Laura Loomer vs Alex Jones vs Candace Owens: The Battle Explodes
|
Time
Text
Energy bills are rising at a historic rate.
And there's no end in sight.
Talk to enough people, and you'll soon realize nearly everyone's shocked at their recent electricity bills.
Some studies reveal energy costs have skyrocketed by as high as 60% in as little as two years.
That's why tens of thousands are installing this magical little device from savepowerbills.com to help slash their energy bills.
This sophisticated gadget stabilizes electrical currents, reduces dirty electricity, and helps protect your appliances and electronics.
Simply plug it into your home's wall outlet to help lower energy consumption and ultimately help reduce your power bills every month.
Countless five-star reviews back up the notion that this device is one of the most efficient ways to save money while beating the greedy power companies.
But there's more.
If you order now, you'll also receive 65% off.
Fast shipping within the USA, hassle-free returns, and last but not least, a 60-day satisfaction guarantee.
Just go to savepowerbills.com to take advantage of this limited-time deal before they sell out.
Once again, that's savepowerbills.com.
I don't want to go all Godfather 3 on you, which is the worst.
But every time I try to get out, they pull me back in.
Every time I've done the ultimate, I think the quintessential video or whatever this thing is that I'm doing, every time I figure, I've done it, I've done it.
Finally, we're going to put an end to this.
We can move on.
There's no more, no more Candace.
That's it.
We've exhausted this.
Thank you.
Good night.
Been a great trip.
Something else comes up.
Now we have Laura Loomer versus Alex Jones versus Candace.
What the hell is going on?
Let me explain.
And by the way, I love this because it's like a soap opera plot.
It just gets everybody's jumping in on it.
Everybody's got to get in on this.
Why?
Because she's the hottest ticket in town.
Because if they really wanted to show her, if they really said, okay, let's teach her a lesson.
Let's teach old Candy a lesson.
You know what they would do?
They would do nothing.
They would say, Let, come on, put on your put on your bad witnesses, put on your fake flight logs or Egyptian conspiracies.
And we'll be there when the truth comes through.
But no, they want to stop it before it happens.
Why?
Why are you concerned with that?
What did you want to say?
Shh, let her put it on.
And when these fellows implode, what are you going to do?
So, anyway, what this episode really shows, you know, stripped of the chest beating and the social media scrums and all of this theater.
But what it really shows is not some clean reckoning or dealing with the facts, but a breakdown in trust and hierarchy and relevance.
And Candace Owens, again, sits at the center of it, not because she engineered the chaos, but because she refuses to submit to the informal authority structures that once kept everyone else in line.
And she's not asking them for permission to put on this evidence, which could be complete and total bullshit.
Could be.
We'll see.
But I mean, nobody ever went to Alex and said, Alex, don't put this on.
You're wrong about the gay frogs.
I use that as an example.
He was right about that.
But nobody ever says, hey, Laura, don't bring this up about, you know, Milo or nobody ever does that.
They always sit back and they say, just wait.
Let them stand on that step of that landmine.
This time they want to stop her because the evidence will show that her witnesses and her evidence are, are are nothing, and that they're gonna.
Well wait, what are you worried about?
It's this?
It's weird, but she refuses to act and she's like she's ignoring them.
She says I don't need, i'm gonna put on whatever I want.
And they're saying, in essence, you can't do this.
And now Laura Lumer, who's a oh, she's a flamethrower.
She is great, she's.
I mean, she is.
This is nwa 60s wrestling, Gordon Solely And Harley Race and dusty roads.
This is heat.
She comes in there and says, hey Alex, I was the one who taught you kid.
And Alex says, i've been here for 31 years.
You did wait you, you brought me into this.
You didn't bring me into it.
Oh yes, I did.
And now they're.
And Candace is sitting in the middle thinking this is beautiful.
But remember, coming back to her refusal is is is to to ask for permission is what turned in, turned this disagreement into a public unraveling.
Because Laura Lumer stepping forward to claim credit for some private conversation, allegedly causing Alex Jones to see the light, Candace's some kind of malicious uh, you know, outlier was never a story, was never about clarifying the truth.
It was about asserting influence, about planting a flag and saying, I moved the needle, I shaped the narrative, I mattered here, and Alex Jones immediately rejecting that claim and insisting his criticism came from his own independent research into inconsistencies and the like, surrounding Mitch Snow's account in particular.
All of that only reinforces the deeper issue, which is that there is no longer the case of this adjudicating facts, but about who gets to be seen as the authority, who decide which sides, which which voices are legitimate and which are radioactive, and who's lying and who's not to be believed.
That's what this is about.
And Candace Owens threatens that entire arrangement because she doesn't ask anyone to certify her questions before she asks them, she doesn't wait again for consensus before pursuing a lead which could be wrong, could blow up, we'll see.
And she doesn't retreat simply because other personalities grow uncomfortable with where an inquiry points again.
Do you ever ever know, or have you ever seen anything of so many people being so concerned about Candace not making a mistake?
Don't put that guy on.
You know we, we worry about you.
Nobody worries about anybody else.
Oh, it's fascinating.
Now, at the center of the current flare-up is Mitch Snow's Snows, whoever he is.
I don't know.
You'll find out.
His account, which is an unverified eyewitness claim involving Erica Kirk and a security contractor allegedly seen at an Arizona Army base prior to Charlie Kirk's death.
A claim that Candace apparently discussed publicly while emphasizing it came from a source she was evaluating, not a conclusion she was demanding that others accept.
And that distinction matters far more, far more than her critics are willing to admit.
Because journalism, remember that, real journalism has always involved airing claims while making clear what is known, what is alleged, and what remains unproven.
Yet suddenly, the same people who build brands on skepticism and investigation are insisting, insisting that even raising such an account, Candace, is itself unforgivable, reckless,
or somehow malicious, as if asking, as if inquiry must now stop the moment it causes discomfort, or the moment that the truth tribunal comes in and says, all right, that's enough.
And that's where the hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore.
Alex Jones, whom I have told you repeatedly, is the potter familiar, the OG, he is it, the Cronkite, the Murrow, the Isaac Newton of everything that we do.
Alex Jones citing flight logs and alibis and timeline inconsistencies as reasons to doubt Snow's credibility is not illegitimate on its face.
And Candace herself has acknowledged the importance of corroboration.
But what transformed this into a spectacle was not Jones challenging the claim.
It was the escalation into motive accusations, into assertions of premeditated manipulation, into language designed not to rebut, but to delegitimize.
And Laura Loomer's decision to publicly frame herself as the catalyst, the source, the genesis, the inspiration for Alex Jones' shift that only poured gasoline on an otherwise already combustible,
volatile situation, because it recast and reset a factual dispute as some kind of a loyalty drama, with each figure jockeying for moral and strategic high ground, while Candace remained notably restrained by comparison, continuing to question, to listen, and to say, uh-huh, okay.
And to let the process unfold as her numbers, as her focus, as her importance, as her centrality in the universe is cemented.
She did that rather than declaring victory or demanding obedience or whatever it was.
She's like this.
What gets lost in the noise is that there was no independent yet any kind of independent verification of Snow's story at this time.
There will be.
Something tells me, don't be surprised if he is just completely eviscerated, but we'll see.
Because this isn't about him.
It's not about him.
He's the subject matter.
It's about the peripheral reaction.
But this is something that Candace's critics, by the way, repeat loudly while ignoring that Candace herself has never claimed otherwise.
She's not arguing this.
And that gap between what she actually says and what her detractors accuse her of saying is the entire story here.
Because she is not being punished not for asserting falsehoods as settled fact, but for refusing to preemptively shut down any investigation because powerful people demand it.
And that's why the reaction has been so disproportionate, so emotional, so revealing.
Because people who are confident in their position do not behave this way.
They don't rush to brand any kind of inquiry itself as insanity.
They don't compete to take credit for silencing someone or for educating somebody as a case of educating.
He don't educate Alex Jones.
And they don't frame disagreement as proof of some kind of moral or intellectual corruption.
The Loomer Jones kerfuffle, this contra ton, this back and forth business illustrates this case perfectly.
With Laura Loomer asserting alleged influence, guidance, I'll tell you what to do, Alex.
And Alex Jones asserting independence, as he should, both asserting authority, both claiming authority, and neither actually settling the underlying questions.
And the audience watching this, you realize something very uncomfortable here, which is that the loudest voices are not acting like neutral investigators, but like rival power brokers, or so it seems.
Each anxious to be seen as the adult in the room while simultaneously escalating the drama.
And Candace Owens, by contrast, is treated as the problem.
Oh, she's the problem.
Precisely because she doesn't play that game.
She doesn't need to be crowned by Loomer or disavowed by Alex to maintain relevance, because her relationship with her audience bypasses that entire.
I don't want to say that word, that ecosystem.
I hate that word, but it kind of makes sense.
Energy bills are rising at a historic rate and there's no end in sight.
That's why tens of thousands are using this amazing little device from save powerbills.com.
It's a small but smart gadget that stabilizes electrical currents, reduces dirty electricity and helps protect your electronics.
Just plug it into your home's wall outlet to help lower energy consumption and ultimately, help reduce your power bills every month.
Order now to get 65 off plus many free bonuses before they sell out, by going to save powerbills.com.
That's save powerbills.com order now.
This is where the broader context also matters, because the anger directed at Candace is not isolated to this single dispute.
Whatever it is, it's layered atop existing tensions involving her scrutiny of Turning point USA leadership.
Oh no TP USA, don't don't.
And Erica Kirk, no la la la la no, don't.
Don't you dare question her.
It's about her willingness to question institutional loyalty, her refusal to toe the line on Israel-related narratives.
Oh, that's that's so, that's that's that's where this started from.
She never got that script, apparently, and apparently doesn't care to to abide by it.
And her broader critiques are also a problem.
Critiques of what she has called managerial conservatism.
And taken together, these issues and positions place her outside the comfort zone of people who build careers navigating those institutions rather than challenging them.
So when an unverified witness account emerges, instead of treating it as a claim to be tested, it becomes a pretext somehow to finally move against her, to paint her as dangerous, irresponsible, or malicious.
Because the real grievance predates the claim itself.
And again, the question I have to you is, why do they care so much about Candace being wrong?
Okay, if she were my rival, and I thought she was completely full of it, I'd say, great, let her fall on her face.
This is going to be good.
Why do I want to preempt her and stop her and tip her off and say, don't put this guy on?
He's bad news.
Thanks.
I don't get it.
It's also worth noting, my friend, that what has not happened, there has been no claim or no calm, I should say, coordinated effort to present counter-evidence without commentary on Candace's character.
No unified statement that sticks strictly to facts without editorializing about motive.
There's apparently no patience for any kind of process.
Instead, what we've seen, we've seen quote tweets and insinuations and implications and declarations of psyops and an open rivalry about rather open rivalry over who really exposed whom.
But all of this, remember, all of this only strengthens Candace's position in the eyes of an audience, an audience that has grown deeply suspicious of this performance certainty, you know, this kabuki dance, this look at this, oh, look, here they come again, all concerned.
It's become, sometimes it's an act.
It's a work, to use a wrestling term.
Because you, my friend, and I, and we viewers, we remember how often absolute confidence has been used to shut down questions that later turned out to matter.
You see, the irony, my friend, the irony is that Candace's critics keep insisting that this is about responsibility while behaving in ways that kind of undermine their own credibility.
Because responsibility looks like restraint.
It looks like acknowledging and recognizing uncertainty, but it looks like separating skepticism from character assassination.
And it also looks like allowing space for more investigation without demanding exile.
And yet what we see instead is a rush to the strongest possible language.
Malicious, insane, psyop, premeditated, words designed to close the conversation rather than clarify it.
And once that happens, then the argument is already lost.
Because audiences, I think, instinctively understand that when the language escalates faster than the evidence, then the driving force is fear.
And this is why Candace Owens continues to gain rather than lose ground through episodes like this.
Because she's not asking the audience to accept her conclusions yet.
She's asking them to watch the process, to see who remains composed, to see who turns out to be legit, to see if the evidence pans out.
People who invite scrutiny, who tolerate disagreement, but also to see who panics when their control seems to slip.
And in that comparison, the outcome isn't flattering for those who are attacking her.
Because they look invested in preserving their status rather than discovering truth.
While she looks invested in asking questions, others would prefer remain unasked.
Why do you think they want her to stop asking questions about TPUSA?
You think it says Mitch Dew and himself?
No.
It's the subject matter.
Shut it down.
You don't question our Erica.
You don't.
Why?
Why do you think?
Why would you want to protect her?
Why is everybody against her maybe realizing the fact that she should have never taken the stage?
Nikki Minaj.
Don't get me started with that one.
Now, the internal conservative riffs here that this exposes are not about ideology so much as a structure, about whether influence flows through these groups or directly to individuals.
Whether this legitimacy is granted by networks of insiders and donors, or is it earned in public view?
And the question also is whether this investigation and inquiry are allowed only when it stays small.
And Candace represents the threat of investigation at scale, which is why even unverified claims become intolerable when she discusses them, while similar speculation from less independent figures is tolerated or ignored.
You see, none of this means every claim heir deserves belief.
Absolutely not.
And Candace herself has said as much.
But belief, belief has never been the standard for whether a question may be asked.
And anyone pretending otherwise is rewriting the rules in real time to Suit their own discomfort, you know?
And that is exactly what audiences are reacting against.
Because they have seen this movie before.
They know how it ends, and they no longer trust those who insist that silence is the same thing as responsibility.
No, absolutely not.
My dear member of the conspiratorium, what we are left with then is a spectacle where Laura Loomer claims influence, Alex Jones claims investigative independence, both accuse Candace of a sort of investigative malice.
And Candace keeps doing what she has always done: speaking directly to you, her audience, acknowledging uncertainty when necessary, and refusing to submit to this pressure from people who don't control her platform.
And the more this dynamic plays out, the clearer it becomes that the real conflict is not about Mitch Snow or flight longs or alibis, but about who gets to decide when questions must stop, when investigations must cease.
And Candace's answer consistently has been that no one does.
Not Laura Loomer, not Alex Jones, not TPUSA, not Erica Kerr, and not the informal cartel of voices that once governed conservative discourse.
That position carries risk.
And Candace has never denied that.
But risk has always been the price of independence.
And what her critics seem unable to accept is that she is quite willing to pay it because she understands something they don't, which is that audiences respect courage and authenticity more than consensus.
And the process is more important than posture.
And honesty about uncertainty is more important than manufactured certainty.
And until her detractors understand that, they will keep escalating it, keep accusing, keep splintering, and keep proving the very case they think they're refuting.
That the era of permission-based relevance is over.
And that the loudest condemnations often reveal the weakest confidence.
In the end, this story will not be remembered for who convinced whom in a private alleged conversation or who tweeted first or who claimed credit for whose awakening.
No.
It will be remembered as another moment when an, I'll say it, an ecosystem revealed its fault lines under pressure, when personalities ran and scrambled to protect their status, and when one figure, one figure refused to play along, letting the audience watch the whole thing unfold and decide for themselves.
And that is why Candace Owens emerges from this, not diminished, but strengthened.
And not silenced, but amplified.
Because in a media environment defined by distrust, the one thing more powerful than being right is being independent and brave.
And that is the thing no pylon has yet figured out.
They've never figured out how to take that away.
Oh, this is fascinating.
And everybody's watching this to see what happens next.
Because you're going to ask yourself, what are they asking, really?
Are they asking her to shut up or to be careful?
And why are they so worried about her care?
My friend, this is getting more complicated and more fascinating because of the ancillary derivative issues.
Not just about Candace Owens or Laura or Alex, but about the issue.
The issue that we understand.
Meanwhile, CNN and those people, let them talk and waste their time.
We're paying attention.
Thank you, my friends.
I trust your Christmas was wonderful.
Thank you for the very kind wishes to Mrs. L and me.
Thank you for your kind notes in the comment section, which I remind you to comment in.