I want you to make it a point to focus on how there is a full court press, an absolute concerted effort to completely shelve, negate, eliminate, ablate,
expurgate, bowdlerized, emend, excise, amputate Candace Owens from everything because she's getting too powerful.
And now they think they've found the latest aha moment, which should result, if they have their way, on her being eliminated from all consideration whatsoever because of her latest claim, her latest tweet.
Now, people are now claiming that somehow this is the end of the world.
I am saying to you, and I am repeating the message, people need to calm down and take a breath.
For the love of God, take it easy because Candace Owens is not running for office.
Okay?
You are not voting for her.
You are not endorsing or ratifying everything she says.
You're not pledging allegiance or fealty to her entire belief system.
And you are not signing off on every word she has ever said or will ever say.
And liking or even agreeing with one thing that she says, doesn't make you somehow responsible for everything she says in total.
This is axiomatic.
Yet, that basic fact, that basic distinction has been erased on purpose, on purpose specifically, because somewhere along the way, people were trained, I guess,
or conditioned to believe that if you say, that's interesting, or I see your point, or there you go, or hmm, you are now morally attached to everything connected to that thought or that person forever, which is not how thinking works.
It's not how being a participant in this kind of a consumer marketplace of ideas, how that works.
And it's not how a free society survives because thinking, listen to me, thinking has always meant sorting and dealing with ideas, weighing them, evaluating them, discarding some, keeping others, evaluating a few, tweaking, and then moving on.
Like music, where you don't necessarily love every song on an album.
I'm dating myself, a CD or whatever it is, but you listen, you skip some tracks, you argue with the lyrics, you might like this version, and you think for yourself.
Something that used to be normal and understood is now being treated like some kind of a crime.
And I know this because I have listened to, for example, Alex Jones say things, and you know that no matter what you think of him now, what he has done in the past, what he has said is monumentally critical.
And he's a friend of mine.
I'm proud to say this.
But I've heard him say things that made sense to me and others that didn't.
And that is allowed.
That is allowed.
That is normal.
Because listening is not believing.
Hearing is not necessarily endorsing or ratifying.
And thinking is not obeying.
Yet this ridiculous cancel culture refuses deliberately to recognize that distinction because it is not designed to stop bad ideas since, well, if that were the goal, we would have debate and evidence and argument would be enough.
No, no, no, no.
Cancel culture is about stopping people, stopping people.
And remember one thing.
This is interesting.
I keep saying this.
The left wants to prevent you from saying things.
The right wants to prevent you from thinking things.
It's important because they're talking about stopping people, both sides, by removing them from the conversation and the discussion entirely so that their ideas never get hurt again.
And that is the goal.
And once you see how the system works, once you understand it, you can't unsee it.
Because first you pick a target.
Anyone, anyone with influence, anyone powerful, anyone popular, anyone that frightens or challenges your particular way of thinking, whether it's AOC, Elon O'More, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, doesn't matter.
Just go down the list.
Okay?
And then you dig through years of comments or interviews or jokes or tweets or half-sentences or things that were attributed to them or what Wikipedia says or what the collectives say.
And then you look at clips stripped of context or not looking for truth, but something that can be weaponized, something that once you find it, you attach a label to it, like racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic or transphobic or Islamophobic or misogynistic or fat-shaming or, but never un-American.
Notice what never appears anti-American, un-American, no problem.
No problem.
And dare I say in some cases, anti-Catholic, but that's a different story.
Because that accusation is never used.
And once the label is attached, the next step is not discussion or clarification.
Oh, no, no.
But punishment.
Punishment.
Sanctioning.
Fire them.
Ban them.
Remove them.
Shadow ban them.
Demonetize them.
Silence them.
Not because the idea is wrong, but because the person is now unacceptable.
And here is the part.
Here is the part that nobody wants to admit, which is that there is not a single human being alive or who has ever lived or will live that you agree with 100% of the time.
Not a politician, not a commentator, not an influencer, not a friend, not a family member, not a neighbor, not a co-worker, nobody.
So if total agreement is the price of being allowed to speak, then no one qualifies.
And I will say something that surprises people, which is that I have serious, serious objections to things that the Trump administration does or has said and plans to do, and yet, and yet, there is no other president I would rather have right now.
Both of those things can be true at the same time, consistently, concominantly.
It's the same thing.
This used to be called thinking and is now treated like what?
Betrayal.
This is the thing I don't understand.
I've never given up my ability to independently think.
And I'm going to say it again.
President Trump does some things I think, that's nuts.
And other times I think that's great.
But either way, I don't want anybody.
You think I want Kamala Harris?
Kaymila?
Are you kidding me?
By God, Gavin Newsom?
No.
I don't even know what other Republican I would want other than him.
So anyway, that's the way that is.
And this brings us to the latest outrage involving Venezuela, where Candace Owens, that's right.
Candace Owens said something many people found absolutely unconscionable and explosive and over the top when she said that Venezuela was being, quote, liberated the same way Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq were liberated through the air quotes.
And she also suggested intel agencies and global interests somehow benefit from regime change.
And this is not exactly shocking, using language people found offensive.
And framing that made many angry.
Oh my God.
What she said was this.
I'm going to read this tweet, right?
These are her words.
This is what she said.
This is it.
So get ready.
By the way, if there's any small children, any lactating mothers or people with pacemakers, you should consult with your physician before listening.
Not safe for work.
NSFW, please, a viewer, viewer discretion.
She said, quote, Venezuela has been liberated like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq were liberated.
Those are the quotes.
Further, quote, the CIA has staged another hostile takeover of a country at the behest of a globalist psychopaths.
Okay, whatever.
That's it.
That's what is happening.
Always, everywhere.
Zionists, this is her quote, cheer every regime change.
There has never been a single regime change, her words, that Zionists have not applauded because it means they get to steal land, oil, and other resources.
Hope this helps.
I think she was referencing somebody else.
Zionists are behind Venezuela?
Okay.
All right.
I'm not even sure what the hell that means.
Truly.
I don't know what that means.
I mean, I know, I think what she, I think I know what she's trying to say.
Now, do I agree with that?
No.
No.
No, because first of all, I'm not sure what it means, but no.
This is a tough one.
But first, because I don't agree with it and I do not necessarily endorse it, I can disagree with it and think parts of it are wrong, obviously.
But here is the key point that seems to cause quite the kerfuffle, quite the meltdown, which is that I can still listen to her regarding other matters and I can understand that there are people who share that worldview.
I can understand why suspicion of foreign intervention exists and I can understand why people who live through Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya hear the word liberation and roll their eyes because understanding is not an endorsement.
Yet the reaction to this one statement was instant and hysterical, as if the single idea must erase her entire existence, invalidate every other idea she has ever expressed, and make listening to anything else she says forbidden a crime, which is not reasoning, but religious thinking maybe, because you're allowed to disregard an idea and still listen to others.
And that is how thinking works, how conversation works, and how growth works.
But cancel culture cannot allow that because it just depends on total obedience and obeisance.
And none of this is new.
None of this.
So follow it right now.
And here's the thing too.
Whether you like it or not, there are people who believe this.
There are people who don't believe we landed on the moon.
There are people who don't believe that the Watergate was for the reasons I can go through it.
You don't need me to go through a litany of things.
There are people who don't believe in weapons of mass destruction.
There are people who believe that there was a quote.
And the word Zionist, I know that when you hit that, that's our third wheel.
But there are people who believe that.
Understand there are people who say that.
And because a lot of people say that, or a number of people say it, it doesn't make it right.
But so what?
What am I supposed to do?
Say, okay, well, buy that.
Move along.
So everything she's saying about Charlie Cook is wrong.
Everything she's saying about TPUSA and Erica Kirk is wrong.
Don't get me going with the Brigitte Macron thing.
That's another story.
You see what I'm saying?
Remember Pat Buchanan?
Because Pat Buchanan years ago questioned endless wars and foreign entanglements, and instead of debating him, critics labeled him anti-Semitic to end the conversation.
Why?
Because he kept using the term neoconservatives.
And he made reference to Leo Strauss, and somehow they threw that one in there.
And he said, what?
He, by the way, was against us again being, he argued against even involvement in the Second World War.
That was his opinion.
That was his opinion.
Am I supposed to throw him away?
Sorry.
I'm thinking, World War II?
Pearl Harbor?
What do you think we should do?
Do I agree with that?
No, but it's interesting.
Okay?
And then with Pat Buchanan, when that stopped working, the labels changed, but the tactics stayed the same.
We're worrying about American, here's the best one.
If you worry now about American culture and it being lost and being liquidated and diluted by swarms and swaths and tsunamis of foreign Islamist,
not Islamic or Muslim, but Islamist illegal aliens or migrants or whatever you're going to call it, because you're worried about having our American culture diluted, which is certainly different from the anti-Semitic because now we're talking about Islamists, that gets you called Islamophobic.
And a lot of the people who call you anti-Semitic will say, well, what's wrong with that?
Well, of course it's, I worry about that.
Well, you're an Islamophobic, but you're an anti-Semite.
Yeah, but you're a racist.
See where we go with this?
Who?
Women, what?
And just because I call you something, what does that mean?
Is this like musical chairs?
I sit down and you got to go?
I took the chair.
Sorry.
I said it first, so I win.
When people talk about crime statistics, and people would suggest, for example, I remember this, I've been on panels where they talk about this inordinate amount or this inordinate percentage of African Americans in the prison system.
They call you racist.
And you're saying, I've got the statistics here.
You're a racist.
I'm a racist?
What?
Can't listen to you.
Well, somebody called you a racist.
Because once you're given that label, I got to stop listening to you.
Who's left?
Nobody.
Saying that men should not compete in women's sports gets you called transphobic.
Questioning official narratives gets you called a conspiracy theorist.
And asking too many questions makes you dangerous.
With the message always being the same, which is stop talking.
And here is a rule worth remembering, which is that every time someone tells you a subject is off limits, that is exactly when you should start paying attention.
Because people only panic.
People only panic and get that concerned when something makes them uncomfortable, when there is truth there or power being protected.
You only get flack when you're over the target.
Remember Charles Murray?
Remember the book Bell Curve?
Remember that one?
He was suggesting maybe intelligence, IQ core differences inherent between races.
It was an idea positive.
He learned when he asked questions about IQ testing and group differences and he was banned, of course, a racist, simply for asking.
I mean, to even acknowledge him.
Remember that one?
You can't even hear, well, what's the basis for this?
I never understood this.
I was like, you mean to tell me it's impossible to have differences between races?
Yes.
Why are there no Cambodians on the NBA?
Well, they're shorter.
Aha!
Well, that's stature.
So there are differences.
There are differences.
Well, yeah, but, well, if somebody can be different in height, why can't they be different in intelligence or language skills or math skills?
Why?
Why is that preposterous?
I'm not suggesting it.
I'm asking.
And I've experienced this myself when I raised similar questions.
I was asked if I was a racist or whatever it was.
I mean, I can't keep track of this.
And when I said no, I'm asking a question.
Then I'm asked whether there are differences between men and women, which no one really calls sexist.
But yet, somebody notices differences between anywhere else, and that becomes forbidden, which is not science, but ideology.
And now we live in a world where DEI, DEI says race and gender must be acknowledged for policy while forbidding honest discussion about them, which you cannot have both ways, even though that contradiction is enforced with moral authority.
You can't say there's no difference between men and women, but we're going to have preferences for something that we can't define.
What?
And the people who scared the system the most, the ones who terrify the system, are always the same type.
Those who speak plainly, who don't apologize, and who don't ask permission, like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson.
And let me repeat this because repetition matters, which is that I am not voting for these people.
I am not appointing them to office.
I am listening to ideas.
And I have been called every name imaginable.
Because the longer you do this, the more labels you collect.
They stick to you.
And the real danger is not the police or government agents, but the thought vigilantes.
Not the thought police, but the thought vigilantes, the citizens, the civilians, the self-appointed rulers of what can and cannot be said.
Because we have seen this instinct before, where silence comes first and thinking later.
And even religion shows the double standard, where things can be said about Catholics that would never, ever be tolerated if said about other faiths.
And I say this as a retired Catholic who is not sensitive, but observant, okay?
Because some groups are protected and some are open season, which is not equality, but power.
And when you bring this back to Candace Owens, whether you like her or not, whether you agree with her or not, she represents a group of people who refuse to be told what they are allowed to think.
Young, online, skeptical, tired of elite hypocrisy, and tired of being ordered to shut up.
And any political movement, any group that ignores that group is making a serious mistake, especially as foreign policy moves front and center with the Middle East, Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, and renewed talk of the Monroe Doctrine and spheres, not spears, but spheres of influence and America acting in its own interest.
Because questions will be asked and must be allowed.
Like which wars were worth it?
Which were sold with lives?
Who benefits from intervention?
And who pays the price?
Qui bono, qui protest, who benefits?
And people will try to shut these questions down to, but do not let them.
Because the moment you accept that, the moment you accept the idea that some ideas are forbidden, you have already given up something that you may never get back.
End of story.
That's it.
And that's where we are right now.
This is a very, very serious issue for me right now.
Very, very serious.
And I have heard people say things about the white man and the black man, men.
And even though, you know, I may not be crazy about it or agree with it, I've never, ever considered for a moment telling somebody to shut up.
And for you to say, well, it's not so much that you're wrong, but if I can attach a label to it.
See, if I say, well, you're wrong about this, no, better, you're a racist.
Well, you're wrong about this particular idea regarding gender.
You're a misogynist.
Well, I think you're wrong about the notion of the ICC, the ICGA, and their jurisdiction regarding Bibi Nanyahu.
You're an anti-Semite.
See what I'm saying?
It takes it to the next level.
It shuts it up.
It's third rail.
It's kryptonite.
Aren't you tired of it?
Seriously.
Don't just say, I'm not buying this.
I'm not.
If somebody's stupid or wrong, that's one thing.
I don't understand anymore.
Joy Reed can say the most profoundly racist, anti-white, oh my God, things they've said about JD Vance and his wife, whatever.
Now, you can point it out, but does she have the right to be heard?
Yes.
Does that mean she's never said anything right?
By the way, don't forget, Joy Reid's a same person who has time bandits, go back and change her website.
She was really homophobic regarding some comments, allegedly.
But I don't want to relitigate that one.
But the point is, how come she can say it?
No, you can't.
You know why, you know why, you know why, you know why, okay?
We don't.
But if you want to dismiss Candace Owens, fine.
Is she wrong about this Venezuela thing?
I don't even know what the hell that means.
I'm not saying that to be cute.
I really don't understand what she's trying to say.
I mean, something I can say, well, she's trying to say this.
Zionism in Venezuela?
Okay.
That's what you think.
And what happened?
Oh, and by the way, let's say hypothetically, I get a Jewish person or an Israeli who believes that.
Are they anti-Semitic?
Does that make any sense to you?
Thomas Sowell was called, oh, no, no.
Well, there's no version of an Uncle Tom.
Well, there's a self-loathing Jew, but when Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams and others would say things which many African Americans and black people thought, oh my God, that's horrible.
You're a quizzling, you're a sellout, you're an uncle Tom.
You see, it's always the name calling.
Never address the idea.
Never look at the underlying thought.
Come up with a name, come up with a label.
Well, there's no, I don't have time for labels here.
You understand that?
I don't have time for a label.
I'm too busy trying to get to the truth.
So I thank you for this.
Thank you, for your focus in this.
And thank you for allowing me to come into your world and give you my impression.
And if you don't like it, disagree with me.
Tell me why.
Just don't call me a name.
Just don't call me a name.
I'm fighting for what I believe in.
It's the truth.
I want a better country.
I want a perfect country.
What I think is as close to perfect as we're going to get.
I believe in the Constitution and I believe in the rules and that sort of thing.
And I want to thank you for your comments.
And I want to thank you very much for following my wife at Lens Warriors.
I'm telling you right now, there is a, you, what, there, there is nobody.
I don't even know who's talking about this anymore.
But when you look at what's happening with children, if you look at how they have been completely and totally and utterly abandoned by your government, I mean, abandoned the whole notion of this, protecting children, I thought the whole women and children first thing, I thought that meant something.
No!
So thank you for that.
It's a very, very simple concept.
It's about protecting child predation.
Stopping it.
Stopping it right now.
So thank you for following Lens Warriors on YouTube and on media.
Look, X.
I still call it Twitter article.
I still say albums.
But look, I'm going to leave you with this.
I'm a very, very simple person.
I told you this right now, and I have this right now.
I've got it.
This is all I believe in.
This is the Constitution.
And I believe in the vote.
I'm very proud of this.
These are all my little stickers from every time I vote.
This is the last time.
Manat early voting when Zorhan Mamdani came in, this proto-Marxist or whatever he came in.
Anyway, he got in fair and square.
And we will deal with that appropriately through the infusion of ideas and the like.
But this is what I believe in.
And I believe in the truth.
And I believe in being able to speak.
And I believe in the spirit of free expression.
And I believe in the only way we're ever going to get anything done is if we have, as we said in the 60s, rap sessions.
Let's rap.
Let's rap.
So thank you for letting me into your head, into your heart.
Please like this video.
Hit the little button, the little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
And like this, like and And subscribe.
70% I found out of the people who watch this don't even subscribe and answer the questions.
I've got some questions for you, which I have appended to this.
And I appreciate it.
I appreciate it.
I think we're on the same page.
I think you see what I'm saying.
And I appreciate that because that gives me affirmation that I'm doing the right thing because so many of you have said so so politely and so and so positively and so beautifully so I've got some questions and in the Adjoining portion of this,