Candace Owens

I also don´t like Brand. As a woman, I don´t like his way of talking, or his voice and gestures; it all creates in me total cognitive dissonance in my head - he looks like a man but behaves in overly gay/womanly manner, sometimes almost hysteric. Also there is dissonance between what he says and how he says it - his way of talking comes across as very preachy and overall fake. Then there´s his shady past... Writing this now, Ira Einhorn keeps popping up in my head.

So, yeah, there is something about him that triggers me in a wrong way, IDK why, but I usually skip his videos and shorts.
FWIW
 
I'm going to play devil's advocate - mainly because I decided some time ago to never forget the few people in public spaces who had the courage to stand up during the very dark times of Covid. Russell stood up to say NO to that poison injection. Such acts of courage are never to be forgotten.

In life, I think we sometimes need to get to a position where we judge people based on their character and the impact of their actions, rather than superficial style of how they come across or express themselves.

Personally, I think Russell Brand has done very well to learn from his past and use that to try and cultivate a more meaningful and positive life in the present day. Unless he's living some kind of double life, I'd say he has done well to transform himself. The way he talks is just who he is 🤷. He's not rude, abusive or anything he just expresses himself in a way that resonates with him.

Though I do understand why Russell is a divisive figure in the UK. Not only does he have a sordid past, he's now a thorn in the side of the PTB. He obviously can't change his past so the best he can do is acknowledge it and talk frankly about it from the perspective of learning from it. Of course though, since he's a thorn in the side of the PTB, they'll find any weakness and use it against him, be it his past or his "personality style".

I do understand though why he rubs people up the wrong way. I have to say that we don't need to like EVERYONE who is seeking to live a true and meaningful life. In my view though he can be counted upon when push comes to shove and that is enough from my personal perspective.
 
Cosmos said:
Having said that, I found her choice of people she seems to be either friends with or decides to interview possibly a bit revealing in that regard:

- Tate brothers
- Russell Brand
- Kanye West

All of which I think are likely people that are at the very least situated on a very high narcissistic spectrum.
Click to expand...
These people have all stood up to and criticised Power, and have been victimised by it in some way. They have made enemies of powerful people and maybe even governments or those in government. I think that's where her interest lies, revealing the truth.

You forgot Harvey Weinstein!!! 😯 A total pig of a man, who misused his power. However, being immoral does not equal being criminal. Candace interviewed him from prison. Her interest with his case stems from the power of the "Me Too" movement and how it has been used to take down and attack powerful people. Maybe even, (in his case), compeditors?
 
Cosmos said:
I found her choice of people she seems to be either friends with or decides to interview possibly a bit revealing in that regard:

- Tate brothers
- Russell Brand
- Kanye West
Click to expand...
Like it or not, there is also commerce, viewership, to consider as a podcaster. These would all be popular interviews that could pay for less popular, possibly more important ones. She may not actually need or want money, but wants another kind of currency, which is more attention and views, even as any journalist would.
 
The motivations and incentives of a person are not known. What matters is what information they bring and whether that information is useful or not. If it gets better, it's good. If it gets worse, better find another source of information. People can change for the better, they may regret the errors of the past. That's good for them, and it's commendable. They also can make mistakes, which can be excusable only to a certain point. It's not all black and white, like in real life.
 
I think in the current court case against Candace by the Macron's she might be walking into a trap, because as far as I can tell a test result that simply "proves" that she has XX chromosomes and a judge who goes along with it is enough to loose the case. Shouldn't be that hard to pull off for people with that many connections.
 
Beau said:
Sure, and that's fair. But Candace is a Christian and one big part of Christianity is forgiving others for their sins. She's even defending Harvey Weinstein because she sees someone who got railroaded by the justice system. She is not afraid to support or defend someone if she believes the truth is on her side, and that is a bravery more people should possess.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify for people who haven’t listened to her speak on this issue. It’s not so much that she is defending him, she is defending truth and the law.

Edit: Also Candace is a journalist, she wants to know for herself what the real story is behind certain people in the public eye. She gives them fair hearing and over time her views or assessment about whether they are telling the truth changes based on evidence. So it’s important to actually listen to Candace over time to get a sense of what she is about.

‘Talking to Strangers’ by Malcolm Gladwell seems relevant here.
Talking to Strangers is a challenging and controversial excursion through history, psychology, and scandals taken straight from the news. In it, Malcolm Gladwell revisits the deceptions of Bernie Madoff, the suicide of Sylvia Plath, and the death of Sandra Bland—throwing our understanding of these and other stories into doubt.

Something is very wrong, Gladwell argues, with the tools and strategies we use to make sense of people we don’t know, and the resulting conflict and misunderstanding have a profound effect on our lives and our world. Now, with Talking to Strangers, Malcolm Gladwell brings us a gripping guidebook for troubled times.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cosmos said:
JD Vance continues to be a wait and see for me. He could be good or bad or any shade in between.
Click to expand...
Considering that JD Vance was basically financed by Thiel and his technocrat gang, I will remain skeptical. Even though there have been some positive signs, such as his criticism of the lack of free speech and the lawfare against opposition parties in the EU.
 
Ricardo said:
So about Candace Owens... should one be surprised at this point ?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1958287445159465158
Click to expand...
She is pretty legit IMO actually, how old is that?

Having a loose opinion doesn't mean absolute endorsement of an individual.
Have watched her show frequently and don't recall her going out of her way to say anything in Vance's favor. Her Focus has been the satanic nature of the top elites. And jews being everywhere in those elites. And how they hate christians.
Tucker does defend him.

Nick Fuentes is more of a useful idiot IMO.
He is derranged and too married to his ideology to be remotely objective even when it comes to serving his own message and goals. He is an idiot.
He builds a castle and craps all over it. I find him tedious.

All that aside, they done a fare share of service and work.
do you need to pick sides because this or that drama? Your choice but maybe that is a waste of your own energy.

And that's why Nick Fuentes is the least trusthworthy IMO, there was absolutely no strategic need to act like a total clown and steal all the energy and momentum of the conversation on personal attacks against Candace, for pure satisfaction disgused as "exposing", but he did. Despite the obvious strategic stupidity of misusing the oportunity to expand his message on her platform.

He can rot, im better off reading a book than sit through a performance of him screaming and trolling and crying victim and rehatching stuff that's already been said. Sure there is a crowd for that type of energy drain but that wouldn't be me.

With Candace i can watch her show, laugh and keep it moving, with Nick is a victimfest the wrong analysis and the wrong solutions why am i gonna sit through hours of something that I already know is wrong. With Tucker is him bringing people on and lowkey ingecting his white nationalist points here and there, which is good for his audience.

Of all these influencers my favorite list are
Candace
An0maly
Tucker
Ian Caroll

Everyone else is kinda trash and piggybacking and grifting, example , Timpool takes 2 hours of dragging to say three headlines all while shilling for Israel. Or PBD podcast, other than having Judy Mikovitz during the pandemic that podcast is absolute garbage to me

Do i have to worship and blindly trust any public figure? No.

Is it good to pay attention to what is happening without getting entangled? Yes, if you've learned not to get entangled.
 
UKColumn's August 20 news video (at 21:05) aired a short segment "Who is JD Vance?"
Based on her research, Sandi Adams states that Vance was an 'atheist' until he converted to 'Catholicism' in 2019.

She also touched on a new 'wave' of catholicism in Silicon Valley. A quote from Thiel was inserted:
"One part of the Christian faith that I believe more strongly than anything is that death is evil and we should not accept it and fight it in any way we can."

Like the 'scientific' definition of vax, things are getting fluid these days. I wondered why they chose catholicism over christianity, but Sandi alludes to the reason: in christianity there's no pope.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom