Candace Owens Fires Back at Her Critics: The Smear Campaign Is Collapsing in Real Time
|
Time
Text
Can you believe the absolute unleashed unchained unvarnished hatred fixation on Candace Owens and stories that I mean Mitch Snow?
Is this really the end of the world?
She can say anything.
The amount of people who jump on her, but not with just a disagreement, but with a ferocity, an absolute focused, almost a deep-seated hatred.
It's a pathology.
No, I'm serious.
This is, this is, this is nuts.
There are people who never say anything about anything going on in the world about war and destruction and death and mayhem and the violation of civil rights and the annihilation of people and nothing, nothing.
What they're doing to children with nothing.
War and carnage and pestilence.
But Candace Owens, it's almost, it's weird.
It's like a scrum.
It's like a kabuki dance.
And other people who don't even know why they're getting upset, they're jumping into it.
What is the matter?
Take it easy, perspective.
Dear God, I can't believe this.
She must be every day saying to herself, what is going on here?
It's almost like watching a murmuration, like locusts, like a swarm, an oclocracy, a mob mentality.
They want Candace Owens gone.
I mean, gone, expurgated, not debated, not corrected, not proven wrong, just gone.
And the reason is simple.
She refuses to shut up when people tell her to.
And in media and politics, that is the one unforgivable sin.
The reaction to Candace right now is not normal disagreement.
It's fixation, obsession, and an escalation that has nothing to do with calmly sorting facts.
I was watching last night the spaces or during the courses I'm listening to this, I'm thinking, what am I listening to?
They didn't even debate the Kennedy assassination like this.
Was it Wachuka?
Was it this?
Was it Mitch Snowden?
How do you know this was a Green Beret?
Maybe he was.
What is it's, it might be, you know, I'm expecting somebody all of a sudden to say, all right, stop.
Enough's enough.
Jokes on you.
We're kidding.
We're a theater company.
We're part of a weird kind of a Milgram experiment, wannabe.
We wanted to see if we could create false momentum.
Come on, Alex.
Everybody, come on out.
Hey, come on.
We're all kidding.
Hey.
And I'm not going to say anything about Alex Jones.
All right.
I'm sorry.
He's a friend of mine.
I love the guy.
Whatever he wants to do, he's a grown man.
God bless him.
All right.
So, Alex, I'm your buddy, and I'm not a fair weather friend, and I don't jump sides.
I'm not talking about you, my friend, all right?
I'm not talking about you.
I mean that.
Sometimes there are people, maybe I don't understand it.
Maybe I'm missing the point.
But I do notice something.
When people start calling somebody a CIA agent, MI6, Mossad, I'll tell you what, if Candace Owens and Mossad, they're really good.
I mean, her?
Do you listen to what she's saying?
Maybe that's it.
Maybe that's it.
Maybe it's counter, counter, counterintelligence.
Maybe she's an FBI operative.
Maybe she's a Democratic psyop.
Maybe some globalist handler all at once, this amalgamation of different positions.
And the argument has already collapsed.
That's not analysis.
That's some kind of panic dressed up as certainty and fantasy.
But I love it.
So let's slow this down, all right?
And let's say it plainly, all right?
Candace Owens is bigger than she has ever been.
And what exactly, with all due respect to CO, what is she saying other than, well, I talked to Mitch, what?
Her audience is huge, as we say in Hell's Kitchen.
Her reach is real.
She doesn't need approval from conservative gatekeepers.
They don't know what to do.
A lot of these cable news folks are looking at her and they're saying, what do we do?
What do we do?
What is this?
How do we get a piece of this?
I don't even know.
Media figures, political organizations, they're wondering, how do we jump in on this in order just to survive?
And that alone, by the way, explains why the response to her has become so aggressive, so off the wall.
People don't react this way to voices that they can ignore.
They react this way to voices they can't control.
See, that's the thing.
It drives them crazy that she won't listen to them.
They're telling her, shut up.
And she's saying no.
By the way, she did say something the other day, which was music to my ears.
And as a retired Catholic, but somebody who knows how the club works, you mentioned Holy Days of Obligation.
And that is exactly what a Catholic does.
Good for you.
I love these cafeteria Catholic.
I'm a Catholic.
I don't do anything.
There's rules.
Good for you.
Now, what Candace is doing, by the way, is also asking questions about a serious event.
Remember that one?
Remember that one?
The whole assassination thing?
And refusing to move on just because powerful people want the story closed.
And whether she's right or wrong is not even the main issue anymore.
By the way, you know that ChatGPT, I put in something, it wouldn't allow, it was arguing with me whether Charlie Kirk's homicide was an assassination because we don't know if it was basically targeted because of a political reason or not.
I mean, ChatGPT, I'm arguing with, what the hell am I arguing with?
What is this thing?
I'm saying, are you kidding?
And this doesn't mean, no, I'm not kidding.
It's even, excuse me, even ChatGPT and others are fighting this Charlie narrative.
Get away from it.
This is interesting.
You know, the issue in all this is that Candace is still talking and she's still pointing at timelines.
And she's still asking why certain dates are avoided and why certain explanations feel incomplete.
That makes people uncomfortable.
And that makes them feel uneasy.
Not because it proves anything, but because it keeps attention where they want silence.
And here's the thing, and I want you to understand something.
And Erica, we're going to talk about her at some particular point later because I've been wanting to stay away from this because I don't want to sound like I'm mean, but everybody is not turning on her, but people are saying, this is the weirdest.
I didn't know her before.
I really wasn't paying attention.
But she is.
Well, we'll talk about this behavior, okay?
Okay?
We'll talk about this behavior.
It's, doesn't anybody care about who killed Charlie?
Is it, am I?
Did I miss something here?
See, this is why the attacks, the attacks on Candace, whatever, keep on changing.
First, she was just wrong.
Remember that she was wrong.
She was wrong.
Then she was biased.
And then she was anti-Semitic.
Oh, yeah.
When you don't know what to say, anti-Semitic.
Works like a charm.
Just like racist, transphobe, Islamophobe, you know, homophobe, any kind, anything to, or just plain crazy.
Remember, if you don't know what to do, she's just crazy.
She's crazy.
And that her husband or her, that British guy, MI6.
You better believe it, boy.
I don't know if he's hating Bible.
I know he's doing something.
Something's wrong with that.
Anyway, Russell Brand, what's that all about?
Russell Brand's got enough problems as it did.
In any event, anywho, so let me see.
Let me go back to it.
She was, oh yeah, wrong, biased, anti-Semitic, crazy, unstable, wrong.
And now she's an agent for every intelligence service anyone can name.
See, once someone becomes everything at once, they're no longer a person that you have to engage.
I mean, theoretically, that's the idea.
They become almost like a cartoon, a cartoon villain, a snidely whiplash that you can dismiss.
Well, it's not working very well.
And you know, there's a certain corner of the internet that loves this phase.
Oh, and you know it and I know it.
They thrive on it.
Everyone is a Fed.
Everyone is an asset.
I know.
I've studied this.
I understand the symbolism, the symbology, the semiotics.
I know this.
I know she's a, oh, she's Langley.
Oh, she's a spook.
Oh, yeah, she's a spy.
She's from, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's it.
She's an agent.
And that husband of hers, she's a plant.
It's an arranged marriage.
That's it.
That's the ticket.
Everybody's an asset.
Someone disagrees with you, Mossad.
By the way, Mossad, they love Mossad.
Deep down inside.
I'm telling you, everybody is.
Everybody.
Laura Loomer, Mossad.
Ben Shapiro, Mossad.
Except Mossad.
And Mossad is like Woodstock.
Somebody said one time, if everybody who says they were at Woodstock, if everybody, if they who said they were at Woodstock were at Woodstock, 20 million people would have been at Woodstock.
And if Mossad was as big as they say, it would basically take over Tel Aviv.
And it's so interesting because this is by design.
There is a commercialization of the image of this.
Don't forget Amman, by the way, that's the one.
That's military intel.
I think they're bigger and better, but what do I know?
You know, someone agrees, if someone agrees with you strongly, Mossad or MI6 or something.
They throw these things around.
And they throw these things around.
And it's kind of old.
Remember 9-11, 9-11.
Oh, my God, the dancing Israelis.
There we go again.
Mossad, the dancing Israelis, and then there was the, that of course is MI5, MI6, CIA, PNAC was, oh, military industrial complex.
And then we get into things like MIC, PINAC, we get the globalists, we get the transnationals.
All these, we just, the more you could throw up, now it's Fed slop.
Everything now is the slop.
You notice that?
Then it was the blob.
You got to get your jargon correct.
You got to get your Argo, your Argot, your lexicon.
If somebody asks for evidence, CIA.
It's easy content and it's exciting, requires absolutely no thinking whatsoever.
And you just say the word and people react.
That's not investigation.
That's entertainment.
Okay?
Nothing wrong with that.
But understand what's going on here.
And this is where Mitch Snow comes in.
Who is this guy?
Who is this Mitch Snow?
I don't like the sound of it.
I don't believe a word he says.
This old fat soul wrote him in his greenberry special upshabrow, that guy.
I'm not buying it.
Not buying it.
No, sir.
He's probably most sad.
CIA.
I don't know who he is.
Maybe, maybe just maybe it's military intel.
People keep asking why he even matters.
Me, I'm asking.
They say, okay, you saw these people.
No offense, Candy.
No offense, Mitch, but so what?
This is not exactly the linchpin.
The answer is not because he's perfect or because everything has, he says must be true or any of this stuff.
He matters because he creates a kind of a crack in the story they think that people want sealed shut.
Witnesses like him, well, witnesses like him, you know, force explanations.
You know, when you bring him in, they force timelines and they force people to say where they were and when.
The best thing to do, by the way, just to let you know something, if you really want to, if Mitch bothers you, you know what you say?
You say, he doesn't matter.
The story doesn't matter.
That's the best way.
Mitch, whatever, whatever.
You dismiss it as unimportant.
You say that his story adds no real connection to the story.
You tell people that what's the big deal?
Whether he was wachuca at this hotel, he was getting the things.
What?
Does it matter?
And when you keep bringing up all these other channels and other sources that likewise run interference, what's the point of this?
I'm telling you, this is the strangest thing.
Candace should make up a name.
You know, Percival Terwilliger.
Just make up a name and then say, What's he have to do with it?
And I swear to you, in five minutes, they'll say, Oh, that Ter Williger, he's Mossad.
They'll just jump in and not even ask, Who is this person?
It doesn't matter.
Two reasons to stay on board, to be in the, you know, in the game, so to speak, get the clicks, get the metrics, but also just to look.
I'm going to say it.
A lot of people are saying, you know, some of these folks seem to be talking about this stuff a little too much.
You don't think they're being paid by anybody, do you?
Hmm?
I'm just saying.
I'm just saying.
See, there was that old Moby story.
Remember, Moby?
Remember, I tell you this all the time.
How they came to him and wanted to get his social media platform.
See, if I can get, if I can get five of the pick, pick five people, okay?
Let's say, just five people.
Alex and let's say Alex Russell Brand, just throw some names out.
Megan Kelly, Tucker, just name them.
Just in terms of sheer raw follower metrics and firepower and turn them all against Candace, one would think that that would somehow destroy her.
No, it bolsters her.
You see, I don't understand.
If the Mitch business, if the story were solid, that shouldn't be a problem.
But if the story is fragile, they think their witness becomes the enemy.
It's the strangest thing.
And again, how all of a sudden, overnight, this guy is the linchpin.
Do you remember a while back?
Maybe you don't.
Saul Olinski.
Remember this?
Saul Alinsky.
Nobody, the instructions for radicals, whatever you want to call it, Saul Olinski overnight was in every conservative cable news guy's quiver.
Saul Olinski.
You don't want to get like Saul.
Aha!
This is classic Saul Olinski.
That's the Mitch Snow thing.
Notice what critics focus on when Mitch is discussed.
Not the dates, not the locations, not whether he could have actually been, you know, where he said he was when he said he was there.
Instead, that's right, they go straight to his personal life, his past, his relationships, his looks, his weight, his intelligence, his alleged behavior.
That's not how you test a claim.
That's how you avoid one.
And a person can be deeply flawed and still tell the truth about what they saw.
You don't, if Ted Bundy, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, the BTK killer, and John Wayne Gacy all were standing together and something happened at 10 o'clock.
And I said, Mr. Bundy, what time did this happen?
10 o'clock.
Mr. Manson, 10 o'clock.
Mr. Gacy, 10 o'clock.
Mr. BT, 10 o'clock.
You sit there and say, they're crazy.
You don't understand.
He's a killer.
No, you got the time.
It's about the time.
Yeah, but he's a killer.
No, I know he's a killer.
Yes, I know that.
Happens all the time in federal court.
Look at Sammy the Bull.
I don't know how many people he supposedly killed, but he put people away and they needed him because if you want to get to certain information, you're going to be getting people who are in this kind of intel world.
Remember the whole story?
Remember James Jesus Angleton?
Roaring alcoholic.
CIA, huge.
Remember Helms?
Remember, just go down the list.
Anyway, we're talking.
G. Gordon, Liddy, these people were crackers in a kind of an artistic way.
History is full of examples of that.
I don't have to tell you this.
But they act like somehow somebody's going to say something and you're going to disqualify everything that Candace has said because of some particular fact or factoid, as people say, from his past.
Now, in real prosecutions, witnesses are rarely saints.
I told you this before.
They're insiders.
They're messy.
They're compromised.
They're human.
That's not a weakness.
That's often why they know anything at all.
Pretending that truth only comes from what?
From perfect people is ridiculous.
That's something only said by people who have absolutely no idea of what's going on and who have never really looked closely at power.
They have no idea of how this thing works.
And the same pattern, the same pattern shows up in the attacks on Candace Owens.
Instead of, and I'm echoing myself, instead of addressing what she is actually saying, critics focus on what she is married to, or who she's married to, I guess, or whom she is married to.
And they focus on what they imagine her motives are and which shadowy group they claim and controls her.
And once you label someone, you notice how they're backing off on the Tucker thing?
Tucker's a Qatari agent.
He bought a property and cut her in.
He's a, yeah.
It's like it doesn't stick.
You know, you try it and it's like, this isn't working.
It's not, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
But once you label someone as an agent, you never have to answer their questions.
But once the label sticks, see, that's the point of this.
That's the critical point of this.
Look, I've been through this before, and you have too.
But I guess what I'm saying is axiomatic.
That's why figures like Alex Jones turning on her matter less than people think.
All due respect.
All due respect to AJ.
When the response jumps straight to psyops and MK Ultra talk and that kind of thing, it's not strength.
It's loss of control.
It tells the audience that the speaker doesn't trust the facts to carry the argument anymore.
It indicates that maybe they're reaching for a spectacle, you know, something other than what is remotely the truth.
Now, the irony in all this is that this strategy usually backfires.
The louder the smears, the more curious people become.
This, again, is axiomatic.
It's the truth.
Audiences aren't stupid.
We are not stupid.
See, they know the difference between, and we know the difference between disagreement and a pylon.
We've seen this before.
And when the reaction feels rehearsed and extreme, people start asking why.
Why is this?
People also start noticing when people aren't acting right, in the case of Erica Kirk.
We'll get to that later.
Candace Owens is not asking people to take her word on faith.
That's not what she's saying.
She's not saying, look, believe me, because, you know, I'm, no.
She's not asking for blind belief or some kind of weird obeisance.
She's asking why certain questions are treated as verboten and forbidden and out of bounds.
She's asking why wrong dates keep being used to debunk claims about different dates.
She's asking why explanations are indirect instead of straightforward.
And those are reasonable questions.
Those are reasonable questions whether you like her or not, where you know who she is.
It's just reasonable.
And the focus on her mental health and supposed intelligence ties and maybe her own rudimentary intelligence.
I don't think anybody questions her intelligence.
She's very, very smart.
But all that's a distraction.
It keeps people from having to do the boring, tedious, hard work of walking through timelines and evidence.
And it turns a factual dispute into a personality war.
And that's easier to manage and much easier to monetize.
Let me explain something to you, which is something very critical.
When people are involved in something, they get to feel bulletproof.
They feel like they don't have to watch for anything.
They feel like they don't have to worry about what they do and where they go and what they say and with whom they associate.
They feel bulletproof.
They feel invisible.
They feel like, don't you understand?
We're TPUSA.
I'm Erica Kirk.
I'm so as I don't have to worry about this.
I've got the whole, you know who runs us?
We are all multi-millionaires.
We run the most important organization.
By the way, TPUSA is done.
Sorry.
I'm sorry to say it, but that was Charlie.
And without Charlie, that dog don't hunt.
Remember that creepy kid?
I don't even know his name.
Remember, they tried to push him?
And then Ben Shapiro speaking real creepy?
No.
No.
It's like watching a time-lapsed desiccation of a rat.
Did you ever see something they show like a rat is decomposing?
That's TPUSA.
You can just see it shrink down into the bones and fur, and it's sad.
Because nobody is, they're worried now about themselves and their cover and Erica's books and issues on this show and the Gold LaMay and this and that.
I mean, just the stagecraft is abominable.
Now, this is also, by the way, why the obsession with Candace Owens has also grown so large and out of control.
She has become content.
Every attack, every single attack, every time you mention her, generates clicks.
Every response generates another video.
No one, no one benefits from resolution and completion and conclusion except the audience.
Everyone else benefits from confusion.
And confusion keeps the story alive.
And just when I think, okay, we're done with this.
Oh no, not even close.
And by the way, we're going to be nowhere near close.
Strip away all of that.
And what is left is simple.
Candace Owens is a commentary machine, a commentator asking questions about a serious event that last time I checked, we all cared about.
And she's refusing to be silenced by ridicule.
Period.
Mitch Snow is a witness whose presence at certain places can be verified even if his conclusions are debated.
Is he critical to the story?
No.
Is he the lynchpin?
No.
No.
The rest is noise layered on top of noise.
And you know how that is.
You do not have to agree, I'm saying this again with Candace Owens.
You do not have to agree with anything she's ever said.
You don't have to trust Mitch or anybody.
You do not have to believe there is anything more to uncover.
That's fine.
That is up to you.
But turning Candace into a supervillain controlled by every intel agency on the planet is not skepticism.
It's avoidance.
It's desperation.
And it fuels her legacy and her importance.
Listen to what she's actually saying.
Look at the date she is pointing to and ask yourself, how critical is this?
How important is this?
Look at the responses she's getting.
Look at the responses that she's generating.
Then decide.
Everything else is theater.
Theater that's meant to scare people away from paying attention.
And meanwhile, the sad part is the people who killed, I mean, if you believe this, believe this, this Tyler Robinson story with a 30-out six and the bone.
I mean, come on, man.
Come on, dude.
And the reason the focus on Candace has become so intense, as you know, and as I've said, is not because she is weak.
It is because she is strong.
She is independent and still being heard and at levels you can't imagine.
And that is why people are really reacting to whether they admit it or not, right?
They're just going.
So that's where we are with this one.
So please, please put this into perspective.
Now, let me tell you, thank you for watching.
Thank you.
Your comments are terrific.
Absolutely, positively terrific.
And they've been wonderful.
So please follow this.
I've got some questions for you in the background, in the back, under the comments section.
And I also want to tell you how much I appreciate you following my wife at Lynn's Warriors.
Let me tell you something.
On a regular beat, and I hope we get to this soon.
By the way, this is hands down more important than Mitch Snow.
There is a war on for our children.
Our children are the next generation.
And plus and foremost, we are destroying the foundation of American civilization in particular, to begin with.
We are destroying their childhood.
We're destroying their perspective.
What's happening to children by big tech is out of control.
Please follow Lynn's Warriors on YouTube to see what I'm talking about because that's our passion.
Listen, let me tell you something.
You might just have tuned in for the first time.
I'm not a Republican, registered independent.
I think political parties, both of them are worthless.
Okay?
I like what I like Trump because there's nobody else.
He makes a lot of mistakes, but there's something there.
And his problem, by the way, is not him, I think, inherently, but the people he hangs around with.
That's another story.
So we'll get to him.
We'll get to Erica Kirk.
We'll get to other stuff as well.
But let me just thank you for your thoughts.
Have been so terrific.
Thank you for weighing in and for being a part of this.