Candace Owens Just BROKE Her Haters – They're Losing Their Minds & She's Loving Every Second!
Candace Owens dominates her critics by maintaining an outlaw status through competence and dangerous entertainment, rendering ad hominem attacks like "psychopath" or "demon" labels ineffective. The discussion urges opponents to abandon personal insults in favor of a linear critical thinking structure—Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion—to surgically deny claims of duplicity lacking evidence, similar to evaluating conspiracy theories about COVID origins or Watergate. Ultimately, Owens emerges as a constantly evolving central figure whose strategic engagement transforms online discourse into a fascinating narrative of influence and resilience. [Automatically generated summary]
You know, my friends, in the latest, I guess, iteration of all that's going on regarding Candace and Eric and this and that and all this stuff, I can't help but bring to the to the table this observation.
Candace is winning, driving these people crazy, and they just don't know what to say.
I mean, they don't know what to say.
Is it, what, was it Megan McCain?
I don't know, I think it was.
Anyway, somebody said, referred to everybody as psychopaths.
And recently there was a very interesting interview with Jimmy Dore and Alex Jones.
I like both of them.
I mean, I know Alex.
I've never met Jimmy, but it was a very, very, you know, not really confrontational argument about what do you think about this.
And Alex, again, whom you know, I still think he's the OG, the potter familiars of this whole thing.
He seemed sometimes a bit flummoxed because he didn't know, he just didn't like this.
This wasn't his thing, which is okay, which is groovy.
Fine.
I don't know.
You don't, you know, you got to understand some things.
When people in this business don't want to go places, it's not because they've been threatened.
It's not because they're paid off.
There are subjects I don't like talking about because either I don't find them interesting.
I may not consider myself expert enough, hard to believe, I know, or I just don't, it's just not my thing.
It's not my, I only like subjects I like.
Or there are some subjects where you're going to lose no matter what.
Why do you want to do this?
Why do you want to alienate people, especially when it's not that critical?
So what I'm saying is there's a variety of reasons why Alex may eschew the notion of discussing this.
But what I suggest is very simply this.
If you don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it.
But whatever you do, don't call Candace Owens crazy.
She's not a psychopath.
She's not a demon.
She's not crazy.
Believe me when I tell you this.
I know crazy.
She's anything but crazy.
And she's loving this.
Don't these people understand what's happening?
Don't these people understand and grasp what is happening?
You are elevating her to a status where she's become in the last, I don't know, whatever period of time, almost mythical.
It's kind of like an outlaw status.
She is able to show and is showing a level of competence and dangerousness that is so beyond anything anybody has ever seen.
It's, I mean, this is the story.
But also, it's fun.
This is something which is very interesting.
It is fun.
There are a lot of subjects that, and I don't, I don't necessarily, I'm not saying suggesting every topic is susceptible of being fun.
That's not what I'm saying.
But what I'm saying is that there's a lot of folks out there who really, really don't understand the, how do I say this?
Who don't really understand the fact that this is an entertainment form.
No matter what you say, if you're not entertained, if this is ponderous, if this is, ooh, the end of the world all the time, it's not good.
You're not going to do very well.
It doesn't work like this.
It's not a good, it's not a good thing.
So what's happening is this.
They're running out of steam.
We have heard, I know she's crazy, she's a demon.
And I've said this for the longest time.
If you're wrong about something, if you're wrong, tell her why she's wrong.
I know I'm saying this.
I've said this so many times.
It's a broken record.
By the way, a little timeout.
Do you know that a Gen Zer or millennial, whatever you call young'ins, said to me, what do you mean?
What do you mean?
When, and this is important, and we talk about, somebody said, what do you mean by a broken record?
And I said, you know, no.
When the needle gets stuck in the, huh?
When the needle gets stuck in the record and the album gets stuck.
You know, kind of like the hit, huh?
She thought I mentioned like breaking the record or something like that.
It's like, no.
No, we're not talking about breaking records.
No, Nay, It doesn't work like that.
No, no, it's not.
We're not breaking any records.
It was so funny.
Now, the one too, again, just, this is funny.
Because I forget, you know, generationally, stuff that I know, you might know, people don't know.
Somebody said, I said, would you copy me?
Or somebody was copy me on that.
It was an email.
I said, oh yeah, CC.
You know what that means, right?
He goes, yeah, the copy is it.
No, no.
What does CC mean?
And this person said, I don't know.
You know, carbon copy.
Huh?
Carbon copy?
That's like linotype or daguerreotype.
Carbon copy?
It's made of car.
What are you talking about?
I said, there was a piece of carbon, and you put it between two pieces of paper, and when you typed it, album, tin can, tin foil, it's aluminum.
Arguing Without Enough Evidence00:05:57
But I digress.
I love to digress.
I love to be desultory and elliptical.
It's who I am.
But I do not want to sublate the opportunity of Mr. Jones and others, again, whom I respect, to give Candace the once over.
See, look, I don't want to tell people how to do this.
But if you really want to go after Candace and not do the demonic thing, you really cannot do the demonic thing.
You can sit there and say something to the effect of, well, look, you know, I think that what Candace is doing is interesting.
I think that what she says is certainly intriguing, but I just don't think there's been any evidence of any ledger domain, any type of duplicity, any type of conspiracy.
Just deny it.
What you do is you say, well, that's very interesting, but I just don't think she's proved this, or I don't think she's gone.
And just leave it at that.
And then you say, what do you mean?
Because you can say, well, from my particular vantage point, whatever it is, I just don't think there's been enough evidence.
I don't believe, we do this all the time.
I don't believe there's enough evidence that COVID was formed in Wuhan.
I don't believe there's been no evidence that masks do not prevent the spread or transmissibility of viruses.
I just don't think you've presented enough evidence convincingly that Watergate was in fact a soft palace coup.
You know, whatever.
You just say there's just not enough evidence and you move on.
And it would force Candace or somebody else to say, well, maybe, but you don't call her a name.
See, it's up to you.
You're the jury.
The jury's a trier of fact.
The jury determines whether you believe something has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt or based on the preponderance of the evidence or whatever it is.
But you're the jury.
And all you have to do is say, I just don't think there's been enough evidence of this.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I don't think it's been.
Sorry.
I don't believe there's been enough evidence of any kind of Epstein cover-up on the part of the administration.
Or I don't believe that there's any evidence that there hasn't been.
All you do is you just deny it.
But you speak about it surgically, but they don't know how to do that, like that Dan Bongina.
This guy came out full gun.
She should burn in hell.
I was like, what are you doing?
What adult, maybe that's the word, maybe that's the operative term there.
What adult does this?
Look, it is a very, very simple thing.
Now, let me, again, I keep saying this because you might be new to me, and I appreciate that.
Number one, there's a number of subjects.
First of all, there's a Tyler Robinson case, number one.
In fact, Jimmy Dorr has a very good question about Alex.
We are in the Tyler Robinson case.
What do you think about this?
Okay, fine.
There's a Tyler Robinson case.
Number two, the issue then becomes the identity of the people involved.
Who are the participants?
Is it Tyler Robinson himself, or could there be other people?
Is there a conspiracy?
Remember, two or more people bound in the Confederation of Criminal Complicity is a conspiracy.
That's number two.
Number three, motivation.
Why?
That's a tough one.
That's a tough one.
Why?
Why is a very difficult thing?
Stay away from why.
And the reason why you stay away from why is anytime I hear somebody argue, and if I hear the why, I say, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Please go for the why, especially when I think I'm losing the argument.
Because if you tell me, well, the evidence is this, this, this, and this, it's like, damn.
Huh.
And the reason why the CDC or the reason why the FBI and the reason why the DOJ, then I can argue that.
And I can subsume that into the big argument.
I can say, this is the big argument.
And spend time, well, how do you know the FBI did that?
What do you know the motivation is about?
Well, how do you know that President Trump is because of it?
How do you know?
Then I just, we get off and we argue that point.
Don't worry about definitional things too.
Don't ever call somebody, for example, we have a mayor momdani.
Don't ever call him a socialist, democratic socialist, Marxist, communist.
Don't do that.
Because I'm going to stop the conversation and I'm going to then move to the definitional correctness of the term you used.
See what I'm saying?
Now we're off on that tangent.
It's beautiful.
That's where we go.
That's the tangent.
That's the angle.
So it's interesting to note, whenever you want to argue something, the best way is always to argue evidence.
Never make it personal.
Never make it an ad hominem.
Never.
That's why half of the times these people, they lose with Trump.
There's a lot of stuff, for example, the President Trump has said that you could argue factually.
You could say, well, I disagree with this policy, this, this, whether it's Iran or the economy or whatever it is.
But instead, they say he's crazy, he's senile, he's a pervert, he's whatever.
You just ruined it.
You just lost your case.
Because now you're going for this.
Why don't we just say, who's the bigger jerk?
We'll just argue that.
Because that's really what the argument is.
It has nothing to do with the facts.
Critical thinking is kind of a linear way of thinking.
And the way critical thinking works, whatever you deal with an issue, this is the old law school thing that we used to do.
And when we had Blue Book, when we used to write out essays, the acronym was IRAC.
Issue, rule, analysis, conclusion.
Iraq, not the country.
Issue, rule, analysis, conclusion.
What is the issue?
What are we talking about?
What's this about?
Number two, what's the rule?
What is the rule of the fact, the thing that we're applying?
Whatever it is.
Do you believe that pornography is linked to sexual battery?
Okay, fine.
What data do you have?
Issue is, is it connected?
Number two, what are the data?
Number three, analyze.
Let's talk about this.
And number four, see conclusion, conclude.
So therefore, boom.
That's the way you do it.
It's very simple.
Not starting off, yeah, well, you're a jerk.
The Motivation Behind Her Soul00:03:02
It doesn't work like that.
So let me just tell you something right now.
If you're new to this, If you don't know who Candace Owens is, my God, congratulations from return from your coma because I don't know where you've been.
This is the greatest story in the world.
And the reason why is that this is a story involving one central character here.
Her name is Erica Kirk.
And you cannot believe this personality.
Anybody else would call her just a nutcase, but she is a protein, transmogrifying, this perpetually synthesizing, changing.
I don't know what you call it, this person who just comes out of no.
It's just, she changes every five minutes.
Every five minutes, but she has no sense.
She's like a balloon you fill with air.
Whatever, if you can fill it with air, it'll say if you fill it with helium, it goes up.
If nitrogen, there is no balloon.
This is the casing inside her soul, her motivation.
It depends.
There's the Erica we knew when she was doing the sizzle reel for her initial stuff.
The evangelical, the businesswoman, the mother.
I guess the mother somewhere.
In any event, I don't know.
You never hear about her kids.
The wife, huh?
And then there's the CEO, and then there's this other mysterious, you know, this very strange Erica Franzville, who came out of nowhere with her mother who looks a little shady as well.
Just a little bit, you know what I mean?
Transitional in terms of the reality department.
Any event, that's the focus.
Just go back and watch any of her stuff.
It is beyond incredible.
Beyond incredible.
That being said, ladies and germs, thank you.
Thank you so much for being a part of this.
Thank you so much for being part of all of this jazz.
And thank you so much for being a part of something even more important.
Thank you so much for caring about this, but also for thinking about how all of this stuff works.
And I mean that sincerely.
Thanks for thinking about how it all interconnects.
This is one of the most fascinating stories regarding Candace and others involving a plentitude of people who are great commentators and influencers and analysts that are just brilliant.
So welcome aboard.
I hope you remember, it's not personal.
It's not personal.
And again, if the best you can come up with is Candace Owens is a demon or is crazy, you have officially lost your mind and the argument.
Have a great and a glorious day.
Thank you so much.
Please like this video.
Please subscribe to the channel.
I've got some questions for you attendant to this.