more likely that Robinson and Twiggs fabricated messages to create fake evidence because they planned an assassination or the FBI fabricated the messages after the fact to try and convict somebody?
They talk like they're in a movie because they're retarded.
But you also look at this and what did it do?
It created plausible deniability for any involvement of the boyfriend.
So let's say we're looking at a group of people who are progressive, liberal aligned, who wanted to kill Charlie Kirk because they knew he was winning.
They met and discussed it.
They're all going down for this.
How does Robinson protect his boyfriend from going to prison?
They plan out fake messages so that when they go to court, you can create reasonable doubt.
It's apocryphal, maybe an urban legend, but as the story goes, in suburban Chicago, there was a man who kept calling in, help my friend is drowning.
And the police would arrive to find him in the water, pulling the person out.
And what they found to be was that he would actually get people plastered drunk, say, let's take a walk, push him in, call number one and say, help my friend's drowning, jump in, drown them.
And then when the police arrived, he's saying, I'm trying to save them.
And a cop was reading a newspaper and saw this guy's name as a local hero whose friends drowned.
He's like, wait a minute.
That's the guy that we saw.
How does it happen more than one time?
He got caught because he did it more than one time.
But think about that scenario.
He wanted to kill somebody.
So he invites him to a bar, gets him really drunk, blackout drunk, says, don't worry, drinks are on me.
They're stumbling around.
He says, let's go check out the lake.
It's beautiful right now.
Pushes the guy in.
There's no witnesses.
He calls 911.
My friend just fell in the river.
What do I do?
There's a lot of social media.
Premeditated murder is extremely easy to get away with.
It's terrifying.
So I'm going to say it again.
What is the more likely scenario?
Certainly possible.
The feds fabricated these messages because they're in on it.
I don't know.
The more likely scenario, in my opinion, is we know there are vehicles outside of their residence.
We know there were many other trans-furry weirdos that expressed foreknowledge.
Seems to me that more people were involved in the organizing of this.
It is very difficult to map out and plan this thing by yourself.
Robinson was the shooter because he was trained by his dad or whatever.
This is what the media is reporting.
So he knew how to take the shot.
And so I'd imagine what makes the most sense, there's a meeting at the property, fact.
These other people tweeted foreknowledge, fact.
What makes sense?
They met, discussed it.
Robinson, you're the shooter.
You do it.
You're the only one who knows how.
And we're going to inoculate the rest of us from legal liability if it comes down to it.
So they fabricate a message of Lance Twix going, oh no, I can't believe you killed the guy who hates me.
Why would this happen?
And then everyone goes, those messages look weird.
Yes, because a bunch of crackpot trans-furry weirdos wanted to kill Charlie Kirk premeditated it.
Yeah, the idea that his parents would have, in any way, would be allowing any of this, knowing it not to be true, or that they're so scared of the government that they're going along.
It's just, it's ridiculous.
unidentified
So question.
Is nobody allowed to get an interview with him?
Why has nobody interviewed Thomas Crooks?
We haven't heard anything about what happened with him.
have sources who worked who provided security for Candace who don't want to speak up because they're entering litigation your lawyer will say shut your let me let me do this Akeelah Hughes v. Carl Benjamin.
First, on the merits, I think he won a summary judgment, and then he went for fees.
It is fair use to re-upload someone's video.
The title of the video itself was the commentary.
That's allowed.
What hurt Akeelah very seriously was that she was going online and talking mad shit about how she was going to take his money from him.
And it made it seem like she didn't actually care about the merits of the infringement, but that she had a personal beef with them because of politics she was going after him for.
Carl, shut up.
Everyone in their mother knows before a proceeding of any kind, shut your mouth.
And so then people go, why won't they release the, why won't the prosecutors release the video from the rooftop?
What?
You want them to taint the jury pool, release the evidence, and give the defense two years to prepare?
That's ridiculous.
Now, the defense does need to be provided with the evidence, of course, but not the perspective and the arguments of the prosecution and the FBI.
That's retarded.
So they released some because they were trying to get tips.
They got a tip.
Dude got turned in.
unidentified
But you don't think there's any better videos to release?
They chose the one of the grainy footage jumping off the roof.
Why didn't they release?
There's something better out there.
There's tons of cameras on that campus.
If they're trying to get tips, why wouldn't they release a better tip?
Someone saw the footage and the photos of him and they said, I know who that is.
And he got turned in.
Perhaps if he didn't get turned in, three days later, they would have said, we're going to release more footage in an effort to try and find the suspect, but they did not need to.
And that's the thing with the Macron lawsuit when Jessica and I looked at that the other day on her show on her sub stack is that one of the points that the Macron lawsuit makes so well repeatedly over and over is that Candace deliberately ignored and withheld from her audience evidence that the Macrons were providing that Reget was a woman.
I don't even think that the Macrons need Trump to intervene or the administration to intervene.
That it is a really strong case.
I've looked at a lot of defamation cases over the years, and this is not a situation of Blake Lively or Amber Heard asserting that they were abused.
This is a situation of someone who has been given, Candace Owens, been given all of this evidence that what she's saying is not true.
And then she proceeds to go forward, ignore that, manipulate her audience, withhold context, withhold evidence, and monetize it.
And apparently, in these types of defamation suits, if someone goes to the lengths of monetizing lies, then they really throw the book at you for that.
I think what happened with the Erica Kirk meeting, the reason why Candace tried to backpedal right away, and now she's going a bit nuts, but I feel like she has been lighter on TPUSA.
Well, no, she claims that, well, yeah, on the phone.
That's right.
She said they called the lawyer at one point to ask about something.
That was, I mean, it's Candace's story.
But I agree with you.
I mean, one of the things that you can do to strengthen a defamation case is you can actually meet with the other party, and that establishes them that they've been warned, they know better, and then you strengthen your defamation case than having given that warning.
I think turning point, if she pursues it, they will file a massive suit against her.
But what she's doing, what I call the Three Stooges Syndrome lawsuit, a defamation strategy.
And this is where the three Stooges all try to go through the door at the same time.
They get stuck.
It's a Simpsons reference to when Mr. Burns, it's called Three Stooges Syndrome as every disease is trying to get into his body at the same time, so it doesn't work.
What she's doing is she's defaming as many people as possible, like me, for instance, and my family.
And the crazy thing is, my brother was a private citizen, not a public figure, accusing him of trying to kill me is defamation per se, instantly actionable.
She is defaming everybody.
So what happens?
When we sue, and this has happened before, she will file a motion with the court that we are currently undergoing litigation on similar things, and they either need to combine the case or postpone it because it's impossible for us to be in all these hearings at once.
It's a fact.
Now, I'm not saying she's literally doing that strategy, but she certainly is defaming literally everybody.
Now, implying Ben Shapiro killed Charlie Kirk, putting me on the thumbnail saying who benefited from Charlie Kirk's assassination.
She's literally like, let's defame everyone we can.
That way, when we get 27 different lawsuits, we can't be physically in court for all of them and they can't do anything about it.
Do you believe The controllers, the leaders of France, a nation state, are going to lose any kind of fight with a private citizen in the United States.
Isn't it interesting that she has not spoken anymore since she dropped that bombshell over Thanksgiving about the supposed assassination plot?
That sure went away really fast.
I think that I think, again, that's another sign that she's full of shit.
It's like, Candace, I thought that you were going to be assassinated and you were all worried because there was a French female assassin and there was an Israeli assassin and also the U.S. government apparently was aware of it.
unidentified
Can we get a roundtable discussion with everyone here in Candace?
Candace, if you're watching, can we just get a debate going in person where people can actually question and have a conversation with her?
And I talked to people close to Charlie, members of his family, and they said Charlie was believed, you know, you keep your enemies closer.
And he was very much against what she had become in the last couple years, but he was the kind of guy who was going to be a little bit more comfortable.
They take a piece of chocolate cake, put it in a milkshake, and blend it up for you.
Anyway, anyway.
Nick's worldview on like racism, race, arrest, bro.
I've talked about it.
Where I grew up, we had 47th Street to the north.
I was on 49th Street.
When you cross 47th, all black.
100%.
If you were a teenager or a young adult from south of 47th and crossed into north of 47th, it was called.
It wasn't the area typically referred to as the Leclerc Courts, historic gang territory.
Cops would stop you, detain you, and drive you back out.
And this is what they'd say.
The only reason you're here is to buy drugs.
So literally, just being like a white dude walking into the black neighborhood, they'd stop you.
There were gangs that would come from 47th and go south into our neighborhood, which was largely like white working class, Polish, some Hispanic.
When you cross Cicero to the east, all Hispanic.
And then you get into, it gets a bit more Polish towards Pulaski.
Our neighborhood was Movimi Popolsku, written everywhere.
These gangbangers would come into our neighborhood and rob everybody.
And the cops wouldn't do anything about it because it was racist.
So you had a gaggle of young teenage black girls that would come from 47th, from Leclerc Courts, and they would mug young girls in Vidham Park and around the area.
What they do is it's, what do you call it?
A flash mugging.
Six young black girls would walk up to a girl and then just frisk her.
Each one would grab a different pocket and a purse, and then they'd walk away, jewelry, watches, purse, wallet, phone, everything gone instantly.
We'd call the cops and they'd say, what do you want to do about it?
They'd say, we're not going to go in there and go arrest a bunch of young black girls.
We'll get called racist.
That's not, I don't know if Nick grew up in that area, but he certainly lived there now.
And you grew up with that, you're going to see the pure racial animosity that exists.
Now, what the city did was they bulldozed Leclerc Courts.
They promised all the black people who live there, look, we're going to move you out.
We're going to renovate the whole neighborhood because it's in disrepair.
And they said, okay, temporarily, bulldozed everything and then never built it.
And what happened?
The gangbangers were scattered.
All the people who lived there, many of the black families went to the suburbs, went to Joliet and stuff.
So when I see Nick Fuentes say something like, he doesn't want to live near black people, his full quote went massively viral.
He said, it's not to say there's anything wrong with individual black people.
That's stupid, low IQ stuff.
It's that everybody knows.
Everybody knows.
Right.
When you live in these areas, you know, and they talk about the crime rates, right?
And you know why he gets popularity is because for too long, conservatives didn't want to bring up these issues because they don't want to sound racist.
I think he realized that he was, again, intemperate in his youth and he should not have done those things.
And he's probably thinking, look, man, if he just remained chill and didn't go to the edge of insanity for whatever reason, either because he really believed it or because he thought it was shocking, he actually has the makings to be a very prominent personality.
He is one, but he could be a lot bigger if he didn't say stupid shit.
People, we've had, like, when we have Milo on, I'm not going to sit here and talk to Milo about, like, if we have Milo on the culture war, there'll be pushback.
There will be debate.
And that episode of IRL we did was kind of like a Friday degaussing show.
It was like, we're just like releasing things.
And so it went there, and people got really mad about what he said.