All Episodes
Previous
Jan. 16, 2026 - Lionel Nation
20:46
CANDACE OWENS Is Anything But Crazy

CANDACE OWENS Is Anything But Crazy

|

Time Text
I'm going to be as simple as I possibly can.
If you think Candace Owens is crazy, you're crazy.
They're doing everything today, boy.
I'm telling you, she's into remote viewing.
Operation Stargate, she's lost her mind.
Time traveler and premonitions of death.
She's finally lost it.
You're kidding me, right?
You're kidding me.
Tell me, tell me you're kidding me.
Because if you really want to understand what's happening right now, if you really want to get it, when people rush to microphones and keyboards and social media feeds all to declare that Candace Owens is crazy.
Cray-cray, non-compassmentes.
If you want to know what's going on, you have to zoom out and recognize a much older human pattern.
And I'm going to tell you, this is not about one comment or one theory or one uncomfortable question.
You know that.
It's about who gets to define what beliefs are in terms of socially acceptable.
Who?
Who draws the line?
Who draws the line between respectable curiosity and imagination and alternative theories and hypotheses and forbidden speculation?
And who acts as the cultural referee when someone steps outside the approved narrative?
Oh, that's crazy.
I want to say something right now, and I want to say this right off up front, and I want to be as polite as I possibly can.
I'm irreligious.
I'm not an atheist.
I'm not an agnostic.
I'm irreligious.
It's like I don't speak French.
You know?
Nothing against French.
I don't understand it because I just don't speak it.
I don't understand it.
I have no thoughts about the French, and I have no thoughts about this, but I will tell you this.
I have heard people from various faiths tell me things that they believe absolutely positively, apodictically.
And I think it is, I don't think it's insane, but I think you've got a lot of nerve thinking that Candace Owens is crazy because she mentions remote viewing, which I'll get to in a moment.
You see, the reaction to this itself tells you everything.
Everything you need to know.
And tells you far more than the original statement ever could.
You know, I think you know this.
Throughout your life, you've heard that, you've heard people from different religions and cultures and spiritual traditions express beliefs that may sound strange or may sound exaggerated or even preposterous.
Most reasonable adults do not immediately label those individuals as insane or clinically nuts.
They may disagree, they may quietly dismiss the claims, but they understand the difference between holding unconventional beliefs and being mentally unstable.
And that distinction disappears the moment a politically inconvenient voice steps into questions of meaning and destiny or spiritual purpose.
Candace Owens entered that forbidden zone, not by declaring herself a prophet or building a cult, but by openly acknowledging that human experience may not be limited to spreadsheets or polling data and bureaucratic definitions of reality.
The backlash was instant.
Headlines appeared.
Clips circulated.
Performative kabuki outrage choreographed.
It was beautiful.
The goal was not debate.
The goal was reputational containment.
We've got her now.
She's finally gone too far.
Battle stages.
We got her.
She's nuts.
And there's a reason this tactic works, theoretically.
Social labeling triggers fear.
And nobody wants to be isolated.
And nobody wants to be cast outside the circle of acceptable opinion.
So crowds rush to repeat the approved verdict.
And this is crowd psychology in action.
Not science defending itself.
Oh, no, Now, consider the irony of this.
Curiosity about the unknown is not fringe.
It is ancient.
It's human.
Governments have funded it.
Militaries have studied it.
Universities have explored it.
You find it fascinating.
I find it fascinating.
Intelligence agencies have documented it forever.
And one of the clearest examples is the United States government's Stargate Project.
That's right.
This classified program ran from 77 to 95 under CIA and DIA oversight.
And it investigated whether trained individuals could use a disciplined mental process known as remote viewing to perceive distant locations and people or events, all for intelligence purposes.
And this was not pop culture entertainment.
Oh, no, no, no.
It involved scientists and military personnel and civilian specialists working under formal protocols.
This was very scientific, very legitimate.
Remote viewing was treated as a structured methodology.
And participants entered controlled meditative states and were given coordinates or sealed targets they had never seen before.
And their task was to describe or sketch impressions associated with those targets.
In theory, it functioned as a form of human reconnaissance, recon.
Figures such as Ingo Swan helped develop the foundational protocols.
I love this stuff.
Soldiers and civilian contractors were trained and tested repeatedly under laboratory and field conditions.
You didn't know this?
Of course you did.
Project Stargate emerged partly from Cold War competition.
American intelligence agencies were very concerned, very worried, by the way, about reports that the Soviet Union was exploring similar psychic research programs.
In response, multiple code-named initiatives such as Grill Flame, Sunstreak, and Center Lane were all consolidated into Stargate.
And the goals were ambitious, locate hostages, identify foreign installations, gather intelligence inaccessible to, I guess, conventional surveillance.
That was the goal.
Wasn't crazy.
It was real.
And the results were mixed.
Some sessions produced intriguing data and occasional correlations.
Others failed to generate usable, replicatable operational intel.
And ultimately, the project was closed in 1995 after official reviews concluded that the results were inconsistent and unreliable for battlefield application.
But the central point remains, the program existed and operated for nearly two decades.
Crazy?
Thousands of pages of documentation were produced and later declassified.
That fact alone undermines the claim that curiosity about consciousness automatically equals insanity.
But you knew this, I know that, and Candace knows this.
And at the same time, quantum physics continues to challenge traditional assumptions about reality.
At the smallest scale, matter behaves less like solid objects and more like probability waves.
This stuff gets weird.
Observation alters outcomes.
Entanglement links distant particles instantly.
Even mainstream physicists acknowledge that the deeper they go, the stranger reality becomes.
And they're not crazy.
Some researchers have explored whether consciousness itself may interact with quantum processes inside the brain.
Not as mysticism, but as theoretical science.
This leads directly to a question most people avoid.
What happens when we reach the end of life?
Is there anything beyond that?
Every individual carries personal beliefs, fears, or assumptions about this transition.
Some approach it through religion, others through philosophy, others through strict materialism.
And anxiety and fear are common reactions to the thought of non-existence.
Who could blame them?
And much of that fear is driven by misunderstanding and cultural conditioning.
Eastern traditions describe what Vedic science calls inertia or dull mind.
This refers to a mental state that resists deeper inquiry and defaults to surface-level interpretation.
When people refuse to examine consciousness beyond physical form, they limit themselves to only a fraction of what may exist, of what may exist beneath observable reality.
And modern society is dominated by empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence that is not inherently wrong.
Evidence-based inquiry has produced extraordinary advancements.
But it has also created a habit of dismissing, dismissing anything not immediately measurable as fantasy.
Spiritual curiosity is labeled quackery.
Abstract economic theories and ideological narratives, however, are treated as unquestionable truth.
And this double standard, weird, it reveals cultural bias, not objectivity.
Quantum physics offers an interesting bridge between material science and deeper questions of consciousness.
At the most fundamental scale, reality consists of energy and waves derived from light-based structures.
Einstein demonstrated that matter and energy are interchangeable.
Everything in the universe, everything from galaxies to human bodies, can be reduced to energetic components.
See where I'm going?
If consciousness operates through physical structures in the brain, then it must also interact with energetic systems beyond, beyond simple mechanical explanation.
Researchers such as Sir Roger Penrose and Professor Stuart Hameroff have proposed that microtubules inside neurons, listen to this, may function as quantum information carriers.
These protein structures appear capable of maintaining quantum states longer than once believed possible.
Where am I going with this?
In simple terms, the brain may operate as a biological quantum processor.
Conscious awareness, memory and perception may not be limited to chemical reactions alone.
Now this doesn't prove life after death.
But it does challenge, I guess, the simplistic assumptions many of us have about where consciousness begins and ends.
Still think Candace is crazy?
Eastern sciences frame this differently.
Consciousness is defined as awareness in totality.
And awareness includes perception and memory and emotional processing and integration of experience.
Vedic traditions describe energy fields surrounding the body, often referred to as biofields.
According to this framework, humans continuously transmit energy into what is called universal source consciousness.
And these theories also describe chakras, you've heard this, as energy centers aligned along the spine.
Each center corresponds to different emotional and psychological functions.
When energy flows freely, individuals report greater clarity and intuition.
When blocked, distress and imbalance follow.
Practices such as meditation and breathwork and yoga all aim to regulate these systems through what amounts to a disciplined awareness.
See where I'm going with this?
Still think she's crazy?
And at the base of the spine lies the Eastern traditions called Kundalini energy.
I went to school with her cousin.
When activated through spiritual practice, this energy is said to rise through the chakra system and produce experiences of unity and expanded awareness.
People report calm, heightened intuition, and a sense, a sense of connection between the individual self and the universe.
This brings us back to the end of life and the end of life question.
Both Western physics and Eastern philosophy agree on one fundamental principle.
Energy does not disappear.
It transforms.
It transmutes.
It transmogrifies.
If consciousness is linked to energy systems within the brain, then the assumption that awareness simply vanishes becomes less certain.
From this perspective, death, as in Charlie's death, is not annihilation, it is transition.
A movement from physical form into another state of existence, however one defines it.
You see where I'm going with this?
You see where I'm going?
This unsettles materialist culture because it undermines centralized control narratives.
And that's why the stuff that Candace is saying, it drives people crazy.
If existence extends beyond institutions and bureaucratic authority, then human life carries meaning beyond political circles and economic metrics.
And that idea scares the shit out of people.
And it threatens systems built on predictability and compliance.
When Candace Owens speaks about destiny or meaning or spiritual framing or walking or dreams or having been put on this earth and followed and cultivated and cultured and groomed and raised and trained, she's not representing some laboratory proof, but she's expressing something deeply human.
People want their lives to matter beyond algorithmic engagement metrics or whatever the hell you want to call it and some kind of corporate messaging.
And that instinct cannot be erased with ridicule.
In fact, the more you ridicule her, the more people listen to her.
Notice the selective outrage.
When celebrities promote astrology or manifestation rituals or media outlets treat it as harmless lifestyle content, crystals and whatever it is.
When billionaires speculate about simulation theory, it becomes some kind of intellectual entertainment.
But when Hollywood packages spiritual wellness becomes profitable, great, great branding.
But when a conservative political woman and her voice references meaning beyond materialism, the outrage machine activates because she's crazy.
That reveals the real motivation.
Ideological gatekeeping.
Crowd psychology.
I hope you saw my first video of the today about Gustave Le Bon.
Crowd psychology explains the reaction.
And labeling someone unstable and crazy signals social danger.
And it pressures conformity.
It discourages independent thought.
At least it tries to.
And it protects centralized messaging systems.
The louder the outrage becomes, the more it exposes insecurity among those who rely on some kind of narrative discipline, all to maintain influence.
Candace Owens is not insane.
She's disruptive.
She's dangerous.
She's provocative.
She's unwilling to stay inside tightly managed ideological lanes.
And that makes her threatening.
That makes her threatening to those who profit from predictable public behavior.
And the only thing they have is to call her crazy.
Many who ridicule spiritual curiosity simultaneously hold abstract beliefs with no empirical certainty.
They trust institutions and intuitions with long records of misinformation.
They accept political narratives later, later proven to be false or incorrect.
But those beliefs, those beliefs are socially approved.
They're acceptable.
So they feel safe.
The outrage is not about truth.
It's about permission.
And this moment matters because it exposes, my friend, how fragile modern authority has become so nuts.
And when people stop trusting gatekeepers, gatekeepers panic.
And when citizens ask deeper questions about meaning and what's it all about, alpha and consciousness and all that, the system responds with social shame.
And that tactic, that very tactic, that methodology belongs to insecure systems, not confidence ones.
And Candace Owens is not a nut.
She is participating in something better.
She's participating in a tradition as old as civilization itself.
Humans question reality.
They seek purpose.
They challenge authority.
And whether one agrees with her personally, it's no big deal.
That's irrelevant.
What matters, what matters is that the reaction reveals how tightly controlled public discourse has become and how quickly independent voices are targeted.
The real phenomenon is not remote viewing or quantum speculation or spiritual inquiry or past lives.
The real phenomenon is watching modern media attempt to police curiosity.
That's the story unfolding in real time.
And it tells you exactly who feels free thought and why.
So let me tell you something right now.
Believe me when I say you something.
I know a little bit about mental illness.
I've seen it.
I've seen it with clients.
I've seen it in the middle, in the criminal justice system, and it's sad.
I've seen people, especially in their 20s, at the height of their success or the trajectory to life and families and a new career.
And all of a sudden, they have a psychotic episode, and it's schizophrenia time, and they're never the same.
To call somebody crazy, it's not fair.
It's horrible.
It's the ultimate in attempted gaslighting.
Don't let it happen.
Disprover.
Tell me what Candace Owens has said that's wrong.
Don't call her crazy.
If she's crazy, would that we were all that crazy.
So thank you.
Thank you for your kind words.
Please, my friend, like this video.
Hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
Make sure you subscribe.
70-something percent of the people who watch our videos don't even subscribe.
And I've got some questions for you.
Please weigh in.
Weigh in.
I want to hear what you think.
Is Candace crazy?
You think she's nuts?
Who is it?
Nick Fuentes says she's crazy.
People said Nick Fuentes is crazy.
Alex Jones is crazy.
Everybody's crazy.
I don't think they're crazy.
I think they're different.
And I like that.
▲
Export Selection