All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 22, 2025 - Lionel Nation
26:44
Alex Jones Breaks Silence: Warns Candace Owens Is Going Too Far

Alex Jones Breaks Silence: Warns Candace Owens Is Going Too Far

|

Time Text
Just when you thought the not the perils of Pauline or the perils of Candace or the perils of Alex, but just when you thought it could not get any more fascinating, now we have a potential collision of sorts of two of the greatest, the number one and two, and I'll let you argue who's who, because I think AJ is number one, but Babe Ruth and Gehrig,
perhaps pitted for some type of clash, and I'm here to say nay, nay.
It is not what you think.
What is getting lost in the noise right now is not who is right or wrong about any particular single claim involving planes or Egyptian, whatever, da-da-da-da.
But the psychological and media involvement in which these disputes are unfolding, my friends.
The spectacle of Sir Alex Jones urging, urging the queen of the internet, America's princess, Candace Owens, to reconsider her sourcing has been flattened by others into cheap narratives about betrayal and panic or collapse inside conservative conspiracy media.
Stop it.
That framing is lazy and dangerous and just wrong.
It's wrong.
It assumes that disagreement between these two Leviathans inside alternative media automatically signals insanity or malice or hidden control.
No!
That assumption is false and must be stopped.
It is precisely how serious inquiry is caricatured or delegitimized or neutralized.
Let's not lose our minds in this.
Let's not lose our minds.
You know, this moment deserves to be slowed down just a tad, my friends, to be analyzed.
Because Alex made it very, very clear that he feels concerned for Candace.
And I hope she listens to him and remains steadfast, but listen, especially listen to people who've been around the block.
And if anybody is an expert in how to handle issue damage control, it is our friend Mr. Jones.
Now, disagreement does not equal madness, okay?
It never has.
Don't listen to people.
Anyone who has done real investigative work of any note understands that internal disputes are not rare.
And internal disputes over sourcing and inference and timing are not a failure of inquiry or investigation, but a requirement of it.
Journalism, my friends, journalism, intelligence analysis, intel reports, and historical investigation all involve argument.
They involve what amounts to people saying this source is weak or this one is wrong or this conclusion is premature.
It happens all the time.
And it's wonderful.
And it's because of that robust disagreement that we have this fertile and fecan plane of investigative genius.
The idea that everyone must align perfectly or be declared, you know, compromised or a fed or sold out or some tool of Israel.
Oh my God.
Yep.
Take it easy.
This is cult logic.
This isn't skepticism.
Take it easy.
Hit the brakes.
Alex Jones saying Candace Owens may be wrong on a specific claim is not evidence of sabotage or sellout on anybody's part or evidence of mental illness.
Again, with this mental, this is so Stalin-esque.
It is evidence that he understands something crucial, something crucial about how information works once it enters volatile, dangerous territory.
That's all.
When a claim touches aviation or geopolitics or intelligence, anything third rail or covert operations, the cost of error skyrockets.
Bad information spreads faster than good information, and a single weak link, a single witness who doesn't pan out, a single error can poison an otherwise legitimate and bona fide line of questioning.
That's all we're saying.
That's all he's saying.
So don't get nuts over this.
Now, the dispute over alleged Egyptian flight activity sits at the worst possible intersection you can imagine.
Why?
You have aviation data that most people do not understand, geopolitical internecine tensions that actively incentivize disinformation and distortion, intel histories that are genuinely dirty, and an audience condition to mock anything that deviates from an official press release or anything that they think is normal.
That means the margin for error is razor thin.
It is entirely possible to be, in essence, directionally wrong and factually wrong, but directionally or correct at the same time.
It's strange.
You can be correct in the direction of something, but wrong factually or vice versa.
Because there are many, many subjects and subdirectories and nuances.
Some can be right, some can be wrong, some can be overinterpreted, underinterpreted, but not crazed, not pulled out of thin air by some ambulatory schizoid who's imagining this or hearing voices.
That doesn't happen.
And what I'm talking about, this disagreement doesn't make someone crazy.
It makes them human.
But these are the natural perils of anything investigative.
Look at JFK.
Just look at any investigation.
And where do you think you hear these stories from?
What?
Official statements from the Pentagon?
No.
You hear it from a whistleblower.
Maybe a disgruntled ex-employee.
Maybe some civilian who knows more.
That's where you get this from.
Look, this goes back to the old days when the federal government went after the mob.
Whom did they pick or select to make their case?
The Sammy, the Bulls, and others?
Serial killers in essence.
Some vile, horrible people.
Who else are you going to get this information from?
That doesn't destroy the validity or the veracity of the case.
It just means that you've got to be very careful in terms of weighing the integrity and the probative value of the information.
Now, Candace Omens is not crazy.
Believe me.
She is methodical, she's skeptical, and brave and increasingly willing to wade into subjects, listen to me carefully, that most commentators and most people avoid because they are reputationally radioactive.
Third rail again, my friends.
Same thing with Alex.
She operates outside legacy media with a small team and limited verification bandwidth compared to, let's say, state-aligned institution.
And that matters.
That's critical for you to say it doesn't make no sense.
But it doesn't disqualify her work.
And it means she relies on networks of sources that vary widely in quality.
Sometimes, as you'll find out, everybody will know, and I'm sure Alex will even tell you, sometimes those sources are right long before anyone else.
And sometimes, sometimes they are wrong, flat wrong, in ways that only become obvious later on.
Not ab initio, but later on.
That's the risk.
That's the risk profile of independent investigation.
And it always has been.
Alex Jones is not crazy either.
I've heard this a million times.
You can't do what he does and be crazy.
He is theatrical.
He's bombastic.
He's prone to maybe rhetorical excess.
Okay, fine.
None of that's new.
And none of that is disqualifying either.
What is often ignored is that he has survived for decades precisely because he understands when a narrative crosses from plausible and suspicion that is plausible in essence into reputational self-destruction.
He knows this.
He has lived through the consequences of claims, claims that outrun evidence.
Because when you want to investigate what he does, you're positioning yourself, you're putting yourself in a position where it's all or nothing.
I mean, you are risking the house every single time you say anything.
He has paid for it financially, legally, personally, in ways that we can't even imagine.
And when he urges caution, it's not because he suddenly trusts institutions.
It's not because of it.
It's because he knows how quickly a single overreach can be weaponized.
And sometimes it takes somebody in his position, it takes somebody of experience to recognize this.
This overreach can discredit everything else you say because that's what they do.
Once you make a mistake, that's your legacy.
That's your Wikipedia asterisk.
And this is the key point many observers are missing completely and totally.
You can't raise questions, any of these questions, without sounding unhinged to people who have no frame of reference, no clue as to how power actually behaves.
You sound nuts.
That's not a bug.
That's the environment.
My friends, we live in a world right now where the official story, the official story that's given to us, has been wrong repeatedly, provably, consistently, and catastrophically.
Weapons of mass destruction, Russia gate, COVID origin narratives, Pisgate, remember this one, the Steele dossier, Intel failures, sold as certainty.
In that environment or ecosystem, I hate that word.
Skepticism becomes necessary, but it also becomes socially radioactive.
Okay?
Listen to what I'm saying.
So when Candice Oman shows up on the scene and she raises questions about flight data or when Alex Jones in response questions the sourcing or the metadata behind those claims, the outside observer hears only one thing and one thing only, that these people think everything is, and you know where I'm going with this, that everything is a conspiracy.
There's something wrong with these tinfoil hatters.
By the way, it's aluminum foil.
We haven't worn 10 in years.
See, that observer has no context for how often aviation incidents intersect with Intel operations and how much of this metadata is available for you right now.
You don't need subpoenas for this.
And how frequently early reporting is manipulated to set a narrative before facts settle or how often metadata are themselves misunderstood, even by professionals.
But without that context, without that context, any deviation from a press release sounds delusional.
We don't play that game.
If you're watching me now, you know what we're talking about.
We accept it.
We accept it.
This is why internal discipline matters, my friend, not censorship.
Discipline.
Discipline means maybe a different thing.
Discipline means understanding that some claims require extraordinary corroboration.
This sounds almost like Carl Sagan with UFOs.
But this extraordinary validation.
But because they're impossible, because they carry extraordinary reputational cost.
There's no room for error.
And discipline also means asking whether a source has direct access, direct access or is repeating a chain.
Discipline means, in essence, being willing to say, not yet.
Not yet on this part, because it may be wrong without abandoning the broader question.
It's paripasu movement, very simply.
And what should concern reasonable people, and listen carefully, is not that Alex Jones and Candace Owens may disagree.
It's that audiences are being trained, in essence, being trained, I guess, to interpret disagreement itself as proof of, again, insanity or betrayal or a sellout.
They'll say, bread and circuses.
They'll just throw these routinized reactions out.
And that reflex is incredibly convenient for anyone, for anyone who benefits from keeping inquiry fragmented.
You know, divide the skeptics, you know, label half of them controlled opposition and then encourage the other half to double down without verification.
You've seen this before.
Either way, either way, the core questions never get answers.
And that's what I'm trying to tell you.
That's the part of this desultory discourse, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
There is also, if you will, a generational shift at work here.
This is important.
Alex Jones represents an older model of alternative media.
OG.
OG, by the way, when I say older, I mean the original, the hardcore, the Beatles.
You know what I mean?
The foundational of this.
A loud, insurgent, often first to raise arms, but not always careful about precision.
That's the way it goes.
You know, and he'll tell you this.
Everybody will tell you.
Sometimes your excitement and your desire to get the news out is what's critical.
Candace Owens represents a newer model.
Cleaner representation, tighter arguments, and a broader appeal to audiences who are who are in effect suspicious but not radicalized.
You know what I mean?
Now, when those models crash and clash, friction is inevitable.
And that doesn't mean that one is fake and the other is pure and one is right and one is wrong.
It merely means that this, I hate this word again, the ecosystem is evolving in real time.
So what this is about, the alleged Charlie Kirk assassination claims sit at the center of this tension.
And God bless them for even talking about it because nobody at Amfest or whatever or TPUSA is mentioning anything about it.
They're looking the other way.
They're telling you, don't ask questions.
Candace Owens has promoted theories suggesting a coordinated involvement by multiple actors, multiple actors, including, surprise, surprise, media organizations, among others, inter alia, et alia, foreign governments, military elements.
And those claims, as you can imagine, have not been substantiated and are widely disputed.
Okay?
That's the way it's been.
Now, Alex Jones himself has said that questioning circumstances is legitimate and that he has unanswered questions as well.
Where he drew the line, and the gravemen of what he is saying was that presenting speculative conclusions as settled fact, especially when relying on technical data that is easy to misinterpret.
Does that make sense?
Does that make sense to you?
I hope it does.
Alex Jones focused heavily on metadata.
Okay, fine.
In previous public statements, he argued that in effect, certain claims about aircraft movement were, in that sense, and in effect, contradicted by publicly available flight data, and that those claims and that those claims had been, or had not been rather fact, or had been, excuse me, had been fact-checked at the time.
Now, more troubling to him, it seems, was that the narrative continued to escalate rather than pause for reassessment.
Metadata has and have become a recurring flashpoint in online investigations because it sounds authoritative while being very opaque and sometimes confusing to the public.
Alex Jones argued that if definitive evidence exists, it should be published transparently and without, rather, should be able to withstand scrutiny and evaluation and the like rather than circulate it as implication.
Fine.
But the most striking aspect of what Alex's intervention is, was his framing around mental well-being.
In this media space, my friends, listen to me, accusations usually involving betrayal or grifting, we hear this, but Jones didn't either.
He framed his warning as concern, not hostility.
He said he was worried about Owens' mind and where the trajectory was heading.
Not that she's headed for the psych ward, but something else.
He knows what it's like when you get involved in something heart and soul.
And if you're not going to get involved in something heart and soul, why even bother?
And that tone shift was notable, precisely because it is so rare.
It reflected, in essence, not any kind of an ideological panic on Alex's part, but lived experience.
He should know.
He should know about how fast reputational collapse can happen once a narrative tips and once you get involved in something.
And sometimes you can also, you can also lose the sense of objectivity.
That's all.
See, that framing triggered backlash.
Some accuse Alex Jones of undermining an ally.
Others praise him for stepping in.
Both reactions miss the larger point.
That is not, it's not about loyalty.
It's about survival in an environment where the penalty for overreach is asymmetric.
I love that word.
Institutions can be wrong for decades without any consequences whatsoever.
Independent voices, especially these two, are destroyed for a single misstep.
That's what it's about.
And that, by the way, when we wade into this particular area of inquiry, that's the risk that we take.
See, there's another uncomfortable reality here that must be acknowledged, or this entire conversation becomes dishonest and a waste of time.
If you are ever going to receive real inside information, listen carefully, I mean truly inside information, it almost never comes from polished institutional insiders with nothing to lose.
It comes from whistleblowers.
And whistleblowers are by nature almost always people who are disgruntled or burned or burned out or sidelined or pushed out.
And that's not a character flaw.
That's the job description.
And by definition, a whistleblower has broken trust with an institution.
And that rupture leaves scars.
And it also creates a motive.
And sometimes that motive is moral outrage.
Sometimes it's revenge.
And often it's both.
Whether it is or isn't, it doesn't matter.
But it is not insanity.
Power has always relied on blurring that distinction.
Because to be powerful, to be great, you've got to be ruthless and brutal and absolutely sometimes foolhardy, but courageous.
And this is where a very old technique reappears.
When a dissident cannot be disproven, he is declared unstable.
This is Stalin 101.
When facts are inconvenient, the source is pathologized.
Crazy.
Kill the messenger.
In the 20th century, this took the form of psychiatric labeling.
Today it takes the form of online mockery.
Unhinged, spiraling, delusional.
You never engage the substance.
You know how this works.
I got a PhD in this.
You attack tone and psychology instead.
And this works because whistleblowers often do sound angry and obsessive or fixated because they're passionate about what they believe in.
And of course they have to.
They're carrying information they believe matters while watching powerful people try to bury it.
And in order to go up against an institution, you got to be a little nuts.
You got to be crazy to go after the CIA or whoever it is.
Let me see.
That doesn't make them wrong.
It makes them human.
So both Alex Jones and Candace Owens understand this dynamic.
Even if they disagree about specific conclusions, Alex Jones urges caution because he knows better than anybody how easily the unstable label can be weaponized.
And Candace Owens pushes forward because she knows that waiting for clean, you know, credentialed, emotionally neutral sources means waiting forever.
And we don't have forever.
Power doesn't leak true through happy, loyal employees.
So when critics sneer and make fun of and suggest that a source sounds bitter or unstable or nuts, that is not a refutation.
It's a tell.
It's the same reflex that has been used for generations to bury inconvenient testimony without even or ever disproving it.
Now, put all of this together and the picture becomes clear.
Disagreement does not mean madness.
And anger doesn't mean delusion.
Being disconnected from institutions does not mean disconnected from reality.
Sometimes, sometimes it means you finally saw it clearly and you paid the price.
Now, this Egyptian or whatever, these flight questions and the metadata will resolve one way or the other.
Either the claims will hold up under scrutiny or they will not.
What will matter long term is how uncertainty was handled in the meantime.
Was disagreement treated as some kind of mental illness or some kind of mental pathology, some psychopathology, or as a part of a messy but a necessary process of trying to figure out what's true.
When Alex Jones urges caution and Candace Owens pushes inquiry, neither is committing heresy.
They are navigating media terrain where skepticism is absolutely necessary and errors are costly and credibility is always under siege.
And the real danger is not internal disagreement.
The real danger is turning this inquiry into dogma and loyalty into some kind of, I guess, substitute for truth.
And that, my friend, that is the terrain that everyone in this space is operating on, whether they admit it or not.
So let me just tell you something.
You listen to Alex very carefully.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for him.
What he's been through, what he has done.
I've said it before.
He is the powder familiar of this thing of ours.
And Candace Owens has been terrific.
And we may not always be in agreement.
Let's just get rid of this.
I don't know what it means to be agreeing with everybody all the time.
But just understand, nobody here is crazy.
You can't do what they do and be crazy, hearing voices, being hospitalizable.
Do you understand?
We've got a lot more to go.
And you've got to think about your mental health in the meantime, too, and your spiritual well-being.
Are you ready for this?
I mean, it's going to be wild.
See, I love this.
I live for this.
This is the most exciting news there is.
This gives me, I love it, but I've seen this.
I've been around.
See, I know what I'm talking about.
And I know that this is going to give way to the next controversy and the next one.
But don't lose faith.
Don't lose positioning here.
But neither of these fine people are crazy.
And if you think they're crazy, you're crazy.
I say that with love.
Thank you for the very kind comments.
Please like what you see.
Please subscribe to our chapter, our channel here.
Hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
And make sure also that it's very, very critical that you do everything in your power to stick with us.
We're going to have so much fun.
Tell your friends to join us.
▲
Export Selection