This video analyzes recurring patterns in media personality manipulation, including narrative reversal, audience manipulation, and the use of emotionally charged content to maintain loyalty. The analysis examines how figures like Candace Owens employ tactics such as creating 'us vs. them' identities, presenting themselves as persecuted truth-tellers, and using selective information presentation to build epistemic bubbles. The video also explores the psychological dynamics of narcissistic personality traits, including grandiosity, entitlement, and the exploitation of relationships for personal gain, demonstrating how these patterns can create loyal but potentially manipulated audiences.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
Candace Owens and the Narrative Machine | Part 12Añadido:
Over the course of this series, we've examined controversy after controversy surrounding Candace Owens. The rise of her platform, the shifting narratives, the public feuds, and the increasingly conspiratorial direction her commentary began to take. But in this episode, the focus changes. Instead of looking at one specific conflict, we're stepping back to examine the larger pattern that begins to emerge when all these moments are viewed together. Because by this point in the timeline, certain contradictions become difficult to ignore. Statements reversed within days, positions that constantly shift depending on the moment, public attacks followed by denial, deflection, or reinvention, and a style of audience engagement that begins to resemble something deeper than ordinary political commentary. In this episode, we're going to examine the reoccurring patterns, the contradictions, the cult tactics, and the psychological dynamics that many critics believe set at the center of Candace Owen's media persona. Because after enough contradictions, enough reversals and enough manufactured conflict, you eventually have to stop asking whether these moments are isolated and start asking what is producing them over and over again. This is part 12.
Hello everyone and welcome back. I hope everyone is doing well and welcome anyone who is new. Welcome, welcome.
Okay, so Candace Owens and the narrative machine number 12. We're getting close. We're getting close, you guys.
Um, but yes, so we went over on the last episode the moments after Charlie Kirk was assassinated and the reactions that Candace had and others had to Candace in the last episode. And in this episode, we are going to explore a little more in that vein. So let us pull up something interesting. I wanted to start with this video. Okay. So this is what do you meme and it is actually a year ago. So this is before Charlie was assassinated.
So let's check this out. In 2021, Candace Owens was celebrated by Christians for boldly standing up against secular ideologies and defending what many saw as core Christian values.
But her recent loyalty to figures like Andrew Tate, Kanye West, and her involvement in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have left many Christians feeling uneasy, even betrayed. The very loyalty that once made her a conservative champion might now be leading her and those who look up to her down a dangerous path. We'll explore how her loyalty has led to her apparent anti-semitism. But first, if you need evidence for just how bad things have gotten, take a look at this tweet. Just a few months ago, Candace tweeted, "Ban pornography. It's a psychological weapon intended to weaken our men." She followed up by saying that it was created by the most deprived people among us and that we should stigmatize every person who defends or profits from it. Now, most Christians supported this sentiment, believing that she was standing for Christian values that promote family and well-being. She even tweeted that the men who struggle with pornography are the intended victims.
But this is where things get complicated. You see, her stance made it all the more confusing when she defended and protected someone like Andrew Tate, who right before his arrest was bragging about exploiting men with corn, saying, >> "Chicks would sit there and hit a keyboard that wasn't plugged in. And me and my brother and eventually some staff I trained would do all the talking. We were taking their money, all of it. I had these guys selling their houses, life savings, loans, all of it to me.
Give me it all. You have a guy feel bad or no? No. Give me a solitary.
>> So, it's ironic that she condemned corn as a weapon to weaken others yet take.
>> So, this episode is going to focus a lot on the hypocrisy of Candace Owens and also a little bit of the psychology behind Candace Owens. And I find it really interesting this video when I stumbled across it because it was the Andrew Tate situation that made me stop listening to Candace Owens. And the thing is is that I went into a deep dive into the manosphere for several years. So I was really inside there like watching everyone seeing what they were talking about and stuff like this. So when Andrew Tate came big up in the conservative scene, I had seen all this.
I had seen all this stuff that he had been saying and it's even way crazier than what is shown here. So I found it odd that conservatives were, you know, applauding him and standing him up as a voice for conservative young men. I was like, what is going on? So I found all that extremely strange at the time. Then later, a year later or a couple years later, then the whole Candace defending him thing happened, which also I found bizarre. And then and Tucker too. And then when I I sort of was like, well, you know, whatever, I guess. But then when she did the whole attacking his victims, um, I thought I was like, wow, this is really bizarre. and she did like another interview where she completely lied about everything that had to do with everything surrounding him. So >> bragged about doing exactly that just months before his arrest. She said that those who profit off of it should be stigmatized. Yet right before the pandemic, Tate tweeted, "I make corn. I made so much corn that I made millions.
You consume corn. I am God. You are an effing loser." But we knew that already.
learn how to make money by making corn here. But she never stigmatized Tate for it. And all of this is weird because even in her most recent interview with Tate, she talked him about how bad she thinks that corn is. But this is the same guy who only a few years ago bragged about getting men addicted to corn in order to control them, tweeting, "I super hope the corn addiction gets out of control and ruins everyone's lives. I hope everyone suffers, and I don't want to help anyone break free at all. Keep watching Cam Girls. I want more money." And if you're doubting that this was his Twitter account, he confirmed it in multiple other clips online as well. So now keep in mind that this is the same guy who recorded himself during the co lockdowns saying that he was still running a webcam business. And despite this, Candace still claims that his webcamming business was over 10 years ago.
>> What he said 10 years ago.
>> So this video is from 10 years ago >> back 10 years.
>> When you talk about Candace from 10 years ago, >> fortunately I had no cameras in my face 10 years ago.
>> The idea that you did something 10 years ago, >> he gave us 10 years ago.
>> Talk about these things from 10 years ago. again, if you found Candace 10 years ago, >> which contradicts the facts, Tate's own recorded testimony, and his countless tweets. And still to this day, she continues campaigning for Tate, spreading all kinds of falsehoods for him. But all of this has left Christians confused. I mean, on the one hand, she talks about her strong conviction against K, while on the other, she continues to platform and defend Tate despite his entire empire being built on Korn. Well, the only way that this would make sense is if Candace didn't know Tate or about Tate prior to his arrest.
So, is that what happened? Well, we may have gotten a little more insight into that question during a recent live stream Candace did a few days ago, but not based on what she said. Instead, based on what was behind her. If you've watched any of her streams from her home office, you may have noticed something interesting. If you zoom in right here, you can see a picture of her husband, George Farmer, from what appears to be several years ago. And if you look to the side of him, he's sitting next to none other than Andrew Tate. Now, we knew that Tate and Candace had met before, but what we didn't know was how deep it really went. According to her husband, he's known Tate for a very long time.
>> I've known Andrew since before Andrew was Andrew. You know what I mean? Um, I've known Andrew since before he was famous. I guess Andrew is a is a great guy.
>> But what most people didn't know was that Candace also met Tate several years ago, which could explain why in her past episodes talking about Tate's charges, Candace didn't distance her.
>> And also keep in mind that before Andrew Tate was famous, he was also doing this stuff on low level. He was a low-level pimp and drug dealer. So, why on earth I still I have never figured this out to this day. Would Candace's Owen's husband who is basically an elite in England, right?
And that's where also Tate was. Um, why would he know Andrew Tate, a low-level pimp and drug dealer? I still to this day cannot figure that out. self from Tate, but instead went to extreme lengths to protect him, even using an episode to discredit an alleged victim who accused Tate of abuse. And this is where things started looking really suspect, given that Tate's abuser also accused another man when she was 15 years old, and that man was sentenced to 24 years in prison because of it.
Because of this, Candace made an episode trying to discredit this girl's credibility. In the episode, she even went so far as to refuse to say the name of the convicted felon in order to protect his identity while repeatedly mentioning the underage girl's name in the episode without censoring it.
>> The first case involves a man who I am not going to name. And the only reason I'm not going to name him is because at the time of the allegations against him, Emma was in fact a minor. By the way, you're going to hear some beeps when I'm discussing this case. If I accidentally say his name, we intend to just beep it out. It was almost as if Candace was willing to ignore or excuse the very values that she claims to stand for. All because of her personal loyalty to Andrew Tate. Another thing that Tate said in that tweet was that he was God, which is another thing that Candace claims to hate. She claims to hate blasphemy and Christians have applauded her for defending Christian values by taking a stance against it. Earlier this year, she even posted a video condemning the rapper Lil NasX for >> that is mocking Jesus Christ. It's obviously meant to be blasphemous. But not even a month later, she endorsed Kanye's Vultures album where Kanye says, "I'm the new Jesus." explicit. And this wasn't just art either. Following the release of his album, Kanye said multiple times that he's God. So, if Candace was outraged by Lil NaX for dressing up on a cross and she considered it to be blasphemy, then this old picture of Kanye and him saying that he's the new Jesus should also be considered blasphemy. And just to be clear, given that she's friends with Kanye, I don't expect her to personally attack him. But there's also no need to go out of the way to promote this album if Blasphemy really does bother her so much. And those aren't the only Christian values that Candace seems to turn a blind eye to. Candace has condemned and shamed countless women for being immodest, including Kim Kardashian and Madonna by saying that they're basically putting corn on the internet for being nearly naked. But that same album she promoted in multiple tweets also features Kanye's naked wife on the cover. And as Candace herself said, >> there needs to either be a real standard, right? Or there should be no double standards. We just need to have a real standard to not allow pornography on the internet.
>> She's also made several podcasts.
>> So the other thing is too is that Kanye, there's something going on with him and his wife Bianca. Like I was trying to look into it and I did find some weird stuff, but that woman doesn't look okay.
She looks very not okay. If you actually watch her and he was I don't know if he still is, but there for a while he was parading her around basically naked in public and just the and you could tell she was always like with her cell phone as much as she could to cover her crotch area and um she just looks like terrified in her face and I was I was very concerned about her. I was like, "Oh my gosh, you know, what's going on in this situation?" So, and Candace had nothing to say about that. I guess attacking rappers for having degenerate lyrics, but literally every single thing that she scolds and shames other rappers for promoting in their lyrics is also being promoted in Kanye's Vulture's album. And rather than being infuriated with it, she praises it. Once again, her values seem to be compromised by selective loyalty. But Candace's loyalty to individuals like Andrew Tate and Kanye West is only one part of the problem. Her unwavering commitment to certain ideologies has led her down an even more dangerous path.
>> What is it about Hitler? How why is he the most evil? Where did the idea of a concentration camp come from? The Bolsheviks. Adaturk was Donme Freud was a cabalist. Yell was established by Frankists, Israelis that were working at the World Trade Center who were forewarned of the attack. This is especially evident in her recent flirtation with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories where her loyalty to these ideas has seemed to cause her to overlook facts and compromise her Christian values. You see, Candace has built a reputation for calling out misinformation and challenging mainstream media narratives. How >> Okay, so she just said there that the Bolsheviks created concentration camps.
Now I explained I believe in the interview that she did with Elizabeth Lane with Elizabeth Lane who the Bolsheviks were and just very briefly they were a political party in Russia.
They were part of a political party called the Democratic Socialists of Russia. They were in that party and there were factions in that party that split and one of those factions was the Bolsheviks. Once they believed they had the majority, they started calling themselves the Bolsheviks which means the majority. Okay. So the idea that they invented concentration camps does not sound right with me. And also knowing history that doesn't sound right. So let's look at that shall we?
Okay. So I just simply asked who invented concentration camps. No single person invented concentration camps in the broad sense. Forced internment of groups has precedents in history. But the modern concept and term concentration camp originated with the Spanish colonial forces in Cuba in the 1890s.
So that would be well before the Bolsheviks.
During the Cuban War of Independence in 1895 to 1898, Spanish General Ballerino Wher, nicknamed the butcher, implemented the reconentration, which means reconentration policy in 1896.
The goal was to separate Cuban rebels, insurgents, from the rural civilian population that supported them by forcibly relocating hundreds of thousands of civilians into guarded camps in towns and cities, often behind barb wire. Rural Cubans had days to comply or face execution. Conditions were horrific, leading to mass deaths from starvation, disease, and overcrowding. estimates 170,000 to 400,000 Cuban deaths. Earlier presidents existed during the 10 years war in 1868 to 1878, but Wherers's systematic policy popularized the model and term.
Arino Martinez Campos proposed the ear proposed the idea earlier but Wherer executed and expanded upon it aggressively. Historians widely credit this as the first modern use of concentration camps for civilians. The English term concentration camp derives directly from the Spanish Campios de reconentration or reconentros in the second bore is it bora bear war of 1899 to 1902 often mistakenly credited as the inventors the British established camps for the uh bear bearer Africer civilians mostly women and children. Part of a scorched earth tactics against guerilla fighters conditions caused 26,000 to 28,000 deaths, mostly children from disease, plus deaths in separate black African camps. This brought the term into wide English use and international controversy.
The United States used similar tactics in the PhilippineAmerican War of 1899 to 1902 and had earlier internment examples. Okay. And then later on you get the stuff that was going on in the World War II time period. So once again, shocking shocking that she doesn't have that right. She has no grasp on history.
And I'm telling you right now, if you are a conspiracy theorist, because I am a conspiracy theorist, the conspiracy theory world, as I call it, lies just as much as whatever world you're trying to escape from and get truth that you think you're not getting truth from. The conspiracy world does that just as much, if not more. Okay? So, you have to really know your stuff when it comes.
You need to know history especially because that's where they lie about a lot. But, you know, however, in recent years, Candace has become a powerful media figure herself, reaching nearly 60 million views per month, which surpasses the prime time viewership of major news networks like MSNBC. So, her influence carries a lot of responsibility, making it crucial for her to remain steadfast in the Christian value of not bearing false witness. If you've been following her content lately, you can't help but notice that she seems to trace every world problem back to the Jews in some way. But the only problem is she consistently gets her facts wrong. So much so that even Nick Fuentes, who's known as the most prolific anti-semite of our generation, he even had to call her out for how much she gets wrong.
>> And she's calling them the bullshists.
and she says that, you know, she gets all the details wrong about that and then she >> Okay, I will say as somebody who is and has been for quite some time exploring and keeping an eye out on the farther farther right leaning groups of people of which I actually am a part of. I'm just not super super far right. So, but the thing is is that Nick Fuentes actually doesn't say all this ridiculous stuff that she says about Jews. He has a world view about uh Jews that is completely different than the worldview that Candace Owens has about Jews. So, like I discussed in that interview with her and Elizabeth Lane, Candace Owens has a very strange worldview where she thinks that everything goes back to this cult that basically died out in the early 1900s, if not even before that, late 1800s, early 1900s, doesn't really exist anymore and was just a weird cult.
Like, we've had lots of weird cults. We still have lots of weird cults. And but she thinks that that cult never died out and that it spread out and took over the um Jewish people like infiltrated the legitimate Jewish people and she thinks that they are behind everything where Nick Fuentes thinks that the Jews are the Jews.
He in the various countries that they live in that they are dis a dysphoric people and they're a tribe that is only loyal to each other and not the country that they're in and that they climb up the because they're very exceptional people. Like he'll even say they're exceptional. They climb up the ladders uh and they get into places of power and then they use that power and influence influence to control the politics of that country to favor them. And so he has that worldview. He doesn't believe in the Sabatian or the Frankus or that they're behind every single thing that goes wrong in the world. And that's why he didn't buy into the whole they killed Charlie Kirk thing which then made all the the really low IQ what's called the JQers which means the Jewish question. So there's this whole group of people called the Jurers and they sort of overlap into several other different groups on the right. He's always fighting with them because they they have all these weird ideas about Jewish people very similar to Candice and he just doesn't hold those views. So he has a completely different worldview. I'm not saying that what he's doing is right or anything. I'm not endorsing it. I'm just pointing out the difference.
>> She says Stalin was Jewish. Stalin was not Jewish. And then she says Adaturk was secretly Jewish. Adaturk was not secretly Jewish. And then and you know, but I didn't say anything. I said, "Whatever." You know, I said, "Oh, well, you know, not everyone's perfect." I said, "Yeah, it's not really a good look, but you know, she's learning." I I said, "She's going to get on the ball eventually." So, I didn't say anything.
I held my tongue. Even though that was not really a good look, okay? You can't really go hard like that and stake the reputation of you and everybody on this and then like get it wrong really severely over and over. she's talking about, you know, all this stuff that like it just doesn't even really make any sense, you know, and the difference between me and her. One, I'm a really good researcher. Two, I really know what the I'm talking about cuz I've been doing this a long time. Now, when someone with views as extreme as Nick Fuentes criticizes you for inaccuracies, that's a clear sign that something has gone seriously wrong. Now, we won't get too deep into the weeds here, but take a look at the Frankus conspiracy theory that she's been arguing for lately. She argued that Theodore Herzel, a Zionist leader who helped lay the foundation for the creation of Israel, was connected to the Franks because they were from the same region. However, Jacob Frank was born in 1726 in a small town in modern-day Ukraine. And Herzel was born almost 400 miles away in Budapest, almost 100 years later. I mean, to see the problem, this is like claiming that because a gang was founded 100 years and 400 miles from where you were born, that you must be a part of it. And she was also wrong about Leo Frank being a Frankist, a claim that lacks historical support. and seems to be based on only a shared last name. She claimed that the Frankets were responsible for mission Christians, which is something that they weren't even accused of. So, the pattern of inaccuracies is frequent and concerning, particularly when discussing sensitive topics like these. And I get that it's easy to get caught up in compelling stories. But, it's also crucial to approach these sorts of topics with careful research and an open mind. Scholars have found significant issues with all of these claims. And of course, that doesn't mean that we should. She also thinks that the Frankfurt school has to do with the Sabatian Frankis, which it does not. It it she makes everything if it has to if it's a Jewish person with the word Frank in it, it all goes back to this savaging Frank thing. Um the Frankfurt school was just called that because it was in Frankfurt, Germany. It has nothing to do with the Frankas.
>> Just dismiss these concerns outright.
But it does mean that we should be especially cautious and make sure we're not unintentionally spreading harmful misinformation, especially when we have platforms as big as hers. So, her frequent pattern of getting things wrong has understandably led to significant push back against her claims. And this is one of the reasons for why her claims have been receiving so much push back.
One commenter on Twitter said, "Interesting. I don't recall anyone getting this triggered when Candace was dunking on blacks." And she responded by saying, "No, that was always allowed and encouraged." revealing once again her selective loyalty to certain ideologies over others. Some interpreted her response to be evidence that she was drifting the entire time she worked at the Daily Wire, which could be defended by taking a look at her documentary on George Floyd, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold. Now, of course, not everything that she said in this documentary was false, and many of us applauded her for the times when she looked at the facts and told uncomfortable truths. But if you watched the documentary alongside of the trial, you likely noticed that she missed or ignored some critical facts. I mean, take a look at this clip from her documentary.
>> Would you agree that from the perspective of Officer King's body camera, it appears that Officer Schovin's knee was more on Mr. Floyd's shoulder blade?
>> Yes.
>> So, Kasha argued that Chovin's knee was not on Floyd's neck, but on his shoulder blade. However, she didn't include the rest of the cross-examination, which revealed a much different story. that moment in time that the knee of the defendant was more towards the shoulder blade. Is that right?
>> That is correct.
>> That was at a time where the ambulance had already arrived.
>> Yes.
>> Very shortly before they loaded Mr. Floyd onto the gurnie. Is that correct?
>> Yes, that is correct.
>> And so the knee of Mr. of the defendant was on Mr. Floyd's neck up until the time you just pointed out.
>> Yes. When I viewed that video portion, um that is the first time that I've seen uh the knee of the defendant on the shoulder blade area. Now, no matter what you think about the George Floyd trial, that's not the point of what >> Now, I will also say that the name of that documentary is a play off two uh Jewish, not Jewish, um German revisionist documentaries that are extremely troublesome.
Like I've talked about this before, they're very strange, but the uh and they're very compelling I will say, but especially like for you know these people. I mean come on like they will believe anything and this is very believable. But so the one of them is called the greatest lie ever sold which talks about the Holocaust not actually have happened um or that it's not what they say it was. And then the other one is called the greatest story never told which paints Hitler in a completely different light etc etc and the whole war in a completely different light. So the fact that she named her documentary a play off those revisionist conspiracy theory documentaries tells me that she knew about them and had watched them sometime prior to that. And I also and she also worked for J Ben Ben Shapiro, a Jewish man who probably has no idea about these documentaries because they're very obsc obscure. And you would only know about them if you were a hardcore conspiracy theorist. You know what I'm saying? Which is why I know about them because I've watched them a very long time ago. Very, very long time ago.
>> I'm getting across here. It doesn't matter if you think that he was in the right or the wrong for the sake of this video. The point is that by selectively editing the testimony, Kenis presented a narrative that fit with her agenda, but didn't align with the full truth. And there are several other examples of this, like how she included a clip of a witness who was asked, >> "Did it appear that Mr. Floyd said, "I ate too many drugs."
>> Yes, it did.
>> But she didn't show the rest of the conversation in which the witness clarified.
>> Having heard it in context, are you able to tell what Mr. Floyd is saying there?
>> Yes, I believe Mr. Floyd is saying, "I ain't doing no drugs." But perhaps the most significant omission was when Candace brought in an anti-BLM investigator who claimed that Floyd died from an overdose. She included selective clips from the trial to support this claim, but omitted the strong evidence that disproved her claim.
>> Mr. Floyd died from positionalphixia, which is a fancy way of saying he died because he had no oxygen left in his body.
Uh you you have lots of experience treating patients uh suffering from opioid overdoses.
>> Yes, sir. I do.
>> Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether fentanyl overdose causes air hunger?
>> No, it does not. Um the only time it could is if you've overdosed and but it's not air hunger because you are going to sleep. You're not hungry at all. You're sleeping. When you watch those videos and you we go through them, what is his respiration? He's breathing.
He's talking. He's not snoring. He is saying, "Please, please get off of me. I want to breathe. I can't breathe." That is not a fentinel overdose. That is somebody begging to breathe. if a person's shirt uh is suffering from a fentinyl over >> I will say also that this the fact that she made this documentary and went through this trial also shows that she knows how trials work and rules of evidence and you you watch a trial like you kind of like as you're watching it you learn so much.
So, the fact that she is completely acting like she has no idea what's going on with the Tyler Robinson case and completely misrepresenting everything surrounding it. Uh, shows that she is lying because she knows how they work.
>> Those would you describe that person then as alert?
>> No, sir. They're not going to be alert.
They're going to be sleeping.
>> Would you describe them as oriented?
>> Uh, no. They're going to be their brain is going to be in sleep mode or not breathing mode.
>> And was George Floyd oriented?
>> Oh, he was. He gave appropriate responses. Name, date of birth.
>> He knew where he was, and what was happening.
>> He knew exactly where he was, what he was doing, and responding appropriately.
>> This omission not only misrepresented the medical evidence, but it also downplayed the severity of Floyd's struggle to breathe. Her selective editing and omissions of critical facts throughout the entire documentary highlight a pattern of her misleading her audience to fit a narrative which compromises the Christian value of impartiality in pursuit of the truth.
And to be clear, I am not accusing her of doing this intentionally because I have no idea what her motives are. But given how often she seems to get her facts wrong or presents partial facts that are misleading, it's no wonder why her credibility is being seriously questioned, especially by Christians who once supported her. All right. So, as we've seen, Candace's actions reveal just how easy it is to let our loyalty cloud our judgment and lead us away from the truth. And this isn't just about Candace. It's a reminder for all of us, including myself. In the Gospels, we see that Jesus not only exemplified perfect integrity, truthfulness, and impartiality, but he also challenged the bias and loyalties of those around him.
He taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to stand up for the truth, and to avoid showing favoritism. And unlike most of us, Jesus never compromised his values to gain favor with the crowd or to support a particular agenda. Instead, he remained faithful to God's truth even when it cost him his life. Now, we all face moments where our loyalty is tested and there's going to be times when we get it wrong or we miss the mark. It's incredibly difficult to see our own biases and how they filter our judgment of situations. And even for me, despite how hard I try to be objective, I constantly catch myself showing favoritism and partiality. The struggle is nearly inescapable because we're still in these sinful bodies. But one thing that can really help us here is to continue to place our loyalty to Christ above all else. Loyalty is a very good thing and a very good trait to have. But if our loyalty to anything or anyone else takes precedence over our loyalty to Christ and his commands, then we run into all kinds of issues. Sin always tries to tempt us with a good thing for evil outcomes. So we need to ask ourselves, where are we placing our loyalty? Are we allowing our commitment to Christ and his teachings to be compromised by our allegiance to people, ideas, or movements? It's easy to get caught up in the noise of the world. But we have to remember that our ultimate loyalty is to Jesus and his death and resurrection provide not just forgiveness, but by following his teachings, we can also be transformed and grow into people who love truth, show impartiality, and stand firm in our conviction.
>> Okay, so it's the hypocrisy, right? The hypocrisy is just off the charts. And I cannot stand hypocrisy or lies on purpose like malicious done on purpose lies. Um when I was younger, somebody I believe it might have been my grandma maybe said to me, "You're never more like the devil than when you lie."
Because he's the father of lies. Right.
So, we all know just instinctively what words mean often, but we haven't looked them up for a long time, right? It's like grade school when you're writing down the vocabulary words. So, let's look at what hypocrisy is. So, I actually like to use um the Webster's 1828 dictionary when I can for a lot of words, especially words in the Bible. I use a King James Bible. And I just found that looking up words farther back before they were changed so much is so much helpful. So hypocrisy, it's Latin from hippocresis to feain to separate, discern, or judge.
Similation, a feigning to be what one is not, or dissimilation, a concealment of one's real character or motives. More generally, hypocrisy is assimilation or the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or religion, a deceitful show of good character in morals or religion, a counterfeiting of religion.
Be ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Luke 12:1, simulation, deceitful appearance, false pretense. Hypocrisy is the necessity burden of villain. Okay. So, often when you look up words in the Webster's uh 1828 dictionary, it will give you a Bible verse that uses the word, which I also really like. So, Nathan Livingstone, is that how you say his last name? Yeah, Living Stone with uh he has Milk Bar TV. He has been uh tracking Candace Owens for quite some time, including Andrew Tate for quite some time. And he makes really great compilation videos that shows her hypocrisy and her lies very well. So, we are going to go over some of those. But before we do, I want to show you guys this. He is being sued by Andrew Tate um frivolously and he's having to fight that and he is in need of funds for his legal defense. And so this is a video where he talks about that. I wanted to play this first before we play some of his compilation videos. And I want um if anybody is able or willing to help donate whatever you know every little bit helps the links for that will be I will link this post on X where it has the link and then I will try to find the individual link and put it in the description. So I'll probably put the individual link up at the top and then this post will be down in the bottom where I normally credit everything. Let me show you what it actually costs to defend yourself against a frivolous defamation lawsuit. So, Andutate has been dragging out a frivolous defamation lawsuit against me and several citizen journalists and social media accounts who've been covering his criminal cases.
This has become extremely expensive and exhausting legal battle. It's now been going on for over a year. So far, we've raised just over $50,000 through crowdfunding. I want to show you where that money's gone through a visual timeline of the case. Since March 2025, there have been hundreds of legal filings, motions, hearings, appeals, summones, amended complaints, discovery actions, and thousands upon thousands of pages of exhibits and evidence that our legal team have had to review and respond to. Every single filing costs money. Every motion requires legal research, drafting, revisions, strategy discussions, phone calls with council, evidence review, and sometimes hearings.
Even emails and phone calls with lawyers are build. And while we've already had major victories, including the court dismissing without prejudice all defendants, ruling there was no personal jurisdiction, quashing service, and denying attempts to unmask anonymous critics. Instead, the lawsuits, appeals, amended complaints, and new attempts to unmask critics have continued. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in December last year, and since then alone, Tate has filed another appeal, filed a second amended complaint to continue the litigation, launched a separate lawsuit against X to try and unmask anonymous defendants, uploaded more than 3,000 pages of exhibits, all of which have to be reviewed by our legal team. This is what it looks like when someone with enormous resources tries to bury critics by weaponizing the legal system against them.
Unfortunately, having the truth on your side is not enough. You still have to pay for legal representation to defend yourself properly. These frivolous lawsuits are not cheap and they're designed to wear people down financially over time. You're going to be in court twice a month for the rest of your human years. I don't care. I will sue you for any and every reason forever and you're going to have to hire lawyers and turn up forever. I will do that. I'm that guy. I'm petty.
>> The only reason we're still able to keep pushing back is because ordinary people decided this fight mattered enough to support us. Right now, we urgently need to raise another $20,000 to cover our existing legal bills and to continue defending ourselves properly. So, if you've ever shared my videos, believe there's still a place for citizen journalism, believe in standing up for the truth, or believe powerful people should not be able to abuse the legal system to silence their critics. This is the moment to help us prove that. Please donate if you can at gendgo.com/free speech versus tape because surviving this depends on whether enough people decide this fight is worth supporting now, not later. So please donate if you can, share this if you can't, and help us to continue fighting back.
>> Okay. So yes, if you guys are able to and feel so inclined to do so, please donate to Nathan. He is a really good I'm not a real journalist, you guys.
Nathan is a real journalist who actually does tons of research. He finds documents. He, you know, goes through court filings and all that. I can do stuff like that, too. I just don't have a lot of time with my little ones. And what little writing I was able to get done when I was doing that was so hard because when you get into the writing mode and all that and then you're being um interrupted every 5 minutes, it makes it really hard to stay in that creative uh writing thinking mode. So, for right now, I'm not doing much of that. But Nathan is and he does this all the time.
And so I feel like this is really important. So thank you and we will move on. Okay, so this video is called Candace Owens greatest hits being an absolute BS artist throughout her Charlie Kirk investigation.
Let's check this out, shall we?
There's old footage of Tyler Robinson that is now circulating.
>> Yeah, I was looking up at the light just before getting there.
>> Okay.
>> Saw it shift yellow and as I get into the intersection, There was a vehicle in the lane.
>> Tyler certainly refers to it as his car, not his vehicle.
>> He wrote me a letter on on May 2nd this year.
>> First and foremost, that letter he is holding up. He is severely misrepresenting. Those sentences are real. I'm saying you're severely misrepresenting the contents and you're doubling down on your lie. I told you to publish the full letter that Charlie wrote you, not lines of it. Okay, it's a lie by omission. New York Post got a hold of that letter and they've now published it. Charlie Kirk expressing his love for Israel. No attacks on Israel, just advice on how to fight lies and reach the next generation. I still haven't spoken to the press about Charlie Kirk. Actually, not I haven't even given one interview about Charlie Kirk cuz it felt icky to me. I think that in the coming weeks there's going to be a lot of financial reports that are coming out. And I first and foremost do not believe that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. I want to be very clear on that. a very strange tweet that Josh Hammer hit send on 16 hours before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Right? What could have been going on that Josh Hammer decided to dig through uh the 2013 Twitter archives and retweet someone calling for someone calling for a public execution.
Now, what is the justification for this?
There might be one. I tried in earnest to at first rationalize it. Would we trust if Josh came out and said that tweet was definitely about Arena? Other people pulled Trump tweets. Some did pulled that very tweet and called for a public execution cuz I was in this agrieved stage and I really didn't poke my head up until weeks later when like the like I could like stop crying about it every second.
Charlie Kirk, my friend, is dead. First, um, this is fantastic that Pre-born is doing this. Want to remind you guys about Pure Talk. Uh, also reminding you guys about American Financing. Also reminding you guys about GN O Land. Also telling you guys about Just Thrive. You head over to our website, kennace.com.
You can sign up, buy yourself a hat.
What about his uh, burial? How come we haven't seen anything about his burial?
>> You repeatedly questioned why we weren't being told where Charlie Kirk is buried.
Did you get those answers?
>> Uh, that's you have the wrong commentator who questioned that November 25th. I obviously tweeted, "Chron have executed upon and paid for my assassination." I report to the FBI. Of course, I reported it to the FBI. I did not at all hear back from the FBI. And I will say I didn't go through an official channel and send an email and I should do that, but I did send a text message to somebody very high up.
>> She has said Charlie's murder quote had to be approved by Charlie's friends and then suggested those friends might have her murdered too for quote knowing.
>> I never said that. The decision was made to murder Charlie Kirk. A decision that very clearly had to be approved by Charlie's friends. Is this going to be the pathway forward? You going to start murdering more people in broad daylight for knowing? I never said that. I certainly didn't suspect Turning Point USA would be, as I believe, involved in a cover up. You know, it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't involved in plotting to kill him. And I've never said that. Cam Higgby is on the payroll of Turning Point USA, the very organization that just had its leader assassinated in broad daylight in front of the entire world.
>> If Candace is available, we would sincerely welcome her participation in that live stream at our studio here in Phoenix.
>> So, I accept it with whistles and bells, everything. I fully accept. You can pick the place, you can pick what time, but no, they need to have it in person in Phoenix on December 15th or they cannot have me at all.
No one. And I mean absolutely no one outside of my husband and Erica Kirk has the power to shut me up. There's nobody that has the capacity to get me to shut up about this except for Erica Kirk and my husband. I'm not going to stop unless Erica Kirk asks me to stop. If Erica Kirk asks me to be quiet, I will be quiet.
>> Stop. To stop.
>> I just I just do not accept any of that.
Obviously, for this to have been pulled off, there had to have been multiple people involved. There had to have been people at Turning Point that were complicit in having this happen.
>> You said people at Turning Point were complicit in his murder.
>> No, I My exact sentence that I said was that there were people at Turning Point who are engaged in a coverup.
>> I believe Candace, you didn't say that. You said literally my entire You said there were people at Turning Point complicit in his murder.
>> Okay, >> that's what you said. What I'm about to tell you guys today is going to positively blow your mind. I just cannot see how this would lead to anything other than a full confession from the government about the military's involvement in his assassination. I'm certain he is going to probably be doing a lot of interviews in the near future.
Like I said, I I'm going to put together a fundraiser for you and I do believe you are missing piece of this. I don't know what comes next, but I just want you to know that like you have an ally in me and I I will I'm a I hope you see that I am a fighter and when I see good people and bad things happen to them, I will fight. We didn't know what it was going to lead to. And I was like I mean I couldn't have been more differential in saying that this could literally lead to nothing. You know, like hey this guy said this whatever and then all of a sudden you guys every day are obsessing over it. Won't let it go. I had him on the show that was it.
>> I was totally in a cloud of grief. Okay, you remember I had to go away to Wyoming just to breathe. like what am I doing wrong here that I have to go away and cry for a long time and everyone else just kind of seemed giddy. That's the only way I can describe it. Like giddy.
That emotion shouldn't be possible.
Shouldn't be possible. Actually, last year I was in earnest holding the internet back. Everyone was coming at Turning Point USA at all these allegations and I was like, "No, no, chill, chill. Just give them some time."
I believe that people within that company betrayed Charlie. We don't know where it's going today, but we are going to keep asking questions until we get clear answers.
>> Candace, it may be that the person in the media spewing [ __ ] to the public is you.
>> He is so good at making those compilations, isn't he? Okay, so let's look at some more, shall we?
Okay, so this one is called Every Time Candace Owens has moved the goalposts with her Egyptian Planes.
And on the day of Charlie Kirk's assassination, an Egyptian Air Force plane took off from Provo, Utah airport.
They said, "Oh, she made a time zone mistake." Like as if I'm on flight radar every day accustomed to reading the data here. This these are not coincidences, okay? This is a conspiracy. This plane is following Turning Point USA Faith and Charlie Kirk and or Charlie Kirk by the way. And tomorrow we will have uh more explosive information and revelations about the Egyptian plane. And when I tell you on Wednesday what we discovered about those Egyptian military planes, I think some more people are going to be on the run. I I saw some of you guys asking about the Egyptian planes. Yep, we have that for you. We're in for a week. Tomorrow we're going to talk a bit more about the planes. The thing about the Egyptian plane is so explosive. Like I said to you, I had to try to get this to the right people in government and those individuals asked me to wait until this weekend. The reason why they wanted me to wait is because this is the first time that we have the advantage. I don't know what to say other than it's it's positively explosive. That's all I can say to you. I don't even there's not a correct adjective to describe what is going to be the result of revealing that sort of information that the person the planes were actually tracking for years was Erica. I am telling you this information has been completely verified. I am showing you this on a spreadsheet now. And when it comes to these Egyptian flights, the math on this is indisputable. There is less than a 0.000000001 0 0 0 1% probability. A lot of you guys in the chat asking why these particular planes were following Erica. I have an indication as to why. Uh, of course I want to thoroughly vet that. On July 22nd, the Nebraskan Secretary of State Bob Evan announced that they were going to put together a trade and investment delegation to Cairo, Egypt. because I feel like that idea might be related to our planes. Where was Breijit Mcronone on the dates that that Egyptian plane was from 94 um through to 911? Where was Reje Mcronone? I would just like to know. I need to know where Bash McRone was and I need I think an answer to that question um is due. I would just it would just comfort me to know. But I was right about the Egyptian plains. And when you hear Tucker Carlson say that he is confirming that that part is true.
What I take from that Tucker Carlson is very clear. He grew up with CIA agents.
Okay, this is a guy grew up in Virginia.
His father, he learns after his father died, he thought he was just working with the CIA. No, his father was on the payroll of the CIA. So Tucker's friends are in the state. So it you should take it um as a concrete fact that there's something up with these Egyptian planes that she wasn't on the planes. I never said you were on the planes. Why would I think you were on the Egyptian planes?
That is weird to me. It's a weird answer to give. And by the way, you can fly when you're pregnant. Even if you were on the Egypt, that's a possibility when you're pregnant. Just like things that we can't get answers to, which is the Egyptian planes. Instead, they're laughing at these things.
Egyptian planes. It's elitist and it's crappy. I have since worked on an incredible document about the Egyptian planes which we are going to put up on our website because I realized that when we sent that when we shared that spreadsheet, people assumed that one of the columns which was actually saying where the planes landed on that day cuz it was plus or minus 3 days was exactly where Erica had been on that day and that was inaccurate. And so for clarity, I had been working on the last week on turning it into an interactive timeline that we can put up on our website. put this up on the website when we drop all of the Egyptian plane logs. We broke a story about the Egyptian trains, uh, Egyptian planes, pardon me, tracking Turning Point Faith. Um, that document we still have for you, which is coming forward. We will be proven correct on that. I'm going to show you these Egyptian planes. I've showed you in part. We're tracking Turning Point USA faith. I'm going to save that again for when we go through the Egyptian plane. I I know I you don't even know this plane.
This is when we get to the Egyptian planes here. Lay wire uh unhinged. I don't even know what to say. They have dropped another video that kind of, if I'm being honest, feels like a leaced threat. They are mocking Egyptian planes. Like, I'm I'm convinced these were Israeli planes. This is why they're panicking about. I'd like to know more about Tracy Martin. But she's from Missouri, which has been, you know, one of those regular stops on the Egyptian planes. And it was so crazy. Oh my god.
Little joke about the Egyptian plains.
What? Nothing to see here.
This is my theory. There's a lot to see here. Who was on the Egyptian planes?
Lol. Haha. Right, Erica? Nobody from Egypt. And then Erica's out there nervously at Amfest cracking like not funny jokes about Egyptian planes. She's like, "No, nobody in Egyptian planes are here." The Egyptian planes kept telling me the story that every time there was like a kurluffle in Israel, little war, Israel is people are are bombing Israel.
Suddenly these Egyptian planes were carrying someone from Israel to Provo.
And my sense was this is BB. This is BB.
Got to get the number one guy out of there. You'd be pretty safe in Provo.
They've got a whole underground city in Provo. Again, we will we will show you all that. Um I've been very meticulous about this uh Egyptian plane spreadsheet. And uh it now this is this is locking in.
Spoiler alert, there was never an interactive map setup and she never corrected the spreadsheet that was found to be full of nothing but lies.
Um, so yeah.
Okay. So, this is proof that Candace Owens cannot admit when she's wrong or is incapable of admitting when she's wrong.
So, let's check this out. I will always admit when I'm wrong. Anybody that listens to my podcast knows that.
>> You claim without a doubt that I only served two years in the Marine Corps.
>> At the age of 18, Victor joined the Marine Corps. To be clear, he only served for two years. It was 3 years and it was on the DD214.
Are you willing to admit when you're wrong?
>> I I think this was just sort of a clerical error that could just have been >> It's not right here. I I didn't say that they murdered Charlie.
>> You said that people at Turning Point were complicit in his murder.
>> No, I My exact sentence that I said was that there were people at Turning Point who are engaged in a coverup.
>> I believe you didn't thoroughly.
>> Candace, you didn't say that. You said literally. did say that my entire >> You said there were people at Turning Point complicit in his murder.
>> Okay, >> that's what you said.
>> Obviously, for this to have been pulled off, there had to have been multiple people involved. There had to have been people at Turning Point that were complicit in having this happen.
>> You said complicit in the murder cuz I said who at Turning Point was invari Okay, you can keep saying what I said or you can listen to what I am saying.
>> But do you have any proof that the messages were made up? Because that would be easily proven. Yeah, but they didn't put timestamps on them and Discord came out and said they didn't exist.
>> This was supposedly text messages, not Discord messages. It's my understanding from the indictment. I I actually did not read that they were text messages.
The indictment calls them text messages.
I pointed out that this foreign military plane arrived. They said, "Oh, she made a time zone mistake." Like as if I'm on flight radar every day accustomed to reading the data here. how interesting it is that the entire world came down on Kanye West when he tweeted that he was going to go defcon 3 on some Jewish people I think is what he wrote verbatim when he tweeted out I'm about to go defcon 3 on some Jews defcon 3 on some Jewish people to today when is Jewish people going defcon 3 >> on Palestinians >> he didn't say some he said on Jewish people >> okay sure and now we fast forward to today grandfather grew up in a segregated south and so when I'm walking through Jerusalem and you see and they say these are the Muslim quarters. This is where the Muslims are allowed to live.
>> That doesn't feel like a bastion of freedom to me. Um so I guess >> oh I I don't think it's where they're allowed to live in Jerusalem. I think it's that there are there's an Armenian quarter. It's not saying the Armenians can only live here.
>> My understanding from the rabbi was that >> Okay. So you know how in New York there's like Chinatown, right? Well, Chinese people can live in other places besides just Chinatown, right? She thought that she thought that the quarter meant that that's only where they're supposed to live. But like he's explaining, he's like, "Oh yeah, there's like an Armenian corner." Like they can live wherever they want. It's just people groups tend to group together naturally.
Um that's hilarious.
This is where the Muslims have to live in Jerusalem.
>> But do you believe people landed on the moon?
>> I don't know. I just want to know why we didn't go back.
>> We did go back. We went back like 10 more times.
>> I'm not talking about space missions.
I'm talking about actual people walking.
>> Yes. Landing on the moon and walking on it.
>> But I'm just not interested in this topic like at all. The Nazis experimented on innocent people. They experimented on twins. I mean, some of the stories, by the way, sound completely absurd. Like the idea they just like cut a human up and then sewed them back together. That just that just sounds like bizarre propaganda.
>> She said that the Mangala experiments were false.
>> Do you believe that Joseph Mangallay did what he is reported to have done?
>> To be clear, Piers, I did not even mention Joseph Mangallay's name in this in this skit at all. And when it comes to these Egyptian flights, the math on this is indisputable.
There is less than a 0.000000001% 0 0 0 0 1% probability because I realized that when we sent that when we shared that spreadsheet people assumed that one of the columns which was actually saying where the planes landed on that day cuz it was plus or minus 3 days was exactly where Erica had been on that day and that was inaccurate. And so for clarity I had been working on the last week on turning it into an interactive timeline that we can put up on our website. this uh Egyptian plane spreadsheet. Again, we will we will show you all that.
>> She has said Charlie's murder quote had to be approved by Charlie's friends and then suggested those friends might have her murdered too for quote knowing the truth.
>> I never said that. Obviously, in the context that he put it in, we're going to need to hear the full sentence because you're trying to context it in a way that is just um just untrue. I just want to know why, Charlie. I want to know why um the decision was made to murder Charlie Kirk. A decision that very clearly had to be approved by Charlie's friends. Thought were going to start murdering more people in broad daylight for knowing you thought it was 2 years.
>> You misrepresented my Marine Corps time.
I would appreciate an apology.
>> I'm I'm not going to apologize to you for that. I will always admit when I'm wrong.
>> Okay. So, I think this one is really funny. Like this one is just so funny.
It shows the hypocrisy so well. This one does. And it is called Candace Owens calls New York Post Zionist controlled then uses it as a source over and over.
>> I used to be like an avid reader of the New York Post. I had to stop reading it.
And I mean on the New York Post there there are literal journalists who are in the IDF. You can just see it right on their thing.
>> This is a New York Post headline entitled, "He was suicidal and addicted to benzo." New York Post writer put this. So, what they're saying is he lied. And I've been kind of telling you guys for a while that the New York Post is an Israeli op. Miraculously, the New York Post finds her. Here is the cover of the New York Post. The New York Post, which is a whole Israeli op. Don't get me started. The New York Post, the one that did like Candace Owens anti-semite of the year. New York Post. the the New York Post that has a literal IDF soldiers that write for them. Yeah, that New York Post, they are decades ahead of us in terms of controlling the information that's on the web. But then we got a confirmation. Yeah, here's the headline. New York Post Trump club shooter who claimed that he was Diddy's sex slave was hired by music mogul Cassie testifies. New York Post ran a headline. It was Emanuel and Breijit Mcronone scandal plagued relationship.
The New York Post did this deep deep dive. This is a direct quote ready from the article. Look, the New York Post is kind of looking like it's a MSAD outfit.
It always kind of has been. Our guys, our resident guys over at the New York Post, every exclusive ever, it's Some of these dates are like two days apart up at the top. That's so crazy. Is that wild? I mean, what on earth?
Always the New York Post. Okay. I view them as a fed. Feds like would you like to comment? The New York Post would like I said literally New York Post. You guys are just feds.
The New York Post, right? Outfit of the MSAD uh outfit of the deep deep state.
The New York Post, the Israeli Post, right? What were they sharing there? He wrote of his deep love for Israel. New York Post, just to give you an example of how insane this is. They said they had an inside source that told them that while I was at the Daily Wire that in my first week I threw my car keys. Zionist control the Empire Medias. Erica France was as we were told the point person to the firm. Want you guys to check out this article which was published by the New York Post. Had the exclusive photos in the story. This New York Post for all intents and purposes just a MSAD outfit.
Okay. They work on behalf of Israel. an instant report with George Farmer in the late summer of 2024 when we were contacted. We were the ones who were told through our PR team that they were trying to get the New York Post to publish it. The Daily Wire had found a report and they were trying to push the New York Post to publish it. After looking into that report that he's referring to, the New York Post declined to publish because they couldn't confirm it. The New York Post, right? Outfit of the MSAD uh outfit of the deep deep state. Okay, so let's learn a little bit about the New York Post, shall we? The New York Post is 224 years old. It was founded in November 16th, 1801 as the New York Evening Post by Alexander Hamilton and a group of federalist investors. As of today, it has been a it has been in continuous publication for 224 years, turning 225 in November 2026.
It is widely recognized as America's oldest continuously published daily newspaper. Though some debate exists around brief publication halts during strikes, it still claims the title. The paper started as a respect as a respected broad sheet evolved into a tabloid format in the 20th century and has been owned by Rupert Murdoch and the News Corp since the 1970s and 1990s.
So, that's interesting.
Okay. Well, what do you guys think? Lots of hypocrisy, lots of spinning tales. She doesn't remember. I mean, I don't know. I just find it really odd. Don't you guys?
Especially that New York Post one where one second she's saying what you know that they're this very uncredible source because uh Jews work there or something and then the next day or two she's using them as a source.
That's really weird.
Very very strange.
Okay, so this is the last one we are going to show of these compilations and I chose this one last for a reason and it is called Candace Owens is the definition of main character syndrome.
When I am long gone from this earth, the history books are not going to tell the truth about the things that I did.
They're not going to tell the truth about my contributions. Russell Crowe uh who was lead of that film says, "Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained?" The Bashima Crow story is of course naturally entertaining, but it is in fact about more than entertainment. This is the point, by the way, in the gladiator films where typically the elites and the politicians order soldiers to just go and kill the gladiator's entire family so he has nothing to live for anymore. It's the very same concept. The process is the pain. We will leave you with nothing for challenging our system of lies and corruption. How dare you show the world proof that we are immoral perverts. How dare you think that's not even That's not even what the story line was. That's not what Oh my gosh. Okay.
Think that we have to answer to you.
Emanuel Mcronone is holding up negotiations to end the Russian and Ukrainian war unless you stop speaking about his wife.
Like if I could end the Ukrainian and Russia Russian war and by just stopping this conversation and people are tagging me, like well Mcronone says that France is going to recognize the Palestinian state.
It means that Netanyahu is almost done with his ethnic cleansing and they're just trying to save face and no one wants to save face more than I Mcronone who has embarked on a fight over here in the US. But we might need our federal government when it comes to this. Okay, the job of the federal government is to defend us against foreign invaders. And I would pretty much say Emanuel Mcron right now is being a foreign invader.
But no, they're silent. They are silent.
And that's a pretty loud silence right now cuz like if I remove myself out of the situation, it is crazy that Trump has been silent on this on this matter.
But no one can explain why or how I had the sense of dread in the very week leading up to Charlie's assassination.
No one can offer why I knew that there was danger coming specifically to a school and why I felt that it was related to bees. Why? The feeling was so overwhelming that I hired extra security and took my podcast off air and pulled my children out of school. I have and sent information and had Okay, once again, I am so confused why she keeps saying she pulled her children out of school to homeschool them when all of her children are five and under. Most kids don't even start school at five.
And then the younger one like they're not in school. Like what is she talking about?
Not been denied by the LA palace, the White House or the Pentagon that the French Foreign Legion was on the ground that day. France, by the way, I have told you guys this repeatedly was there on the day of Charlie's assassination. I have made that statement and the White House has not disputed it, have they?
People online. Oh, it's crazy. It's a conspiracy. Nope. What would Wouldn't the White House just say that that's not true? the French Foreign Legion, which is a legion made up of in part a lot of criminals, right? So, last chance you can get in life, you can become, you want to be a thug in life, you can join the French Foreign Legion. This is what they do globally. Start a war in Iran.
People who are asking questions about Charlie Kirk. Nothing we've said makes any sense. And this hypnosis of us saying, having people repeat that it was Tyler Robinson, it doesn't seem to be working. So, we're just going to go start another war for BB. Erica Kirk, man, that she really is just the moment.
The speech that she gave, everybody was just wowed by her. I felt my energy personally like last night going into that. I was effectively like soaring in the air above the convention center, like a dragon above, waiting for Erica to just be like fire. And I was just going to come down and swoop in out of nowhere. All the politicians, all the fake people, everyone was just going to be in that moment toast. Stop to stop.
>> Okay, so the reason I chose that one last is because I have been talking about Candace Owens having what you would call uh grandiosity, delusions of grander and stuff like that. like she I of course am not a medical professional and I have never met Candace Owens, but just in my opinion going off the behavior I see it fits certain patterns of these things that are talked about in psychology called delusions of grander uh grandiosity things like that that are traits of narcissistic personality disorder or other disorders. I don't know.
I don't know. Of course, I'm not saying that she has all this. I'm just saying that in my opinion, she displays some of these behaviors. So, let's go over that.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a cluster B personality disorder in the DSM 5TR characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity in fantasy or behavior. A constant need for ad admiration and lack of empathy.
It begins by early adulthood and appears in various contexts.
Diagnosis requires at least five to nine specific criteria causing significant uh distress or impairment. So this is the criteria a person must show at least five of these.
Grandio sense of self-importance exaggerates achievements. Expects recognition as superior without commensurate achievements. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, ideal love.
Belief that they are special and unique and can only be understood by or associate with other special high status people or institutions.
Requires excessive admiration.
Sense of entitlement. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations.
Interpersonally exploitive. Takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends. Lacks empathy. Unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. Often envious of others or believes others are envious of them. shows arrogant, hotty behaviors or attitudes, delusions of grander. So that was the nine. Okay, so they have to have at least five of those. And I'm sure some of you guys are going ding ding ding.
Delusions of grander, fixed false beliefs about one's exceptional importance, power, or abilities can occur in more severe cases and may signal greater impairment or overlap with other conditions. Though in PD, grandosity is often more fantasy based or exaggerated rather than fully delusional. Okay, so this is the key features and presentations. grandiose, overt narcissism. And I do believe that if she was this, she would be overt. So she's not a covert, right? So grandiose, overt narcissism, arrogance, dominance, exploitiveness, and overt superiority.
People with NPD often have fragile self-esteem beneath the surface.
Criticism triggers narcissistic injury leading to rage, withdrawal or counteratt attacks.
Common co-orbidities are depression, step, substance abuse, other personality disorders like borderline, antisocial relationships are typically superficial or transactional.
Hm. The causes are multi-factorial, likely genetic temperament factors combined with childhood experience, excessive praise, neglect, or overindulgence leading to unstable self-worth. There is no single cause.
NPD exists on a spectrum. Many people have narcissistic traits without meeting full diagnosis criteria for the disorder. Public figures often display amplified traits due to media fame and incentives for confidence and assertiveness.
Armchair diagnosis is unreliable and unethical without professional evaluation.
Um oftent times when you see people on YouTube who are psychologists and they are sort of giving their opinion on people they will say that they cannot diagnose somebody without you know actually evaluating them and seeing them and such and such and that is true.
Okay. So, all right. I want to show you guys this really quick and then we will come back to this. Okay. So, you guys know that I like me some April Chapman. She's one of my favorites. Don't trust anyone but me.
The cult tactic Candace is using. Um, you guys know you know how cults they don't they don't start like with the Kool-Aid. Like the cult doesn't say, "Hey, here we're all going to drink this Kool-Aid and you're going to die." Like, it never starts out that way. It starts out with charisma and pizzazz and just Yes. Right.
Well, Jim Jones, you guys know he did not gather 900 people down in the the the rainforest of Guyana by saying, "Hey y'all, and y'all going to drink this poison and you're going to like it and it's going to kill you." He didn't start out that way. Jim Jones started by convincing them of one thing. And do you guys know what that one thing was? Jim Jones started out by convincing a whole lot of people. Don't trust anybody except me.
Those little that little phrase in theory was you can't trust anybody except me. Now I'm curious. Have you guys noticed that? Right? Like, have you noticed that the sole arbiter of truth as it related to Jim Jones and Candace Owens, she happens to be the sole arbiter of truth because everyone everyone is lying. You can't trust nobody.
And the thing about such an extreme So, we know that's true, right? She is the sole arbiter of truth. Everyone else is suspicious. Everyone else is lying. You can't trust anyone. The only person you can trust is her. She doesn't have to show you anything. Uh she doesn't need to show any receipts, nothing. But what she says is true and you just have to accept it. And if you do not, you are a Zionist shield fed slop consumer.
Okay? So that is the state of affairs with that. an unrealistic presupposition is that it it's no secret. Let's just go ahead and get it out there. I personally believe it is a deeply held presupposition of mine that Candace is a narcissist. She has displayed with her words and her actions and the way she's moving out here in these digital social media streets narcissistic behavior.
And if you know anything about narcissists, the narcissist never lies.
And the narcissist is never wrong. And so we're going to talk about the narcissism tonight. But from Jim Jones all the way up until now when I compare Jonestown and all those people who drink the Kool-Aid, Candace Owens is literally in 2025, she's the version of Jim Jones and the People's Temple all wrapped up.
It's like a pseudo conservative edition.
And I'm saying pseudo because a lot of the things she is saying now, it's not conservative at all. And I thought it was interesting that she's attracting a whole lot of liberals to her side, which should give people something to consider and think about. Now, I've watched Candace Owens, who has branded herself as a conservative trutht teller. I have watched her run the same psychological playbook as Jim Jones, right?
She has turned her entire brand, a brand that if we're going to be honest, I absolutely loved. I was all in to the Candace Owens brand. Candace Owens was young and fresh and smart and charismatic.
She has that it factor and I was all dialed in to the brand of Candace Owens.
Not to the detriment of myself, no. But in those early years, absolutely. She had an incredible impact in terms of doing something that had not been done before, which was be a black female spouting conservative talking points in a way that just she she's a throat cutter. And that's why we all fell in love with her. That is what we loved about her. We was like, when Candace come to cut you, you have been cut.
>> So, I'm sure many of us can relate to that, right? That is sort of what drew us in was her ability to do that, to be very sharp tonged with our enemies in the culture war. And it was nice to have a black woman doing that because that's very rare and so much could get uh by because she was saying it. even though, you know, she still got a lot of nonsense for it, but it was different than if somebody else was doing it. So, it was just like some something new.
Although looking back, we all realized she didn't really bring anything new to the table. She just repeated things she was she would take in. She was really good at that. But at the time, that is what we all liked about her. That is true. At least I feel like a lot of us can relate to that. But the very same thing that attracted us to her for many of us is the very same thing that had a whole lot of us be like, "Well, wait a wait a minute. This this is not healthy."
And now we're seeing she has turned her brand into a personality cult where she's the hero. She's the hero and then at the same time she's the victim and everyone else everyone else is the enemy. And so Jim Jones started by convincing boatloads of people one thing. Don't trust anybody except me.
And when we fast forward to what we're watching now, Candace Owens, who at this point, who went from being one of the top conservative thought leaders in this movement, is now a pseudo trutht teller, a somewhat spiritual medium who claims to have communicated with the dead. The dead being Charlie Kirk himself. She's running the same psychological playbook.
She's turned her brand into a personality co. And when you examine all of that and then look at all of the petty that she's woven into it with a whole lot of, in my opinion, marital disrespect, not just to Erica Kirk, but to her own husband, it is just one big diabolical mix of chaos. And so, yes, yesterday, yesterday on my show, I don't even want to call that a show. It was it was just rant. I put it out and it is what it is.
But in that video, I talked about how Candace weaponized the the old text messages between her and Charlie as if it had any bearing on anything today.
And it didn't. It was a clear boundary that was crossed. It demonstrated that she lacks respect and empathy with no self-restraint.
But it pointed to something that I noticed.
And when you study narcissism and cults, and usually most cults are started by narcissists, it fits the pattern. And I'm going to highlight some of those patterns. And we're going to call them by name tonight. But this woman will create content at any cost, even if it means tormenting a widow that you claim you have legitimate questions or concerns about. Like you can have questions and you can be concerned, but if the manifestation of your questions and concern is tormenting and and like making snide little comments and remarks and innuendo and once again with no evidence, one can say you're just weaponizing all kinds of even benign events that actually happened, insinuating something, insinuating anything like it.
At this point, they're so far-fetched.
But all of that is done so that you can further distrust everything and everyone else and only believe her. I am not surprised. But this is what vindictive narcissism looks like. And this is what we are witnessing. The cult behavior.
We're just going to call it Jim Jones 2.0. But right now, I want to talk about the cultlike behavior. I want to talk about what what she's doing with the memory and the assassination of Charlie Kirk is not random, but it is a pattern.
It is absolutely a pattern. Now, if you remember Jim Jones, if you don't know who Jim Jones is, I don't have time to give you all of his backstory, but you need to catch up. There are tons of documentaries on YouTube that explain exactly who he was. And some people would say, you know, that he was a Christian, but Jim Jones was not a Christian. He was a Marxist socialist nut job that used religion and Christianes like Christian language in order to loop his followers in to this commune. I just said I wasn't going to tell y'all who he was, but to this commune down in Guyana where everybody was going to have all things in common and he was going to provide for their every need. And at the end of the day, America at first was like, "Okay, I mean, he's weird and he's kind of crazy, but you know, if all these people want to go down to Guyana uh to start this community where they're all self-contained and everybody's taking care of each other in this socialistic kind of way, hey, have at it." But what happened was some people whose family members got caught up in the cult started getting concerned and they were appealing to the US government saying, "Hey, somebody needs to go down there. I have family members down there." And they're saying they want to come home.
they just they feel like if if they disagree that it's not going to be safe for them, so forth and so on. Well, anyway, what Jame uh Jim Jones managed to do was train his followers to do a number of things, but one distrust outsiders, right? You can't trust nobody else. It's like Tik Tok, the game is allowed. Can't nobody else play unless you are in So Jim Jones actually started very small and it was he started a church. I believe it was in California like around San Francisco maybe I'm if I'm remembering correctly and it was the people's church and he specifically went into like poor communities and he attracted uh a lot of black people that were you know uh there was a lot of push towards black people in the 60s and 70s into communism and socialism and stuff like that by you know uh all that and So, and so he kind of latched on to the grievances of black people and uh used his cult-like tactics on them, even though there were white people as well, but he really targeted uh black people.
And then he eventually um grew and they moved to Ghana like she was saying. But the thing is is he was extremely conspiratorial and extremely paranoid of like the government and stuff like that.
Which is really interesting how she's tying this to Candace Owens who also is very conspiratorial and very mistrustful of the government in and sort of th this stuff can become very where you get very paranoid very easily. When I was younger and I was very very hardcore conspiratorial, I was a paranoid wreck. Like a lot of the times in my life, there's even specific moments where like things were happening that I think I might have just been imagining. I'm not really for sure, but um yeah. So, so it's sort of like the same kind of parallels to Jim Jones and people like him like uh people who are very charismatic and have these type of personality traits uh often will get up into places of power and then become extremely paranoid and you know mistrustful of everyone like Stalin you know not um Hitler for example all these people who are charismatic leaders can end up becoming distressful of everyone and extremely paranoid. So, I find that fascinating.
The hive of Candace Owens, everyone should look at you with the side eye.
Now, you've not given them any reason to distrust you, but because you're not on the end, you're not in the no. You haven't watched every episode from beginning to end on repeat twice, we can't trust you. But Jim Jones, he trained his followers to distrust outsiders, distrust family, and then ultimately they started distrusting each other. And the goal was to get the people to rely only on him. That is how he got 900 people to literally drink poison. Okay? So hear me clearly. We do not put any trust in government. Let's be clear with that. Even those of us who love Turning Point and we loved Charlie Kirk and we were all in in the movement, our trust was never in the government.
First of all, government cannot even solve the vast majority of problems that are plaguing this nation. Restoration of the family, getting married, raising your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, taking personal responsibility. Those are the things that are going to move this nation on an upward trajectory to to course correct from where we've lost our way. But putting our trust in government, no. But we do work toward the betterment while we are here occupying. The goal is to say yes. We want good leaders. We want a righteous ruler. Does he have to be a Christian? No. Or a pastor. We'd love that, but that's probably not going to happen. But we don't put our trust in government. We don't put our trust in man. Our trust is in Christ and Christ alone. But if you notice, Candace's strategy is very different from that.
She trains her followers to distrust everyone except her. Right. That that's red flag number one. Any other conservative leader. If you don't agree with her, oh, you're corrupt. You're corrupt.
>> Flag with a play.
>> You're absolutely corrupt. You can't be trusted. Right. If you're a pastor, Lord forbid. And I got smoke for some pastors, too. But if you're a pastor or you you're compromised, especially depending on your esquetology. Now, no shade. I'm not a dispensationalist. But if you are a dispensationalist and you actually have a certain view of the Jews, honey, you are absolutely compromised in her book. They can't be trusted either. Now, political commentators, oh yes, you must be jealous, right? Everybody wants to spend every waking moment when you're actually mourning the death of someone you love.
We don't really want to keep being reminded of it, especially when we're trying to move forward. But if you're a political commentator and you disagree with Candace, you must be jealous. you must be, you know, the third member of the Trinity. They know what's in your heart. But the truth is, if you go down the line, even other I wouldn't say competing organizations, but maybe her former employer, let's say Dan Wire, up you're evil. TPUSA conspiratorial, Charlie Kirk's widow. I mean, she's a little suspicious, you know? I just something in her eyes, it just seems a little weird. And now Trump who Charlie Kirk actively >> is that not exactly I mean that is exactly what's going on.
It's crazy. But this is so on point, right? So on point fought and put in the work grassroots to get elected. Well, he's just trying to silence me.
Every week she shifts the target to where you're like, "Who do we hate now?
Who is next on the list that we're supposed to hate?" That is happening because that is how cult leaders maintain control. They got to keep you paranoid. Paranoia is not of God, right?
Like I'm sorry. People filled with the spirit, we are watchful. We are wise as serpents. We are harmless as doves. But paranoia is not a fruit of the spirit.
Okay? Now I don't trust government as far as I can throw him but I also keep Jesus in my heart and my 9 millimeter on my hip but paranoid I am not but Candice uses platform paranoia. I have never met so many people if you go through the comments and listen to the things these people say you all you can do is say Lord help them. They need so much prayer because the conspiracy paranoia and the she's the only one interested in getting to the truth. That level of paranoia is unhealthy and concerns me.
It was the same tactics with Jim Jones.
It was the same psychology with Jim Jones. We're just in a different century. 72 2005 tomato tomato. Come see come side. What's the difference? Right.
So, in order to solidify my point in comparing what Candace is doing with cultlike behavior, no different than Jim Jones who got all those people to drink the Kool-Aid. We've got to do a little survey of Candace Owens rise to fame.
And what I want to do is I want to take you guys down a trip down memory lane.
We're going to look at a timeline that reflects 17 years of chaos, reinvention, and manipulation. Now, to be clear, I am definitely queen of the pivot. I think being able to pivot is what makes a great business owner, right? When you see market conditions changing, when you see that the business you're in is moving at such a rapid pace that if you don't pivot, you'll be out of business and you'll be obsolete. Queen of the pivot. Pivot is good. Reinvention, however, is something different.
Manipulation, whole another animal, and perpetual chaos, that is a problem.
Now, I get it when you're young, right?
Because I believe that when you're in Christ, old things are passed away.
Behold, all things become new. Who I am today, trust me, I was not that person 17 years ago. Actually, no. Yeah. 2008.
Oh gosh, no. Absolutely not.
So, if you were to examine the trajectory of my life, the whole of my walk before Christ and after, yes, you're going to see some things that are different. So, I want to be fair and clear that what I'm about to show you is not that, but it is important for me to show it so you can see factually the timeline of chaos, playing victim, reinventing when this doesn't work out, manipulation, burn bridges, no sustained peaceful relationships with anybody, and a history of just manipulation and utility. What do I mean by utility? With the narcissist, they don't really have a concept of genuine friendship and loyalty. What they have is usefulness, utility. How is this person useful for me? Okay. So, when she was talking about that, it reminded me of what she did to Nicole Arbor, how she was uh kind of latching herself onto Nicole Arbor and she reached out to her to be her friend because Nicole Arbor was really good at going viral. She was kind of like the first viral outbreak of the kind of stuff that was uh that we see now, you know, on social media. She was uh the pioneer of that, one of the pioneers.
And so Candace Owens latched on to her for a friendship. And then she even Nicole even remembers Candace saying something to her and to the effect of, "Oh, we'll be friends until I surpass you in subscribers or vice versa, something like that, and that Nicole thought that was weird." Um, but it's not weird when you think about it in the terms of narcissistic traits because she would no longer be useful to her at that point. Do you see what I'm saying? Or if it was the other way around, Nicole would now be competition uh to her and no longer seen as a friend. And often times it is a very one-way relationship.
They take and take and take. Rarely do they give. And when they do give, it comes with strings attached.
And it's a very weird relationship because they're very endearing, very charming, very personable. And that's part of the love bombing, how they reel you in. So, what we're going to do, I'm going to share my screen.
And um I hope you Let me re what's the word?
resize this cuz I really want you guys to be able to see the parts that are important and the part on the side is not. All right, that's that's as good as we can get it. All right, now this is a tweet that was shared a couple of days ago. I want to say it's from the 5th and this is a timeline of Candace Owens. So before we go through the timeline, let me just show you. So, this image that was attached, this is a picture of Candace in high school when she was involved in the NAACP lawsuit against the school system where she alleges that she was the victim of racial harassment, so forth and so on.
Super cute back then. How cute.
But let's go through this timeline. And the reason why I want to walk through this timeline is because once you lay out the timeline, the pattern the pattern, excuse me, becomes undeniable.
So the first thing we have here is 2007, Candace Owens breaks up with her white boyfriend in high school. They reportedly have these screaming matches in school. And she's claiming that he masterminded a harassment campaign.
Okay.
Um, it says here it was a multi-person campaign of racial harassment, claims that she's getting voicemails and death threats and the n-word and claims that the police and the school were protecting the perpetrators because the son of the mayor is involved. So, she enlists the NAACP to school to sue the school. The school district pays out a judgment, not a judgment, but just probably to just make her go away as it says 37,500.
They didn't want to fight it in court.
They're like, "This is just going to be too expensive, too labor intensive. just get this girl this money so we can go.
The pattern here, victim narrative, lots of drama, public conflict, big accusations, but no proof. Stick a pen there. 2015, Candace launches degree 180. Now, I didn't even know this, right? Like, I didn't start following Candace until she was transitioning from red pill black into TPUSA and then ultimately Blexit.
So, I didn't even know I didn't know about Degree 180, but Degree 180 was this anti-Trump, anti-conservative, anti-gamer website. Well, it nothing ever happened with it. It failed to take off, right? Here's the pattern, though.
This is a contradiction and a reinvention of what she was before. Now, from 2007 to 2015, people can grow and evolve. Fair. That's fine. I'm just showing the pattern. 2016, Candace Owens launches social autopsy along with a Kickstarter fundraiser campaign to supposedly fight high school bullying and online bullying. She used her claim about being the alleged victim of racially motivated bullying as her credentials. The site is met with widespread criticism as little more than a place for teenagers to dodge and spread rumors and gossip about their high school enemies. Now, when I learned about social autopsy, it was way late.
And I actually saw an interview of a former police officer who shared her story about this is when I started learning about the mean girl tactics and how this website was just horrible because what it was doing was exposing innocent people and and causing them to be the recipient of a lot of harassment.
I don't even understand who comes up with an an idea like this and thought it would think and thoughts or thinks that it would be a good thing. But for the narcissist, y'all have got to understand how they roll. Being vindictive and and getting back and and exposing and recedes and pulling up old stuff and holding on to stuff because they're going to use it and weaponize it later.
That's their emote. That's what they do.
And so the internet basically started calling this website like, "Hey, this is like a doxing tool for teenagers." And she started getting a lot of criticism about it. But when she got criticized, now she's she's raging. She's upset and she suddenly flips, right? Sudden enemy.
The pattern here is the ragebased pivot, then the identity flip because there's an opportunity there.
Now, 2017, this is the overnight political conversion after social autopsy failed to generate significant donations. She is angry at people on the left who criticized it and she suddenly declares that liberals were actually the racist.
Liberals were actually the trolls. Now I would agree liberals are pretty racist.
No disagreement there. 2017 Owens openly admits to flipping her political views literally quote overnight and she cites the failure of social autopsy as the reason. Critics say her political flip was driven by financial interest.
Democrats and the left were oversaturated with black female commentators, but Republicans and center right groups had vast untapped demand.
Just saying. So what happens? She launches Red Pill Black on social media and is embraced and promoted by homosexual Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. I hope that's how you pronounce his name. I know him when I see him, but I've never been able to properly pronounce his name. But this sudden flip where the liberals are racist, suddenly conservatives are her best friends. Coincidentally, yes, Republicans did. There was a huge void and there was just wide open marketplace for a black conservative voice. So, she walked right into the lane. A lot of times, you guys don't miss this.
Sometimes it's really about being at the right place at the right time. And that's not a bad thing. That is a good thing. She should be applauded. Even if looking back now, I don't believe it was genuine. She saw an opportunity and she walked into it. But here's the pattern.
Opportunism, market shifting. Right now, within two months of launching Red Pill Black, she gets hired by TPUSA as the director of urban engagement in hopes of making the group more appealing to black audiences. Now, side note here, what I always thought was interesting, and hear me clearly. I love my conservative white brethren. Y'all know I love y'all. Y'all my people in in the kingdom, right? If you a believer, this is not a race thing. But I have to make this point because the challenge that Candace had always posed and that was very difficult for her to overcome was credibility amongst black Americans.
Right? A lot of people found it difficult for her to translate to black audiences. And it's not because she's articulate, but it really had a lot to do with this strong disconnect to I don't want to say black culture because that comes with a lot of baggage. But I I believe you guys, my audience, know what I mean. And and and even when I was with Blexic, we struggled to overcome this hurdle.
>> Yeah. So, I've talked about this before because I do remember because I like I've said before, I watch a lot of black American um commentators and so I remember that people would say stuff like that back in the day and I kind of noticed she wasn't really hitting well with a lot of black people, you know, which sort of defeated the purpose of what she was trying to do, you know, like I don't know. Because when people would hear our ideas and hear us articulate just the ideas of conservatism and personal responsibility, it was not difficult to convince them. The hurdle was, "Yeah, but you got that black chick, right, who black people know and when when it's something authentic like no one in good faith is ever going to accuse Vince Everett Ellison of attempting to be something that he is not. He is a stone cold dot in the wool southern black man.
He doesn't have to code switch when he's speaking in front of white crowds and then he doesn't have to put his blackness back on when he's speaking in front of black crowds. He just is who he is and you just experience him in all of his totalities. I am the same exact way.
Now granted, because this is my show, I'm very familiar with you guys. I use double negatives all the time. I say stuff like, "Don't you not never. I wish." Listen, y'all know me. But at the same time, I understand that I grew up in the hood. I'm from the Bronx. I've got two black parents. I'm married to a black man. I got four black babies. It is what it is. This is me. I can't rinse the urban Bronx swag off of me. Even if I tried, I am authentically who I am.
And when I when I articulate my ideas to people who look like me, I offer them the credibility that they were unable to just they couldn't. there was this disconnect.
And so being the director of urban engagement with TPUSA, listen, white folks don't know us like we know us. And that is fine. It's our job to say, listen, this is not translating well.
But at the same time, we can't take away from what Candace attempted to build, which was to galvanize individuals around this idea of you don't have to be a victim. you can exit stage left and go function in your freedom. That's what she did. But it didn't come without some hurdles. Okay, we've all had to jump over those hurdles and it is what it is.
So in 2018, Owens launches Blexic Foundation with Brandon Tatum. Now I should be embarrassed cuz I didn't even know this.
I did not know that the name Blexic was co-opted from black nationalist Malia Connelly. I was today that I was like say what now? Who is that? Well, wait a minute. I was like, okay, that's interesting.
Kanye West briefly promotes Owens. Then he publicly denounced her for falsely telling people that he designed her merchandise. So, we got 2018, the move from Red Pill Black to TPUSA to the Blexic Drama, right? Milo's promoting her. TPUSA hires her. She co-opts Blexic from a black nationalist. Kanye promotes her. Then he's denouncing a It's It's just a mess, right? Here's the pattern.
Ride the wave, burn the bridge, pivot to the next wave. Right?
2019, Candace Owens completely contradicts her entire origin story about being the alleged victim of a coordinated racial harassment campaign on national television. She says she didn't experience racial issues in high school. So the story that built her brand suddenly is I never experienced racism in high school. Here's the pattern. Revisionist history.
Feels like we've been here before.
So Owens leaves TP USA for Prageru. A Jew. Lord forbid. I actually like Jews.
I ain't got no smoke with Jew. Jews.
Hey, people are sinful regardless of their ethnicity. But I'm like, dang, that Jew hatred is something serious, ain't it? Anyway, Owens is invited to speak at the Trump White House 2020.
Owens leaves Prageru for the Daily Wire.
Owens apologizes to Kanye West and they become friends again. Okay, great. 2021, Gandis Owens began selling white labeled Chinese Umadiggy A9 Pro cell phones as freedom phones for $500 each. The phones could otherwise be purchased for 120. I wasn't sure what this detail had to do with anything, but from one capitalist to another, I did have to note that's a pretty serious markup. Don't hate the player, hate the game, right? If the expectation I'd be curious to know how much they actually cost, cuz a $500 cell phone in light of how much smartphones even back in 2021 were costing. $500 seems like a deal. I don't think we need to unnecessarily criticize the fact that they could have been purchased for 120.
I mean, let the girl make her money.
Okay, now what? Now, I don't think this is wrong. What she doing now, this ill gotten game, that is absolutely wrong.
See, see, I'm being fair, right? Here's the point. The phones leaves Craigu joins Daily Wire, sells the freedom phones, overpriced Chinese devices.
Okay, whatever. Here's something that I wanted to note. 2022, Owens becomes co-founder and spokesman for an anti-woke online banking startup company called Glorify. It was run out of a giant mansion owned by billionaire Toby Nougat Bower or Nbau don't give me the lion and included now this part this this was the girl I struggled with that name too I struggle with a lot of names okay you never know what's going to come out of this mouth when I am reading it's just it is what it is right >> for me It included PayPal co-founder Peter Thail as an investor. Y'all keep your eye on that Peter Thail. Yet somehow it went insolvent within months.
So she launches this this multi-million dollar anti-woke bank, but it collapsed in months. Here's the pattern. Big launches, big claims, big crashes, other people pay.
2023, BlackFit Foundation is merged with TPUSA.
2024, Candace Owens leaves Daily Wire, returns to YouTube alleging she was fired.
But the thing is, it came out that she was fired from Daily Wire, then she claims she left, then she admits she was fired. Pattern dishonesty and the victim narrative. Now we're here. 2025, Candace Owens publishes a 7-hour documentary claiming Emanuel Mcronone's wife is secretly a man. Now, here are my thoughts on that.
It always confused me why this would be her thing to just like of all the things a conservative commentator would be interested in, I could not understand.
This is when I stopped following her.
>> Yeah, I I'm confused by that, too. And I'm also confused about how she even found out about an obscure French um conspiracy.
Like this is, you know, every country has conspiracy theorists, right? I'm a conspiracy theorist. I don't know anything about the conspiracy theorists in like Spain or Italy or France or, you know, places like I I have no idea what the conspiracy theorists there are like into onto what they're talking about, you know. So, where on earth did she hear about this is what I've always wondered. Not because I necessarily didn't even believe her. It was too hard to follow. It didn't make sense. I was like, "Okay, if he's a man, he he she is over in France. France, what does this have to do with the price tea over here?" I didn't understand it. But hey, do you boo. That's your platform. But she takes up this charge by asserting that Emanuel Mcronone's wife is secretly a man. Whole 7-hour documentary. Then claims Mcronone wants to assassinate her and that Trump personally called to silence her. And then the latest claim is the Israeli government killed Charlie Kirk along with some other individuals that are being implicated. Right? She's saying TPSA orchestrated his death or they knew about it or they'd rather capitalize off of the memory the the what does she say? Not the the the fumes of Charlie Curve without him actually being here. She's made some pretty wild claims. Then she claims she influenced his music taste. Then you got the shadowy forces that are after her and she won't go to events because of some vague unproven threats even though she was just out around frolicking at Dollywood and was at a party. Here's the pattern. The more attention she loses, the more outrageous the claims get, the less relevant she becomes, the more conspiratorial her storytelling gets, the more correction she faces, the more enemies she creates. This is exactly how cults function. This is exactly how they function. Um, this is just a little timeline and I provided my extra added commentary because it matters.
None of us deserve to have every single little piece of our past nitpicked, but it also gives you insight to explain, is there a pattern of this mean girl behavior? I didn't even include the the the things that she did to Kim Clay.
Whether you like Kim Klesic or not is irrelevant. That was just wrong. And I sat for years super quiet because I'm a professional and I didn't feel it was important because I I've believed in the mission of Blexic, but I resigned from Blexic because of Candace's mouth because of what she did to Kim Clay because I thought it was in poor taste and it was just wrong. And I was like, why are you being this mean girl? That girl ain't done nothing to you. DID IT REQUIRE YOU TO GO HARD LIKE THAT? And that's when I realized the mean girl behavior is a pattern. Candace's behavior follows the narcissistic cycle.
Love bomb movement. Gain influence.
Create a whole lot of enemies. Become the victim. Demand your undying loyalty.
Burn a bridge. Rebrand as persecuted.
And then her followers, they mirror the same paranoia she creates. They sound like a bunch of broken records. They all parrot over and over again when the whole conversation emerged with her and TP USA sitting down and facing when she's like, "Okay, you you you face your you're the accuser. Face these people and allow them to respond to you in person now." Well, you couldn't have expected her to not homeschool the baby.
You could have expected her to leave the house when they're coming after her life. Well, you know, you could have very easily met digitally. Everybody knows that anytime, any place includes the internet, making excuses because they mirror the same paranoia that she creates.
Just saying.
all of this. If Candace had presented evidence of her claims, not just make the assertion, promise to give it, and then move on and never go back.
I wouldn't be having this discussion. It would break my heart. But people who love God want to be on the side of truth. And we want to follow the truth wherever it lands. But what we will not do is engage and cosign wicked, destructive behavior. This is trauma and rage bait for entertainment. And most of y'all know it. You know why I know most of you know it? You know it because when we press you and say, "Where is her proof?" You can never provide it. But when we call your fearless leader a liar, your inner trauma bond gets attacked and you take it personal. How dare you call her a liar. I'm like, you don't you don't see the scop that's been played on you.
You don't see the scop now. She wants you. All of you mommy sleuths out there, she's got you joining in a whole smear campaign. Listen, I'm telling you, I have lived this. The sinfulness that has the propensity to well up in any one of us, even the regenerate.
You without even realizing it, don't even recognize yourself cuz you're following a narcissist who has loved bombed you and made you feel as if you can't trust anybody but her. And then when they go on the attack, whoever is the object of their attack, you already know the assignment. You know that you have to join in the smear campaign because if you don't, you won't be viewed as a loyal follower.
And the last thing you want to do is have the narcissist view you as a betrayer. Oh lord, no. You can't have that. You can't be on the outside of the cool kids club. Can't have that.
So many of you mommy [ __ ] have found yourself sinning all because she baited you into do the very thing that your carnal heart desires, which is to be messy.
To gossip and talk about things that you have no knowledge or seen evidence of and to throw shade toward a woman that you don't know. Talking about in her eyes and you know it's always the pretty ones and the stuff that I've seen people say about Erica Kirk. like you shameful low down dirty people.
I don't know about you as a believer, we don't do that on this side of the kingdom.
>> Okay, so once again, April Chapman hitting it out of the park with her very wise and knowledgeable commentary and she's always on point. And so if you're not following her, you really should. But anyway, when I first started going to make this series and I was sort of thinking about it and I actually was thinking about it for a long time before I did it and I was almost like not going to cuz I was like, "Oh, it's just been so long.
Everyone's been doing it and I feel like I'm behind or whatever." But one of the things that I first looked up when I thought about making this series was the cult tactics that Candace Owens is using. So, let me see if I can get those on hand. Okay. So, the first thing I asked Chat GPT was, "Can you break down all the manipulative cultlike tactics that Candace Owens uses against her audience?"
And um so this is what they said.
One, creating an us and them identity.
The audience is framed as the enlightened minority. Outsiders are framed as corrupt, brainwashed or evil.
Critics become proof that the group is under attack. Typical messaging patterns. They don't want you to know this. The media is lying to you. Only we are telling the truth. Effect on the audience. Strengthens identity with the creator. Makes disagreement feel like betrayal. Reduces openness to outside information. This technique is extremely common in political media across the spectrum. And so that's a a thing to be aware of. Okay. Persecuted truthteller narrative. Number two, influencers often present themselves as someone bravely exposing hidden truths. Key elements claiming to be center censored or attacked. Portraying backlash as proof they are right. Framing criticism as coordinated suppression.
Psychological impact. Followers feel like they are part of a seek part of a truth-seeking movement. The creator becomes a heroic figure resisting power.
This dynamic can make audiences emotionally invested in defending the figure.
Number three, information gatekeeping.
Another dynamic critics sometimes point to is selective information presentation. how it appears.
Highlighting sources that reinforce the narrative, ignoring contradictory evidence, framing complex issues in simplified moral terms. This creates what media researchers call an epistemic bubble. Okay, so let's look that up because that is an interesting word.
Epistemic bubble. Epistemic bubble is a social orformational structure in which relevant voices, sources or arguments are simply left out often accidentally or through omission leading to incomplete knowledge.
Interesting.
Okay. So the effects on the audience is here they hear mostly confirming information begin to distrust outside sources entirely. So all the information they hear is just confirmation to what they already have been told. Okay. Um four, emotional amplification. Political media personalities frequently use emotional intensity.
Common emotional triggers. Outrage, fear, betrayal, moral urgency.
Emotionally charged framing can increase engagement because anger spreads faster online. Outrage keeps people watching.
Emotional content is more memorable, but it can also discourage slow analytical thinking. So this this discouraging slow analytical thinking or no analytical thinking um is so important because it is so easy to fall into this trap too because as we're just scrolling and scrolling, we don't have time to think about anything that we're seeing for very long. So we are relying on heruristics which are mental shortcuts that we just do naturally that are often very wrong. Okay. Um so the they're not bad. They're good. They're there for a reason. But you have to do your horistic. You have to take it in do a horistic and then I don't know just like a a feather and then do some analytical thinking if it is a really important topic. Now, I'm not saying like every little thing we see on X, we've got to stop and break it down analytically, but if it is something important, if it's something that's bothering you, if it's something that's getting you charged up or it's an important piece of information that would it not be good for you to have the wrong for it to be, you know, have misinformation about that. Um then most certainly like you should do some analytical thinking or you know I have several people I trust too that to break down certain topics so I don't have to do all the research but even those people like I will make sure that I'm not just oh and another thing is I go like I have lots of different people in different arenas has different places on the line of political thought or ideology or worldview so that I that well I will listen to one topic about from several different people you know like when it's a when it's a big public topic or whatever I listen to many people talk about the same topic and I'm sure many of us do that but a lot of times we will stay within the ideological and world view uh realm, the little echo chamber, and we'll listen to this person, this person, this person.
And it is really good to sometimes go to somebody with a different ideological view.
That and I do that all the time. And then that helps me form my own thoughts because now I'm hearing lots of different things. I might read an article. I might look up something. I might refresh my historical knowledge about something so that I can really make my own thoughts. Like you are your own person, okay? We're all our own people and we're capable of coming up with our own ideas and our own thoughts about things. Okay? And that's really important. And don't let that slip away from you. Okay?
All right. Moving on.
Number five, charismatic authority.
In some influencer communities, the creator the creator becomes the central authority figure.
Signs of this dynamic include audience defers to creators interpretation.
Criticism from within the community is discouraged. Followers quote the creator as a primary source of truth. The influencers's personal credibility becomes the evidence.
So, I'm going to read that one again.
The influencers's personal credibility becomes the evidence.
And look, even as a creator, creators will do some of this stuff that we might be reading on this list accidentally.
So, even as a creator, you need to be careful how you're framing things, how um worked up you're getting your audience, how worked up you're letting your chat get, etc., etc., because these all form emotional attachments to things that you might not be um trying to do, right? Or not thinking about um you know, and then that might cause trouble down the line or something you're just you you want your audience to be freeth thinkers. And so you want to, you know, in so you want to, you know, instill that value um into your audience without, you know, forcing things onto them, without realizing that you're doing it. So that's just something to be aware of if you ever become a creator or if you are a creator that there's sort of a fine line, right?
Okay.
Number six, exclusive knowledge framing.
Another tactic often used in persuasion e ecosystems um is suggesting the audience has access to hidden truths. So examples of messaging styles, you're not being told this anywhere else. They're hiding this from you. Once you see this, you can't unsee it. This produces a psychologic reward for belonging to the group.
So I mean all these are just so spot-on.
Seven moral absolutism issues may be framed as good or evil rather than complex policy debates.
Typical structure one side corrupt or malicious one side moral truth. This removes nuance and makes compromise feel immoral. And I will say people do this too to other countries. Uh, Americans have a bad habit of just being like, you know, China enemy. There's no nuance.
There's no taking into account that there's probably different factions in China up to all kinds of things. The government is like, I don't know, something like, is it like 12 million people or something? It's huge. There's tons of like really elite people, not elite people. I mean, there's all kinds of stuff going on there, but yet everything just gets so black and white, right? China this, China that, China's doing this, China's doing that. Well, China is like, you know, that's like saying America is doing this. Well, uh, not everyone in America, not everyone in America likes that, not every, uh, person in the government is doing that.
Maybe just this one faction of the CIA is doing that. You know what I mean? So, or maybe there's like a businessman doing that and it has nothing to do with the government or anyone else in America.
So, often times we don't see other countries in a nuance way either. We just see it black and white. And that's something I realized a long time ago.
So, I try to refrain from doing that.
But whatever, that's not that big of a deal.
Okay. Um, community reinforcement. Online audiences often reinforce the message themselves. Okay. Mechanisms include comment section praising loyalty, social punishment for dissent, audience members speaking talking points.
Over time, this creates a self-reinforcing belief ecosystem.
Okay, we see that.
Okay, so made it through all those important context. These tactics are not unique to Candace Owens. They appear in political commentators on the left and right. Activist movements, conspiracy communities, influencer marketing, some religious organizations, social or media scholars often study this under parasocial relationships, political identity formation, propaganda, and persuasion techniques.
What makes something feel cultlike usually isn't one tactic, but a combination. Strong group identity, distrust of outside sources, charismatic authority, emotionally charged narratives. Together, they can produce very loyal and defensive audiences.
Okay. So, that was a lot, but that was the first thing I'm telling you that I went and looked up because I recognized uh what was, you know, some of the stuff going on. And so, that was the first thing I thought of. Okay. Now, I have a special treat for us that I found and I think you guys are going to like it. Let me know in the comments. But before we go to that, I want to finish what my research that I did for this episode in Grock. Okay. So earlier in this that I was sharing with you guys, um I was reading to you about narcissism and um this is going to tell us in relation to Candace Owens for discussion purposes only.
Candace Owens is a prominent conservative commentator, podcaster, and activist known for sharp rhetoric, high-profile feuds, and self-positioning as a bold truth teller. public online discourse and some commentators have accused her of narcissistic patterns particularly around grandiosity, defensiveness to criticism, shifting standards and conflicts and perceived lack of empathy in interpersonal and public attacks.
Potential illustrative overlaps speculative not diagnostic. These are common in high visibility media personalities and debated publicly. So, grandiosity, sense of importance.
Candace Owens often frames herself as uniquely insightful or persecuted for speaking truth with a confident, unyielding style that can come across as superior or entitled to special deference, need for admiration, and reaction to criticism. She has a strong online following and engages in high conflict scenarios. Critics point to difficulty emitting error, counteratt attacking or reframing disputes as attacks on her integrity, lack of empathy or exploitiveness in public feuds uh with former allies. Often some observers note dismissive or harsh language towards others situations while demanding grace for herself. Arrogance and hottiness. Her provocative style and willingness to challenge norms fit hottie behaviors. Though supporters see this as principled conviction rather than pathology.
Okay. So, just wanted to finish that up really quick before we go to So, I found an interesting Well, I actually know this channel. I just didn't realize they had done this.
So, let's It's It's a series and it's in several parts, which is really annoying cuz they're not very long. Okay. So, I don't know if you guys are So, okay. So, I don't know if you guys are familiar with this channel. It's HD Tutor Knowing the Narcissist.
And so, anyway, they did a series on Candace Owens. We are not going to start at the beginning. So, we're This is episode five, and we're going to watch a couple episodes and then we're going to watch the conclusion. They're not very long, which is perfect. But, uh, I hope you guys are going to enjoy this. This is This guy has sort of a a unique YouTube style. And so, let's see what he has to say.
Candy Owens part five. Narcissist or something else. Hello, I'm HG T Judah.
We continue our analysis of the firebrand conservative commentator Candisa Owens to determine what she is.
Questing empath with a real thirst for the truth.
Rabid normal, agitated in relation to the state of the world, but still exhibiting emotional empathy for those around her. Self-absorbed narcissistic individual who puts herself first but is not governed by pathological behaviors.
Or an out-and-out narcissist with an innate need for control. the receipt of fuel capitalizes upon exploiting people interpersonally with an absence of emotional empathy and other factors that support her narcissism.
Naturally, we must look at many aspects of her life over a sustained period of time to make a determination. We turn now to the consideration of evidence of grandiosity on her part. In January 2025, Owens announced on X that her website was under an intense DDoS attack from what is clearly a state level actor just before premiering her documentary Becoming Bridget, specifying the attacks originated from France. This portrayal positions her work as so threatening to global powers that only nation states would target her, elevating her to a heroic figure in a geopolitical conspiracy.
evidence of grandiosity, possibly even magical thinking and delusion.
On November the 9th, Owens posted on X, "How is it possible that every news trend is about me or Tucker Carlson?
Someone in the shadows is panicking.
It's God time. I will not be stopping this investigation into who publicly executed Charlie in front of the world.
And we are getting close."
Here she frames her personal probe into an alleged coverup involving Charlie Kirk as a divine mission implying celestial endorsement and her central role in exposing shadow elites.
Leaving aside the issue of whether that is >> and she gets divine um endorsement from the dreams too, right? And Elizabeth Lane too. Oh, I had a dream. Charlie came to me to a dream so he's endorsing what I'm doing. Right. true or not in relation to there being a cover up or not. The fact that she frames it as such is evidence of grandiosity.
In a November the 6, 2025 expost, Owen celebrated banned from Australia, sued by France, fired, smeared, lie, demonetized, persona on gratuit award ceremonies and 3.5 million downloads per a day. Just incredible. We've been in fight mode for so long that today feels like a celebration.
This litany of adversities contrasted with massive audience loyalty casts her as an indomitable warrior whose triumphs prove her unparalleled influence and resilience against global suppression.
Again, a grandiose description of herself, even where it might be true. On March 23rd, 2024, Owens tweeted, "The attempt by the media to equate biblical scripture with white supremacy must be our red line. It is always appropriate in every scenario to share biblical scripture because it is truth." Later, amid backlash from her former employer, Ben Shapiro, she misrepresented his response to position herself as a Christian martyr, persecuted for quoting the Bible, asserting her moral superiority and divine alignment over critics. Again, this might well be seen as a grandiose standpoint.
In a May the 4th, 2019 exost, Owen stated, "White supremacy is of no current threat to black America, but liberal supremacy very much is. Liberal policies have destroyed our families, our schools, sent our men to prison and children to the streets. Crime, poverty, and hopelessness are the direct result of liberal supremacy.
Irrespective of whether that's accurate or not, and you will have your own viewpoints in that regard, by redefining systemic threats around her own ideology, she anoints herself as a prophetic savior guiding black Americans to enlightenment, dismissing other narratives as inferior and evidencing grandiosity.
During a February 2025 podcast discussion referenced in X replies, Owens predicted, "When boomers die, there will be a major shift in political sentiment towards Russia." It's like saying, "When millennials die off, there will be a major shift in sentiment towards Middle Eastern affairs because they grew up with 911 indoctr indoctrination."
This self- assured forecast of historical pivots tied to demographics elevates her analytical prowess to that of a visionary historian shaping future global alignments and again falls within grandiosity.
At a December 2018 conservative event in London, a recording surfaced in 2019, Owens remarked, "I have no problem with Hitler's nationalism. if Hitler just wanted to make German >> and I just want to say for a minute I am disgusted by this behavior that I see like constantly sort of like all over the place of disparaging what they call the boomers which I don't I do not like boomer or millennial like I equally hate them both maybe millennial more because it was it involves me I am not a millennial Okay, that was changed by what I can only assume are some crazy psychopaths in some dark room that are pulling the curtains of who gets to be called what in what generation.
Okay. But and and they changed it they changed it sometime around when my daughter was like three threeish.
So well into my life, I was always known as generation Y. We had generation X and we had generation Y. Then one day I go to look up stuff about generational things and all of a sudden there's no generational Y anywhere. And we're being called millennials. And if you notice, millennials spans several generations. It's like this person's a millennial. They're not even anywhere close to my age. It's like you who knows what age a millennial even is. Okay. Um I am generation Y. There should be no generation millennial unless you were actually born on the millennial. Like all the people born on the millennial should be called millennial if we want to do that. Okay.
Generation Y. Do not stop playing along with this nonsense. Then all of a sudden now they've done the same thing to the older generation to where they're not called their generation anymore. Okay?
Cuz some of these people are Gen X.
They're just older Gen X. And some of these people are the baby boomers, which are my grandparents.
And they're like, "Oh, I can't wait till these baby boomers die." And you know, screw them. They've screwed up everything. They're a bunch of losers.
and they, you know, all they're all these like um what do they they say that they're um selfish, you know, all this stuff or whatever. You're talking about my grandparents, your grandparents. My grandparents are still alive. I love them dearly. They are extremely good people, salt of the earth. Okay?
So, I don't like that. That is disrespectful to your elders, which is not biblical. They've done nothing to you. My grandparents have done nothing to nobody. They are conservative, nice, loving, um, caring people that were extremely important in my life and still are. Okay.
Okay. So, I don't like any of this stuff. I don't like it. I just rant over. It bothers me. And do not call me a millennial. Don't even say that word around me, okay? It's like my one thing.
I am like the most easiestgoing person, but that like one thing just really bothers me. Like, how dare you take away my generation. My generation's just completely wiped away from me.
>> Great. And have things run well. Okay, fine. She later clarified without retraction, standing by her view that nationalism is benign if contained domestically. Again, irrespective of whether you agree or not with her stance, this bold historical revisionism positions her as a fearless intellectual daring to redeem controversial figures far beyond conventional conservative discourse and would again be seen as grandiosity.
In a November the 7th, 2025 exost, Owens wrote, "Thinking for yourself, turning down financial incentives to lie and standing up to the powerful people who demand we all follow their [ __ ] narratives. If I was willing to lie to my audience, I'd be on the cover of every magazine and treated like a media darling." She implies her integrity alone would catapult her to untouchable stardom, underscoring her self-perceived ethical superiority and latent dominance over >> if she would be willing to lie to her audience.
Wow.
>> For the establishment grandiosity.
On November the 6th, 2025, Owens posted on X, "This is a humiliation ritual. Let heritage be destroyed and something else rise to take its place. Referring to the Heritage Foundation amid perceived betrayals, she advocates dismantling a conservative pillar to birth a pure alternative, implicitly one aligned with her ideals, portraying herself as the architect of a revolutionary conservative renaissance, grandiosity.
In an August the 15th, 2024 expost, Owens declared, "A system of government propaganda created by psychopathic socialists who failed to overthrow their respective countries so immigrated to ours. One might argue they've successfully overthrown our country." By tracing modern ills from big farmer to psychology to 19th century revolutionaries, she positions her commentary as the singular antidote to a century long cabal, crowning herself the enlightened exposer restoring America's true greatness. Again, irrespective of whether you agree with her views or not, the fact remains this is evidence of grandiosity.
Numerous instances there exhibiting a mindset which embodies grandiosity and appearing at repeated occasions over time. Another key indicator to assist us with the analysis of what Candice Owens might well be. Join me in part six for more considerations.
Heat. Heat.
Candies Owens, narcissist or something else? Part six. Hello, I'm HG TUDA.
Continuing an analysis of the conservative commentator Candice Owens to establish based on evidence and opinion as to what she might be visav normal narcissist, empath, or narcissistic individual.
Looking at evidence of her behavior, conduct, and the things that she has said, we're able to extract various indicators to build up a picture.
Candi Owens exhibits a preoccupation with power. She criticizes those in powerful positions for using lawsuits to silence critics, viewing it as a pathetic tactic to maintain control and scares others into submission. She shows a preoccupation with success, whereby she boasts about her podcast rapid rise to the top charts despite predictions of failure. Whilst this indeed is true, the fact is that she not only boasts about it, but attributes it to her resilience against detractors and referencing Kanye's power as motivation fueled by haters. She also in relation to success highlights her shows ascent to number one globally, mocking skeptics who downplayed each milestone and reveling in the validation from chart rankings.
She condemns Hollywood's celebration of women objectifying themselves and men in women's clothing as icon, arguing it prioritizes perversity over true diversity, demonstrating preoccupation with the link between beauty and perversity. She described standing against powerful figures who demand conformity to false narratives, noting that compromising integrity for their favor would make her a media darling.
The relationship with power is important to her.
She states that women are inherently envious owing to insecurity, a trait that they merely learn to conceal rather than overcome. A sweeping sweeping observation about women, which might be said to be a rather entitled view of them.
She critiques Megan McCain's defense of her weight under the body positive banner, calling it emblematic of the movement's flaws that prioritize excuses over personal responsibility. Again, whilst a view could be deemed as accurate, is this rather dismissive and one that is lacking in emotional empathy?
She details her team's small-cale triumphs, launching a viral series, topping Spotify charts, releasing a proprietary book while crediting relentless work over whining, and notes how haters failed attacks only amplify her victories. Again, an emphasis on success and power.
A further consideration is the necessity of attention.
As you know, the provision of an emotional reaction by one or more people to the acts and emissions of a narcissist is fuel.
People prefer to have a response to the things that they do. For instance, everybody looks to receive praise to some degree, but it varies. And with the narcissist, praise isn't just simple praise or simple validation. It is the provision of fuel.
Is it the case that what Candi Soins does is because it's born out of a genuine belief driven by a keen sense of justice and the necessity of getting to the truth or is she driven in what she does as a huge thirst for excessive admiration and attention. In other words, is she a fueling individual?
She has asserted that her commentary directly influenced French President Emanuel Mannon's decision to recognize Palestine as a nation, stating, "I am the reason why President Mon has now made the idiotic decision to say idiotic thing. You know, I'm recognizing Palestine as their own nation."
This is reflective of grandiosity, also potentially magical thinking by suggesting. Okay. So, it was stuff like this that I kept noticing like over and over that was like that made me think this is grandeur uh delusions, right?
Delusions of grandeear grandiosity thinking, you know, this is way over the top, you know, like and it kept happening over and over again. And in the true crime community that I was in for several years, like learned a lot about serial killers, um I had learned about them when I was younger, but when I was younger, I learned just like about them and what they did. I didn't really learn about the psychology behind them.
And so that was one of the things that like cuz in the true crime community, you've got all kinds of people. So there's like people who are actually like psychologists and stuff and um forensic psychologists etc. And so they would talk they talked about like uh for example uh Lori Val Valow uh Lori Debel Valow who murdered her children and her husband and so her husband and then her children with her new husband.
So they would talk about the things that she was expressing and talking about as delusions of grander and grandiosity.
And it was stuff like that that reminded me of some of the stuff that Candace was doing which then made me think about that because I was like that can be dangerous. You know what I mean?
So anyway, >> that she was able to influence a global leader in this way that despite there being any evidence despite there not being evidence to support it that she automatically assumes the decision of Emanuel Macon was driven by what she had done. It also suggests a need for recognition of her outsized impact. In discussions of her public persona, Owens is described as requiring constant affirmation with critics noting her pattern of eliciting responses like, "See me, notice me. I am Kadis, I am CandiceQatari Holmes," and questioning, "Is there a day that goes by where she does not need your absolute devotion, your worship?"
This could be seen, albeit it comes from her critics, as an insatable craving for admiration. She's also expressed a sense of rightful superiority, expecting roles like a cabinet position under Trump, framed as, "That is my rightful position as your leader. How dare you?" This is not only entitled, but underscores a need for elevated status and admiration.
She mobilizes her followers to target critics, such as accusing the Jews and an 85-year-old rabbi of paying to slander her, urging, "Let me use my audience in order to attack you all."
This manipulative tactic seeks validation and attention through collective defense. Owens has discarded professional allies like Gavin McKinnis, Lauren Luma, and Kanye West after leveraging their platforms, positioning herself as superior with a make herself to be bigger than the rest of them mentality. This pattern prioritizes personal spotlight over relationships and shows interpersonally exploitative behaviors. She launched personal attacks on Jordan Peterson, labeling him a drug addict and overeotional man in a multi-part series driven by a sourness and vindictiveness that alienates fans while keeping her in the controversy center and thus receiving plenty of attention to boot. Owens publicly bets her professional future on explosive claims, declaring, "I will lose my entire career. I'm willing to bet my entire career on this one scandal." and pushing for trials to extend public scrutiny and affirm her boldness once again driving the pursuit of attention.
In a February 2025 post, Owens boasted, "Media is having a meltdown that I've gone mainstream. They must feel so powerless given the fact that they gave it their best effort to brainwash the masses into believing I was literally Hitler last year, and now I own all my own content."
She revels in the enemy's focus upon her as proof of her rising dominance and once again the requirement of attention.
In November 2025, she wrote on X, "Thinking for yourself, turning down financial incentives to lie and standing up to the powerful people who demand we all follow their [ __ ] narratives. If I was willing to lie to my audience, I'd be on the cover of every magazine and treated like a media darling." This self-narrative demands admiration for her supposed integrity. Following her podcast high ranking, she posted in November 2025, "People who dedicated the last two years to trying to destroy my life are all subweeting me right over my podcast ranking, and it's admittedly wonderful. I'm admittedly having a fantastic day. This celebrates >> I mean, what on this is so wild. this guy in his British voice also reading the her statements. It's like it makes them sound even crazier almost, doesn't it?
Than when they just read it yourself.
I don't Does this not is this not creepy? Is this not creeping anyone out?
I feel like this is so weird.
Anyway, let's continue.
>> Tracked his attention as a win, feeding her need for centrality. These are just a handful of examples. She has made a living and a career out of controversy.
Some might see this as part of the fact that she's unafraid to take people on that she will address certain narratives that others will shy away from. That may undoubtedly be true. But what's driving such a behavior? Is it because she has a deep-seated moral rightness? Or is it in fact as a consequence of the need for people to react to her? that she revels in being controversial, that she utilizes those views because it allows her to provoke a reaction from people, which provides her with validation, that provides her with attention, that provides her, in other words, with fuel.
Alongside the grandiosity that has been witnessed and what looks like a significant and substantial need for attention, she regularly demonstrates entitlement.
During her 2024 fallout with the Daily Wire, Owens declared she would no longer abide by her contracts non-disparagement and NDA clauses, stating, "It's God time. I no longer honor contracts that permit evil to happen behind closed doors while threatening to publicize private communications and coordinate with critics like Ian Miles Chiong."
>> Okay, that's weird. So, she says it's God time all the like quite often. I didn't even notice that. So, she's always saying it's God time.
Wow, that's crazy.
>> This unilateral decision to reach a pre-agreed professional agreement not only shows a lack of accountability and a sense of entitlement, but that her moral judgment overrides legal obligations, exhibiting a sense of superiority.
Owens charges $1,500 per minute for one-on-one advice sessions on the MC app with a 15-minute minimum totaling $225,000, positioning her time as inherently more value than that of typical users and demanding premium access without justification beyond her celebrity status. Again, this exhibits a sense of entitlement. In her late 20s, Owens rented a luxury $35,000 per month apartment in Manhattan, but lived there for 6 months without paying rent. That shows a sense of entitlement and an absence of accountability. When confronted, she claimed toxic mold sickness as an excuse, refused payment, and threatened to sue the landlord to evade responsibility, treating the property as her unchallenged domain, lack of emotional empathy, sense of entitlement, absence of accountability.
In April 2024, amid tensions with Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, Owens insisted on a public debate, but rejected their proposed in-person format and platform, mocking it as a stunt, despite knowing her London location made it logistically impossible. She offered alternatives only on neutral ground, expecting Shapiro to accommodate her travel and preferences without comp.
>> Okay, so this part is really interesting. Um, especially given what she did to Eric Kirk. I mean, I'm going to rewind it just a smidge.
>> With Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, Owens insisted on a public debate, but rejected their proposed in-person format and platform, mocking it as a stunt, despite knowing her London location made it logistically impossible. She offered alternatives only on neutral ground, expecting Shapiro to accommodate her travel and preferences without compromise while accusing him of bad faith, once again exhibiting entitlement. In October 2025, Owens announced she had shared legal files and personal text messages from her time at Turning Point USA, Prague, and the Daily Wire with allies like the Tate brothers and Tucker Carlson, instructing them to release everything publicly if anything happens to me. This preemptive threat might be viewed as a response to a perceived threat to control, possibly also the utilization of left tenants, but it also treats confidential professional exchanges as her personal weapons, expecting immunity from repercussions while implicating others in potential scandals, exhibiting an entitled approach. In November 2025, Owens publicly urged her followers on X to dox and identify college students in audience footage, including a soccer team goalie, baselessly accusing them of being undercover agents without evidence, demanding crowdsourced harassment as if her suspicions alone justify invading their privacy. Owens has repeatedly attacked high-profile figures like Donald Trump, calling him imperfect and criticizing his policies and the Macons, spreading transphobic theories about Bridget Macon, yet later sought their intervention, asking Trump to shield her from the Macon's defamation lawsuit and demanding a blood sample from Bridget to prove her claims, assuming loyalty or compliance despite her provocations, which not only evidences hypocrisy, but could also seem to be entitlement. In 2017, Owens doxed former police officer Tree of Logic on her social autopsy site, leading to death threats against Tree. When warned of the risks, Owens blocked her, falsely accused Tree of being a drug addict, refuted by Tre's blood test, and spread lies showing entitlement to platform harassment while evading accountability, even as the statute of limitations expired on potential lawsuits.
Owens was denied an Australian visa in 2024 on character grounds for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracies and inciting discord, for instance, downplaying Holocaust atrocities. Owens escalated this to the high court, arguing the character test unconstitutionally targeted her non- mainstream views and free speech. The unanimous rejection ordered her to pay costs, but her pursuit reflects an expectation of entry rights overriding national security concerns and once again could well be seen as a sense of entitlement.
a variety of instances of evidence, things that have occurred, and the interpretation provided with regard to grandiosity, the pursuit of particular aims, lack of boundary recognition and a sense of entitlement. We will continue to analyze the evidence to draw a view in relation to what candy may well be in part seven. Join me there.
Candies Owen.
Narcissist or something else. Part seven. Hello, I'm HG TUDA. We continue to analyze various aspects of Candy's life across a wide range of time periods to pull together the evidence to make a determination as to what she is. Might she be an empath? Is she a normal, narcissistic, or a narcissist?
We look now at some aspects of her interpersonal relations. For instance, back in 2020 during an interview on the Candice Owens show, Owens ambushed comedian and friend Nicole Arbor by publicly naming her stalkers on air despite Al's explicit plea not to discuss it privately beforehand. Arbor walked off the set in distress, but Owens later edited the episode to portray it as a debate victory, where she destroyed Arbor, thus exploiting the friendship for dramatic content and views. As a high school student in the early 2000s, Owens and her family with NAACP assistance sued the Stamford Public School District for racial harassment by white classmates, securing a $375,000 settlement. She later denounced the NAACP as one of the worst groups for black people and repeatedly claimed systemic racism in America no longer exists. It could be argued, therefore, that she had leveraged the organization's help for personal gain while later publicly discrediting it to appeal to conservative audiences and therefore behaved in an exploitative fashion. An alternative argument might be that it was prudent for her to utilize the assistance of the NAACP at that point and as a consequence of learning more about the organization, she had changed her view in relation to the efficacy of that organization and determined that it was and is one of the worst groups for black people simply expressing her opinion.
Following Charlie Kirk's death in September 2025, Owens released alleged private eye messages from him, accusing Ben Shapiro and others of scheming to sabotage their careers, framing herself as his betrayed confidant. There was an insinuation that his widow, Erica Kirk, murdered him to cover up infiltration by Zionists and powerful donors, all while earning over $130,000 monthly from super chats on her shows. This appears, therefore, that a former colleague's tragedy has been turned into some form of lucrative grift, enabling financial opportunity to be exploited following his demise. That could be seen as something that is interpersonally exploitative.
In 2016, Owens launched social autopsy, ostensibly an anti-harassment site, but then utilized it to dox and threaten the life of former law enforcement officer April Tree of Logic Halley, a critic of her views. Owens publicized Hal's personal information in retaliation of online disagreements, exploiting the platform's tools for personal vendettas rather than its intended purpose, or was Owens simply defending herself as a consequence of attacks against her? In 2023, despite mounting evidence of human trafficking and rape charges against Andrew Tate, Owens publicly defended him on her podcast, dismissing the accusers as unreliable and aligning herself with Tate. Was this done as a belief in the legitimacy and believability of those witnesses? Or was it a simply cynical move to boost her provocative brand?
Could it be suggested, therefore, that this was an exploitation of vulnerable women's testimonies for controversy, positioning Owens as a free speech defender while ignoring victim's trauma?
In 2025, Owens interviewed disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who had been convicted of rape and sexual assault. She provided him with a sympathetic platform to complain about his unfair treatment. This might be moved as an exploitative step with relation to the ongoing pain of Weinstein's numerous victims by rehabilitating his image for clicks.
While Owens profited from the sensationalism without accountability during a 2025 podcast defending Michael Jackson against child molestation charges, Owens claimed that one of the accusers was drugged by his own father to fabricate the abuse. Accordingly, directly victim blaming a minor survivor. She utilized this narrative to humanize Jackson and attack #me2, exploiting the case's cultural weight to fuel her rhetoric at the expense of a victim's credibility, which could be viewed as exploitative.
After two years at Turning Point USA, Owens was reportedly fired for being extremely difficult to work with. Yet, she later exploited her past ties to Kirk by accusing Turning Point USA of betrayal and infiltration in 2025 episodes. This smeared her former employers and Kirk's widow publicly, using inside access gained through the organization to settle personal scores and drive her independent content. Is this simply an instance of defending oneself as a consequence of falling out and the fair utilization of inside information? Or is there a greater agenda behind it and it is evidence of interpersonal exploitative behaviors? In October 2025, Owens claimed podcasters Josh Hammer, Seth Dylan, and Bill Aman lied about group texts and retreats involving Kirk events that she was not part of. Although she did not provide her own evidence. Again, is this the utilization of their proximity to Charlie?
>> She has provided no evidence for anything. She just says things and she twists normal things and makes them sound weird and suspicious so that like the person viewing who trusts her because of all the cultlike things that we read go, "Oh my gosh, that is suspicious and weird." but they never actually see the evidence and then she just moves on and then they just parrot what she's told them. It's literally it's wild to think about.
It's just crazy. And there's tons of these people. And there's if they're not watching her, these people that we see all over the place, they're watching Jake Shields or Ian Carol or um all these these these very strange people who are not these people are not smart. They don't know anything. Okay?
Like they think they know a lot of stuff, but they don't. And people are listening to them like they know a lot of stuff and they don't know a lot of stuff. Like they're not very knowledgeable on history or philosophy or world events like they'd have like it's very strange but you know >> Kirk to enable Owens to insert herself into the narrative exploiting shared conservative networks to amplify unproven smears against them for relevance following Charlie Kirk's death. And again might this be viewed as interpersonally exploitative?
It's also the case that there have been instances whereby Candi Owens has built a public persona around a bold confrontational commentary, often dismissing critics or opposing views which might be viewed with a superior tone or unsubstantiated claims. In a viral Tik Tok clip, Owens claimed that people with college degrees are illiterate and urge viewers to do your research via Google, squirming when confronted with actual scholarly evidence.
Is this a legitimate positioning of encouraging people to simply think for themselves? Or is it a horty dismissal of formal education because she positions herself as the sole arbiter of truth, ignoring her own lack of a completed degree?
On the Keeping It Real podcast in April 2025, Owens attacked actress Blake Lively for allegedly faking victimhood in a film about abuse, labeling her as a flippant, arrogant, sealist actress who trivializes real survivors.
Owens positioned herself as a moral superior, shaming Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds as narcissists.
Was this simply an active utilization of the truth as to what they are and an accurate description of Lively as a flippant and arrogant sealist actress who has been faking victimhood? Or might this once be or might this alternatively be viewed as a horty and arrogant stance on the part of Candi Owens?
At a 2018 conservative event in London, Owens stated that she had no problem with Hitler's nationalism if it stayed in Germany, framing it as a valid defense of national identity. After backlash, she doubled down without retraction, insisting that critics misunderstood her nuanced view. Is this an arrogant adoption of a view, or is it once again the possibility of somebody that stands by her own views, notwithstanding the fact that they're controversial and provocative?
In response to Tina Nolles's Instagram post defending Beyonce's 2024 rally appearance, Candice Owens recounted her normal weekend activities before pivoting to accusing Nullles of lying, positioning herself as the discerning truth teller above celebrity propaganda.
Is this an accurate Is this an accurate description of the role of Candise Owens or is it again an arrogant and hoyier stance that she adopts? In 2020, Owens condemned Harry Styles's historic Gucci press dress photo shoot on X, claiming it exemplified the steady feminization of our men, attacking Western society.
She dismissed the cultural milestone as emasculating nonsense, elevating her own traditionalist views as superior.
Is this simply an instance of identifying errant behavior and calling it out? Or might it be viewed as an arrogant stance whereby she deems that her views are always superior? On her show in 2024, Owens defended Kanye West Defcon 3 on death non-Jewish people tweet, claiming, "If you are an honest person, you did not find this tweet anti-semitic and justifying it as a response to a supposed Jewish Hollywood cabal." This stance ignored widespread condemnation.
Is this a legitimate defender of the truth or a self-righteous horty stance?
In 2022, Owens trended worldwide by wearing a white Lives Matter shirt with Kanye West while repeatedly claiming PLM leaders were fraudulent grifterlers who don't actually care about black lives.
She positioned herself as the enlightened black conservative, exposing a lie. Is this a truth seeker exposing what is actually going on? Or is it another example of someone appointing themselves as the arbiter of the truth in an arrogant fashion? In a debate clip shared by Joe Rogan, Owens hoily silenced an arrogant college student by interrupting and lecturing on topics like feminism, rubbing her temples invisible annoyance and dismissing his points as naive without substantive rebuttal.
Is this uh arrogant and haughty behavior on her part or simply the frustration of somebody having to deal with individuals who don't understand what she's explaining? In a November 2025 CNN clash, Owens shared email screenshots accusing the network of violating her boundaries on discussing Charlie Kirk's death, while evidence showed her team later agreed to limited mentions.
Was this positioning herself as the victimized truth seeker and therefore operating in a hypocritical manner to mislead the interviewer?
numerous examples of the behavior of Candies Owens over a period of time which leaves the question as to are we seeing uh evidence of repeated interpersonal exploitation and horty dismissive arrogant behaviors or is this simply as a consequence of the fact that in order to expose the truth this results in individuals forming an adverse view of her. Is it necessary for her to present it in such a way to ensure that people listen and they decide instead that because they don't like what she has to say that she must automatically be a provocative agitator?
Naturally, you will have your own view as to which those things are. And the important matter is is that we consider both perspectives as to what they might be as we continue to consider all of the evidence in the round. Join me in the next part for further considerations of the conduct and behaviors of Candi Soins.
>> Okay, you guys. So this is the conclusion. So this was a whole series this guy did. This will be the conclusion on he will decide if she's what she is. Okay.
Candace Owens. Conclusion. Hello, I'm HG TUDA.
Candace Owens is a polarizing figure. To some, she is a seeker of the truth, a warrior who will be not dissuadeed from her mission to get to the nub of what's going on in the world. A desire to expose those who've got something to hide, to drag the hypocrites into the light to allow people to see their shameful behaviors.
For others, she's regarded as a conspiracy theory peddler, a deluded individual who appoints herself as arbiter of the truth and comes out with outrageous observations and theories based upon no evidence or that she joins the evidence together in a way which twists and convolutes it in a manner which doesn't bear up to scrutiny.
There are those that liken her to an individual that goes around a neighbor neighborhood smashing the windows and then offering to replace them.
She's been involved in various spats.
Goes around the neighborhood smashing windows and then offering to replace them.
That's so funny. Oh my gosh.
and fallouts with other individuals.
Whatever your position in relation to Candace Owens, you are of course entitled to take it. You may well regard her in a supportive way, believing what she has to tell you. You may find her lacking credibility and dislike the way that she conducts herself. At the end of the day, that is a choice you can make.
But this is about making a determination as to whether she is an empath, a normal narcissistic person or a narcissist.
It's highly likely that whatever the outcome is, given her polarizing nature, there'll be some will be dissatisfied with it. For all, if she's determined to be an empath, those that regard her as a pillar of conspiracy theories will undoubtedly take issue with that. If she's found to be a narcissist, those that think that she does a good thing with her exposures will undoubtedly take an issue with that. But I raised this issue at the outset of the video to remind you that this is not an analysis of whether Candace Owens is a good or bad person. You can make that determination based upon your own thoughts. It's simply about what categorization of person she is. And if she's determined to be an empath, you can still think that she's a bad person because of the way that she conducts herself because it doesn't accord with your own views. Similarly, if she's found to be a narcissist, that doesn't mean that you then have to think that she's a bad person because a narcissist can do good things. Take the glorious narrator for example. I remind people of this because it has been evident in the comments that certain individuals have completely lost sight of the purpose of these analysis which are undertaken on an objective basis looking at a wide range of evidence to make a determination.
>> Okay, if I remember correctly, this guy is a narcissist. So, there are actually some narcissists out there that do make content about how to spot narcissists.
They have a unique perspective on them because they are one. Um, there's even like uh psychopaths. So, there are psychopaths that have channels that educate you on how to spot a psychopath and how not to like fall for their traps and such and such. Um, so they're sort of like benevolent narcissists or benevolent um, psychopaths which have realized what they are, learned about themselves, I guess, and you know, I don't know any of them personally, but one can hope are not like victimizing anyone and are like using channeling their energy into teaching people about it. But anyway, it's pretty fascinating.
>> Now, Candace Owens is a provocative conservative commentator, podcaster, and activist, and she's risen to prominence through her unyielding critiques of liberal ideologies, identity, politics, and cultural norms. As you know, she was born in 1989 in White Plains, New York, and raised in Stamford, Connecticut. Her journey from a liberal leaning entrepreneur to a right-wing fire brand has been marked by controversy, rapid ideological shifts, and highprofile feuds.
I've looked at her life history, her behaviors, her relationships, and public statements to demonstrate what she exhibits. As you know, my framework evaluates individuals across categories of empath driven by emotional empathy and empathic traits. Normal principle, still with empathic and narcissistic traits, and also emotional empathy.
Narcissistic, essentially selfish, self-absorbed individuals with low emotional empathy without the full pathology of narcissism. or a narcissist. An individual that has a pursuit of the prime aims governed by an innate need for control, the necessity of the requirement of fuel, an absence of emotional empathy, and a reliance upon manipulative behaviors amongst other factors.
In order to make this determination, of course, we have to look at sustained patterns over time.
One of the most compelling indicators in relation to Candice Owens is her pervasive grandiosity.
This is where she perceives herself as superior, visionary, even divinely ordained.
>> I have to 100% agree with that. Like I said, that is one of the things that I first whenever I really started thinking about all this uh noticed I noticed the cultlike um tactics and then I started noticing cuz like I had to pay attention to a lot of stuff she was doing to make these um series and stuff. Um, I noticed this grandiosity, this delusions of grander, and I was like, that's disturbing. You know, often independent of factual validation. Throughout her career, Owens has positioned herself as an unparalleled truth seeker battling shadow elites. In a January 2025 expost, she claimed a state level DDoS attack from France targeted her website a her documentary Becoming Bridget, framing her work as so threatening that nations conspire against her. This echoed a November 2025 post where she asserted that every news trend is about me or Tuk Carlson, attributing it to someone in the shadows panicking and declaring it god time, implying divine endorsement for her investigations into Charlie Kirk's death. Such behavior is indicative of magical thinking and illusions of grandeur, whereby she elevates herself to a heroic figure exposing global cabals. Similarly, in February 2025, she predicted a geopolitical shift towards Russia post Boomer generation, casting herself as a prophetic historian reshaping world views. These repeated instances spanning social media podcasts and interviews demonstrate a mindset where Owen sees herself as intellectually and morally superior, whereby she harnesses controversy in order to assert control over the audience and to draw fuel from the outrage that follows. This grandiosity intertwines with entitlement, which is evident in Owen's disregard for boundaries, contracts, and consequences. Her 2017 doxing of a former police officer critic, April Haley, via her social autopsy platform led to threats against Haley. Owens blocked warnings, falsely accused Haley of drug addiction and spread lies, showing a willingness to override other safety for personal vindification. In her mid-20s, she rented a Manhattan apartment, but refused payment for 6 months, claiming toxic mold and threatened to sue the landlord, which is an entitlement to exploit situations without accountability. Amidst her 2024 fallout with Daily Wire, Owens declared she no longer honors contracts that permit evil, threatening to leak communications and coordinating with critics like Andrew Tate. When denied an Australian visa in 2024 for anti-Semitic conspiracies, she escalated to the high court, framing it as viewpoints oppression, and was ordered to pay costs. In November 2025, she urged followers to dox college students in footage, basisly accusing them of being undercover agents. These actions reveal a pattern of expecting special treatment, dismissing obligations, and weaponizing audiences, whereby she regards rules as inapplicable to her as a consequence of her superior status.
Her interpersonal relationships underscore exploitative tendencies, which is where she utilizes other people in order to control them, to maintain a facade, to draw fuel. For instance, her marriage to George Farmer, a British conservative, where she met him in December 2018 at Turning Point UK event.
Farmer proposed via FaceTime after just 17 days with no prior dates or romantic gestures, describing it as divine serendipity and a god thing. They married in August 2019 at Trump Winery.
Farmer portrays Owens as wearing many hats. Investigative journalist, mother, Catholic, suggesting compartmentalization, a strategy to shift personas in order to gain control.
Farmer admits to a submissive role, fading to give her glory, crediting her with her spirit, with his spiritual revival, which may be codependency or idealization, masking power imbalances.
Rumors of discord, including CardiB's 2021 infidelity allegations, dismissed but unproven, and family tensions, Farmer's mother has Jewish roots amid Owen's anti-semitism, hint at strain.
With 2024 marked as their toughest year, beyond marriage, Owen's professional alliances reveal exploitation. She built platforms like Red Pill Black and Lexit Foundation with collaborators like Charlie Kirk and Kanye West, only then to disengage from them when misaligned.
After Kirk's 2025 death, she released alleged messages accusing Ben Shapiro and others of sabotage, insinuated Kirk's widow, Erica, murdered him to cover Zionist infiltration, and monetized the tragedy via super chats earning $130,000 monthly. This would appear to be exploitation from a colleague's demise, turning betrayal narratives into lucrative content.
Similarly, she defended Andrew Tate against 2023 trafficking charges on her podcast, dismissing accusers, and interviewed Harvey Weinstein in 2025, providing a sympathetic platform despite his convictions, exploiting victims trauma for views. In 2020, she ambushed friend Nicole Arbor on her show by naming Arbor Stokers against Please, eding it to claim victory. These patterns demonstrate a repeated absence of emotional empathy, the exploitation of personal relationships for personal gain. Ideological shifts and provocative behaviors abound. Owens pivoted from liberal, criticizing Trump's 2016 attributes by degree 180 to conservative oversight in to conservative overnight in 2017, blaming progressives for backlash against social autopsy.
This is queried as whether it's a genuine awakening or black and white thinking, which of course is a hallmark of the narcissistic absence of the core self allowing such shifts for control.
The controversies, for instance, defending Kanye's anti-Semitic tweets, peddling Kaisar theory, and alleging Bridget Macron's transgender identity leading to a 2025 defamation suit escalate without retraction, often done to boost rankings. Her defiance post lawsuit, taunting Bridget and linking to unrelated conspiracies, exemplifies narcissistic bullishness, framing opposition as a validation of her truth.
Philanthropy via Blexit is small scale and tied to political activism, potentially a tool for influence rather than the manifestation of genuine emotional empathy with no large personal donations from her multi-million dollar net worth. Cumulatively across the evidence that I have referenced in the course of the episodes that I have highlighted again in this summary and also additional evidence given that there is so much of it out there that I haven't had opportunity to mention it all. It's evident that there is a grandiosity in her self-perception, that she exhibits black and white thinking, that there is an entitlement that overrides boundaries, there's exploitative behaviors in relation to relationships in order to control and draw fuel. There's provocative manipulations done for attention.
Whilst offenders will see her as a resilient truth seeker, and of course, even with these attributes, one might still seek the truth, the sustained evidence over decades reveals an innate drive for control and fuel and an absence of emotional empathy. There is the belief of special treatment and being hallmarked for better treatment and insight compared to other people.
Her behaviors exploit chaos for the pursuit of the prime aims and time and time again she appoints herself as a specialized arbiter of truth denoting an attitude of innate superiority and delusion. The behaviors are manifest throughout the evidence on repeated occasions and have taken place over a sustained period of time as you would imagine that she in conducting herself exhibits a grandio sense of self-importance. She expects as a consequence of this almost god-like given power to make determinations to be recognized as superior. She is preoccupied with this pursuit of the truth relating to the necessity of success and power. It's clear through the matters that she comments upon and the evidence that supports that that she regards herself as special and unique and can only be understood by special or high status people. She shows a repeated need to gain reactions from people engaging in the controversial behaviors exhibiting the requirement for fuel. She expects automatic compliance with what she states that if you disagree with her, you're simply dismissed and that she encourages her followers to behave in a particular similar way. She's interpersonally exploitative and her behavior in particular evidence in her podcast shows an arrogance and hoy behaviors all of which underpin an absence of emotional empathy.
Accordingly, as a consequence of the evidence that has been produced mainly by her rather than necessarily people talking about her, the finding is that Candy Owens is a narcissist. I'm HGT.
Thank you for listening.
Okay, so what do you guys think? What do you guys think about all that? Did you guys find it interesting?
Do you guys think I put together all that information good?
How did you guys feel about the last guy, the HGT, and his conclusions?
I feel like we covered a lot of good ground. I really found the cult like tactics broken down really interesting, the psychology stuff really interesting.
And this is really important stuff to know because these people are everywhere. And you can get wrapped up in this and you can victimize somebody that they are victimizing.
So that's something to think about because you could be participating in something because they are so manipulative. They're so good at drawing people in um making these strong connections with you. So you feel like you have to defend them and they're in your workplace, they're in your friend groups, they're, you know, online. So they're creators, right? So it's really good to know about this stuff because really anybody could get wrapped up in it, you know? So we just have to be like really careful out there. But let me know in the comments what you guys thought. Please like, comment, and subscribe. I am so glad you are here. I'm so glad you made it to the end of this video. And I hope you have a good rest of your day or evening, whatever time it is for you. And I will see you next time on the Eclectic Journalist.
Videos Relacionados
Why Is It ALWAYS About The Pregnant One? 😂
alikicomedy
9K views•2026-05-30
Elections Are Rigged! Only Those In Government Can Tell How ~ Diana Ngao & Mark Ouko
RadioGenKe
696 views•2026-06-02
White People RECOUNTS How Great Black People Are Becoming So Fast Now They Can't Take It
mrsan_20
939 views•2026-05-30
The Original Black Panther Party patrol the Virginia Beach Oceanfront
wavy
3K views•2026-06-01
Foreign-Owned Shops Targeted as Anti-Migrant Tensions Rise in South Africa
aljazeeraenglish
25K views•2026-05-30
NEMA demolishes over 100 homes in Busabala
ntvuganda
386 views•2026-06-04
Being Foreign-Born Does Not Disqualify Me From Understanding Anti-Blackness
JayJayLegal
297 views•2026-05-31
Protesters tear down World Cup statues in Mexico City
Reuters
13K views•2026-06-03
