Richard Spencer and Jean-François Gariépy explore the unusual rise of Candace Owens, from her initial controversial doxing website to her transition into conservative media. We follow her association with figures like Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, and her involvement with The Daily Wire. The discussion delves into her relationships, notably with Charlie Kirk, and her husband George Farmer. The episode also examines the conspiracy theories she has entertained and her fallout with The Daily Wire. Finally, it touches on her current prominence in politics and media, and the recent controversy surrounding her views on Israel and potential implications for conservative figures like Charlie Kirk. Timestamps00:00 The Bizarre Origin Story of Candace Owens 07:24 From Doxing to Daily Wire: Candace’s Journey 08:24 Controversial Ideas and Relationships 10:02 Candace’s Rise to YouTube Stardom 11:24 Criticism and Conspiracy Theories 13:39 The Charlie Kirk Assassination Controversy 19:28 The Role of Jewish Influence and Power 31:18 The Future of Free Thought and Individualism Here the entire conversation at Listen to the full conversation This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Candace Owens Origin Story00:13:17
It is worth retelling the Candace Owens origin story, which is just bizarre.
And I'll be brief here, but she did first come on the scene.
I know everyone fixates on this and maybe blows it out of proportion.
You know, it's like saying that Richard Spencer was once a snowboarder in the mid 1990s or something.
You know, he listened to Green Day during that period.
And we've got to fixate on this.
But anyway, she was creating this doxing website that was seemingly a mechanical Turk in which you would.
Put in someone's mean tweet or Facebook comment, and it would spit out his home address, which even the left, at least at that point, was like, whoa, obviously that could be misused for violent acts.
So that's where she was coming from.
And the left criticized her for that.
And then she sort of ran into the arms of Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson, who was very influential at this point.
And she was sort of the.
Ex-Democrat, Blexit, kind of thing of like, I left the left, or did the left leave me?
They've gone crazy.
She was a pioneer on that sort of anti-woke crusade of, I don't even understand the Democrats anymore, and Republicans just eating it up, loving it.
And so she started out in that area.
And I don't know how conspiratorial she would get, but you're talking with Alex Jones, just guilt by association right there.
Then she goes to the Daily Wire and she has this friendship with Charlie Kirk, which also, from the videos she posted, seemed genuine a weird friendship between a gay Mormon and a Jamaican woman.
It's true love.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that.
But she becomes this kind of neocon and this attempt by Ben Shapiro and others to put her up as a golem or as a mouthpiece, as the black young face of the establishment.
And then she marries this very strange individual named George Farmer, former CEO of Parlor, who is deeply connected with TPUSA, TPUK, a Catholic, Anglo Catholic aristocrat of some kind.
And this is just my theory, but he seems to be putting all of these ideas in her head.
It strikes me as a kind of Bride of Frankenstein situation where you have this.
Curious American black woman who sort of can't be criticized.
She can't be called racist.
She can't be called reactionary or a Catholic traditionalist or an aristocrat.
And you start putting all these ideas in her mind the Frankist, you know, the Kayser theory of the Jews.
They're not really Jews.
And other things.
Hitler was okay when he kept it within Germany, which in some ways is even worse than like promoting Hitler overall, because what he did.
Internally, she was cracked down on Jews and put them into camps.
So, anyway, she seems to be fed these ideas.
And then she gets kicked out of the Daily Wire.
She goes after Israel in a powerful and genuine manner.
I'll just be fair here.
And then now she has this show, which is the number one YouTube show for politics and culture.
She's blowing away CNN.
She's blowing away maybe even Joe Rogan.
I don't know.
She's very popular.
And I listened to about 15 minutes of it.
It was like.
It was like I was back in Monroe, Louisiana, with the friends of my grandmother.
It's just these gossipy women at the beauty parlor, just sort of talking about nothing and insinuating.
Like, that pastor, well, he says that he's doing good, but is he really doing good?
Like, I don't know about this pastor.
Like, just this insinuation of all sorts of things.
And she's no doubt maintained the audience of Alex Jones types, but I think she's expanded her audience.
Into suburban white women in an Oprah Winfrey-like fashion: this is our black lady.
These white women in the suburbs, they love it when black women just talk, talk, talk, talk.
They just can't get enough of that.
And she's just a rip-roaring success.
She's sort of unstoppable.
I think she's completely batty and insane, but I'm not her audience.
So, anyway, that was a way of just setting up the whole thing.
Absolutely.
Beautiful description of the history.
I've come to like her in the last few days.
I've been critical of hers because, precisely of what you mentioned, you cannot do good journalism and mix it in with 99% crap conspiracy theories.
You can't talk about the trap door under Charlie Kirk while also seriously raising a serious question of will the investigation be properly done on potential political links to Israel with Tyler Robinson?
The thing is, the mix of it removes credibility.
The mix of it loses.
And her handling of evidence is weak.
Sometimes it is misinterpretation of evidence.
Sometimes it is misinterpretation of sentences.
But you have to give it to her, though.
She has waited up to October 6th to publish her strongest evidence.
And I believe she's playing with numbers here.
I believe she has so much poison in her heart.
She has so much poison in her heart, she wants to throw the message to Israel I'm going to miss your October 7th celebration.
I'm going to miss it with facts.
Now, you have to imagine how much restraint it takes for someone who wants popularity, who has the greatest show on YouTube, to be withholding that evidence, which I was frustrated by.
But yesterday I understood it all.
She wanted to hit Israel in the testicles.
And she did it.
She did it in such a Poisonous way that a mind like mine cannot even conceive of this kind of dirty warmongering.
I mean, there were even a co host of Tim Cast, Sour Patch Lids, crying almost on her Twitter saying, I can't believe she does that the day the 1,200 Jews died.
Unbelievable.
Well, 1,200 Jews cried on October 7th, 2025.
That is true.
Let's listen.
To this.
And then there's actually another shoe to drop.
I don't know if you've seen this, but TPUSA responded.
So I'll play that as well.
But this is almost three minutes.
She doesn't quite get to the point, but she has a rambling style that's very popular with Shelly, who lives in a suburb of Dallas, Texas.
But Rob in particular knew for an absolute fact that Charlie was done with Israel bullying him.
That's what bothers me so much about this man.
Him allowing these headlines, Charlie's pastor speaks out, you know, crushes Candace because of what she said, not, not whatever.
I don't like it.
He knew and others knew that Charlie was done with Israel bullying him.
And I am now going to present you proof of what I am saying.
This is an actual group chat, which happened two days before Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
There were nine people in total on this chat, including Charlie and Rob McCoy.
I'm going to protect the names of the other seven for now.
To be clear, I might actually release a name every day this week.
But I want to show you this because suffice it to say this is like literally the Batman Halloween, where the long Halloween.
In the Batman comic, she says, I might release one name of them every day for seven days.
It's seven, she's playing with Jewish teams, October 7th, the seven candles.
She's uh, she's into some wicked stuff.
This is witchery of the highest level.
This is witchery with a million viewers on YouTube.
Yes, until they reveal the identity of the Batman, I mean, she will continue.
It's Rob McCoy was on this text thread, and I think it helps contextualize him as a person, in my view.
That he would attack me for telling the truth about the pressure that he was facing.
Take a look.
So, Charlie writes in this group chat just lost another huge Jewish donor, $2 million a year because we won't cancel Tucker.
I'm thinking of inviting Candace, somebody writes.
Charlie writes Jewish donors play into all of the stereotypes.
I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause.
And somebody writes, a donor writes, please do not invite Candace.
That might feel good short term, but it's not good long term, in my opinion.
Like all groups, you're going to get a wide variety of opinions.
That nasty free will thing that God bestowed on us makes life frustrating at times after the dust settles a bit, maybe.
So again, this is 48 hours before Charlie was assassinated.
He was very clear and he was very.
That nasty free will thing that allows us to criticize Israel on occasion.
Let me read these again here because I think it is important to dive in.
Just lost another huge Jewish donor, two million a year, because we won't cancel Tucker.
Interesting.
I'm thinking of inviting Candace.
So that almost seems like he's being aggressive or something now.
He's like, oh, well, I'm going to invite.
Yeah.
Like if you do this, I'm.
I'm going further.
They said, Ugh, Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes.
I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause.
Just the stereotype comment here is fascinating because he's saying, but he's making the realization that anyone on the so called far right would have, which is I try to extend discussion with these Jews.
They come at me with cognitively dissonant talking points.
They seem to lie to my face.
They seem to cancel me.
Every time I see a Jew, it's for, you know, adding a piece written about me.
Every time I see a Christian, it's to buy beef and eggs from his farm.
And he has realized when I interact with Jews, it's different.
Yes.
Do you think he might have been sarcastic when he said, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause?
I think the sarcasm is possible, but I don't think it's my main explanation.
When he says this, what I think he means is he wouldn't even want to be against Israel.
And in fact, leaving the pro Israel cause doesn't mean going after Israel, doesn't mean being against Israel.
Doesn't mean entering the anti Israel cause, right?
Yes.
I think that what's going on in his mind when he says this, and I've been reflecting about this yesterday.
Here's what goes on He is being bullied, he does not want to be under extortion.
Therefore, he has to withdraw from the extortion, withdraw from the bullying.
But he is receiving money from people who expect him to submit himself to bullying.
And so, in his moral mind, he says, I cannot continue selling myself.
I cannot continue accepting your money because you expect a service from me that I cannot deliver.
Therefore, leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause because you are sending me money on which you have expectations that I cannot deliver on.
And therefore, it's a deceptive relationship.
I cannot do that deceptive market.
That is what he means.
It's actually no comment about Israel so much, but the impossibility that has been created for him to continue in the economic relationship as it stands.
A couple of things here.
First off, this doesn't paint Charlie in a good light, even if you are anti Zionist, because it's striking how, at least ostensibly, like at first glance, how mercenary.
Leaving Pro Israel Cause00:11:14
He is.
Could someone have given him $2 million a year and he's going to be pro Nambla or something, or he's going to be a vegetarian activist?
I mean, I don't know.
It is a weird light in which he's painted.
Now, this is such a short snippet.
You could certainly find text messages of mine that make me look completely horrible, and I wouldn't want to be just judged on that one instance.
The other thing that comes to mind is.
You know, in some ways, Charlie Kirk is being self aware, but not fully.
What I mean by this is that Charlie Kirk is a kind of Goldilocks figure.
He's not too bright, but not too dumb, just right.
He's not too handsome, but not really that ugly.
He's just right.
And he's not too charismatic, but not uncharismatic.
Just right.
That's who he is.
He has no education outside of high school.
And during recess or when other kids were playing sports, he was listening to Rush Limbaugh.
You know, he's kind of, as someone put it, like skinny fat.
He doesn't work out or play sports because he's just constantly podcasting or constantly reading the news or talking to someone in the conservative movement cause.
And so he's a golem.
Like, Charlie, I don't want you to be assassinated, but the kind of deification that we have seen over the past two weeks is absurd.
He's not terribly interesting.
I mean, is he that brave?
Okay, but we forget how many millions of dollars were put behind his campus tours.
You know, it's not like he was just going out onto some beach in California, hopping on a soapbox and talking about Jesus.
He was doing highly choreographed, well funded junkets, basically, at these colleges.
So I'm not quite sure how brave he is.
And it's like he's a golem.
I'll just be brutally frank here.
And I'm painting with too broad a stroke.
He's a golem of the Jews.
Who became self aware at some point, but not fully self aware.
Charlie, I get it, but you're just some dude working middle management at Target if you hadn't been somewhat haphazardly, randomly chosen by the Jews.
I mean, it's too broad a brush, but if the Jews hadn't decided that you were going to be their golem during the Trump era, like that's why you exist.
You're not great.
You're not terribly interesting, to be frank.
You're good at fundraising and pressing the flesh, I'll give you that.
But your flesh was pressed by them mostly.
Like you were chosen as their mascot for the football game that's going on.
And you seem to have some illusion that, like, you're playing the game.
Like he's in a tiger costume by the grandstands, going, you know, go team, go team.
And he seems to believe that he's the quarterback.
You're not the quarterback.
You're a golem.
You're a mascot that they created for their purposes for electioneering and winning over the crowd.
That's who you are.
Exactly.
And he doesn't seem to be aware of that.
He's high in his own supply.
He believes his own nonsense.
Now, this is the other thing.
I'm using the golem metaphor.
The end of the golem story is that they shut down the golem.
And that is what Candace Owens is implying.
And to be honest, it does sort of fit the script.
Now, does that mean Israel killed him?
I'm not at all ready to say that.
But it is interesting how there is that little embedded story.
They invent this goofy, cute, fairly intelligent little white boy mascot for the Republican Party and Israel.
And then he gets shut down.
It that's the script, and it sort of fits, but absolutely.
And everything you say there is exactly why it's a massively plausible explanation to think that there may have been Israeli terrorists getting rid of him because he's a golem, because he's nothing, and because if he's nothing, he's not worth keeping alive.
And yet, by staying alive, he may become someone.
One thing I've learned interacting with Jewish power with my own interactions with Jeff Epstein.
They hate it when you promote yourself instead of the institution you're building.
Because the institution is available to take over.
You are not available to take over.
And you may drift toward an anti Israel stance later, but the institution, they want to keep it for themselves.
And I've been denying myself some funding from Jeff Epstein at some point.
I remember sitting in New York in a cafe with his assistant.
And she was like, Jeff is alarmed at the fact that you self promote too much.
We want you to promote Neuro TV as a philosophical show.
We don't want you to put the philosophers and the neuroscientists forward.
We want you to put the show forward so eventually we can take it.
That was the kind of underlying message.
And I said, you know what?
Back then it was 2014.
I said, it's 2014.
The social media is developing such that it's all about individuals and how much trust they gain with the audience.
The future is without institutions, the future is without CBS, ABC News, and you will only have men.
That you can count on your team or not on your team.
And if the condition of Jeff for giving me more money for my show is that I have to put this aside, I'm not doing it.
I'm going to write on my own.
So, in a way, I've done my own Charlie Kirk moment in 2014.
Charlie Kirk did it in that Telegram message where he said, even more explicitly than I did then, I'm going to have to give up the pro Israel cause.
Thank God I didn't get shot.
But definitely, it has changed my relationship with Jeff Epstein at that moment when I said these words.
I know this is self serving of me to say, and I'm aware of that, but just go with it.
I obviously engage in self promotion.
Now, I also collab with people whom I respect and I learn from.
We disagree, we move thought forward, et cetera.
I'm a very willing conversation person.
Partner.
But I am obviously self promoting and I obviously think for myself.
The thing that people hate is that I'm contrarian or he's a liberal or whatever.
Whatever.
All that means is that I'm not on the team.
And I do feel like I am more of a threat because of that than other people.
And again, I'm not just engaging in self flattery here.
There are people in Charlie Kirk's.
Orbit.
I remember the Blake Neff character who was in Charlie Kirk's Orbit, who got sort of mini canceled in 2018 ish for going on chat forums and being Hitler y basically.
And all of those people have, in a way, said things that are more outrageous or said things that are equally outrageous that I've said on a larger platform.
You know, like MLK was a sex fiend and You know, the which I don't even bother talking about it, I think that's irrelevant.
Maybe he was such a good activist precisely because his libido was so large.
That's probably the argument that I would make, but anyway, or we shouldn't have done the civil rights act.
Did you know that 13% of the population commit 50% of the crime, etc.?
They've done all of those things, all that sort of like basic alt right 2015 level stuff.
They've all done the difference is.
They're all sort of interchangeable nerds, cogs in the GOP MAGA machine.
And so they're operating on behalf of the team.
I'm not.
I don't want the team to win.
So I am like a, I'm an open enemy of them.
But they can sort of get away with it.
And that's why we're in this like bizarre place where they won't talk to you, me, They won't, Nick Fuentes, they'll sort of footsie under the table a little bit more, but they won't talk to him.
I don't think they will, precisely because he is his own person who can go north, he can go south, he can go east and west.
Not that he's random, it's that he can think for himself.
He possesses that ability.
And they don't like that.
They want to trot out 1350 when the group hive mind decides that that's the time to trot this out.
And they want to pull it back in when they're endorsing Herschel Walker for Senate or whatever the hell they're doing.
So, if you don't operate in their little hive, they hate you.
They think you're anathema, you have cooties.
They think you're a radical extremist.
Even though I would suggest that just based on the level of superficial salaciousness, the conservative movement is more right wing than I am or you are.
Like, if you want to get just like crude racism.
Or, like, personal attacks against AOC or whatever, you should go there.
You shouldn't subscribe to me.
Public Confirms Concerns00:06:40
You're not going to get that stuff from me.
So, you know, ostensibly, superficially, they are more like lunatic than I am, yet I'm the lunatic in their mind.
It's just a very interesting phenomenon that's worth dwelling upon.
Yeah, I think there's been a huge split in the last 10 years of cognitive freedom.
And there's just a bunch of people who have.
And it's probably the default social mode of humanity to reject black sheep.
And, you know, you have these whole stories of scientists getting thrown down the roofs and people being eliminated just because they were ahead of their time.
And yeah, they really don't like free thought.
They will all pause for it, they will all say a couple of lip service to free market ideas.
But in reality, there's very few people that truly have the pursuit of.
Free thought for individuals away from any social pressure.
Not many people are made of that cloth.
I agree.
I'm just going to play one more thing here.
This is a brief one.
This actually is confirmation that this text message is in fact real, which I certainly questioned.
That weird Dairy Queen photo that Candace released that had Superman.
Paraphernalia Superman came out in July and it was a Tyler Robinson.
I don't know what to say, but this has at least been confirmed by someone whose interest it might be to reject it and claim that it's lies.
So that's very interesting.
But I'll just play this.
But I want to take the start of this show to address some of the things that have been going around on public, namely about a group text chain that has been made known.
And released by Candice Owens.
And I just want to address it head on because, you know, that was a text grab, a screen grab that I had shared with people.
So it is authentic.
And I want to go into it because I actually am really excited that the truth is out there.
I first want to say the reason I didn't share that screen grab publicly is because it was a private exchange.
And I felt like it didn't necessarily comport with things that were already public.
I wanted to not betray my friends' trust in that way.
But I did share it with some people in government because it happened really quick.
It took 33 hours for authorities to get their suspect.
And in those first moments, we wanted no stone unturned.
We wanted to leave nothing unturned.
So I shared it with a few people.
Don't know where it went from there, apparently.
But here we are.
So one of the reasons, Blake, that I'm glad to have this now public, it was not mine to share publicly.
But one of the criticisms we've received is that we don't care.
It's like the least charismatic man ever.
Anyway, it's very interesting because what he's suggesting is that he gave those things to the government, I would presume the FBI, who were investigating the case.
And I don't know, maybe he even himself had some questions.
That's curious that he would give them that screenshot because otherwise, that screenshot is unresponsive, irrelevant to Charlie Kirk's assassination.
Maybe he gave them a whole bunch of screenshots over the past week or something.
Who knows?
But what he's suggesting is that someone in the government gave that to Candace Owens.
So Candace Owens was not in that discussion.
So there's a leaker at the FBI, which is sort of fascinating.
That is one thing that's fascinating.
Another thing that's fascinating with this segment is they are less interested in getting to the public truth.
Than Candace is.
It's very clear that Candace wants to push for these to be known.
They're kind of uncomfortable about it.
They're happy it did happen, but they wouldn't have themselves.
So, TPUSA, it's still on the fence to me whether there are internal forces within TPUSA that wouldn't want the truth to be found.
And that is kind of worrying in and of itself.
Also, I would note there may be some degree of laundering of action here.
Where someone who has committed something kind of wrong or kind of unethical is trying to wash it away by a small comment.
And here you mentioned that yes, he says eventually, I gave it to the government.
But the first sentence that he says, he says, I may have given it to a couple of people.
Now, that to me, there is a difference here.
Yes, you did give it to the government after Charlie Kirk was murdered.
But did you share those screenshots?
Or are you aware that some people in that group chat exchanged those screenshots before the death?
Of Charlie Kirk.
And given the laundering type of talk that he does, well, I may have given it to some people and then eventually confirmed, well, I gave it to some people in the government.
I think there may be a larger umbrella of people who knew about this discussion.
And there's also people who are pointing out Josh Hammer today.
Josh Hammer tweeted a very bizarre tweet between the moment this Telegram conversation happened and the killing of Charlie Kirk.
He went to an old Donald Trump tweet from 12 years ago that was talking about public executions and he tweeted, Based.
Now, people are saying this is in line with Irina, the murder of Irina, and perhaps he was calling for public executions of the murderer of Irina.
But it's very, very weird to me that he's talking about public executions all of a sudden on his Twitter account after having seen Charlie Kirk detaching from the pro Israel cause.
What I'm wondering here is will there be proper police work in finding the extent to which this conversation has spread before the murder of Charlie Kirk?
Trump Tweet and Irina00:00:33
Because there are organizational people who may have had financial and terrorists.
There are even people who may not be directly related to Israeli terrorists, may have seen this as a foreboding of perhaps them losing their jobs within TPUSA, perhaps them losing funding, losing opportunities.
So there's a large umbrella of hypotheses that rise from the disclosure of Kendra Sohens, which doesn't seem to put TPUSA in much comfort.