Candace Owens podcast

[PixieJ]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this, so please remove if not appropriate.

I've gone down the Reddit rabbit hole and come across this podcast:

Just the first 20 minutes are about MJ and his death, a blackmail ring.

I just don't know what to make of it. I mean... It makes so much sense, but want some sense checking as Reddit is not necessarily the most reliable place. Any thoughts?

Edit: apologies, I have been informed that Cadence Owens is an alt right hate preacher.
Mods - please remove this post if inappropriate or offensive. I don't want to spread misinformation or hate here.

 

[PixieJ]

Nevermind.

 

[SoS]

Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

As far as I can tell, she's not being malicious (just blind) and was quoting Ian Carrol's opinions, because, neither, Branca nor Matolla are Jewish names so I don't see them being on his 'shyt-list' as anti-semetism on MJ's part....

The head of MJ's security at the time of his death could be significant for us, and how a 21 year old fresh out of college got to be head of security for the KOP is a curiosity, but, presumably it would be through his standing within the Nation of Islam who MJ trusted because MJ trusted Farrakhan.

As for Muhammad suporting Diddy's operation, that is a completely seperate matter from MJ. and...that part about the record execs partying inappropriately with Diddy is believable but that has nothing to do with MJ.

She's one of the few I've ever heard confess that they had been brainwashed by the media into believing the lie despite MJ being found not guilty, because she was young at the time and later revisited the case and learned that there was not 1 shred of evidence.

Dismissing her because of what someone has said about her is a political opinion as she's controversial whenever people want her to be, since she's all politics and she supported Trump who was a friend of MJ, - - both MJ and Trump being 'controversial' so that's nothing new.

Delete and dismiss because she supports Kanye? What about him does she support?

I only know they're both Christian.

Maybe she supported Kanye taking back control of his own product not unlike the artist, Prince did, for the same reason.

MJ said in WYBT, "everyone's taking control of me..."

which nobody seemed to understand what he was talking about until it was too late.

Poor MJ! being taken over by the industry after Thriller, was probably shocking to him considering how hard he and his brothers had worked to become independent artists...and how hard he worked to control his future by buying the ATV catelogue...

This just proves MJ's name still gets so-called independent journalists all giddy for the views it will attract.

I guess you all will dismiss & delete it for your own reasons. I wouldn't really care about this, its just some opinions and its best imo to know what people are saying because it shows how much more work there is to do.

 

[PixieJ]

Please correct me if I'm wrong ...

As far as I can tell, she's not being malicious (just blind) and was quoting Ian Carrol's opinions, because, neither, Branca nor Matolla are Jewish names so I don't see them being on his 'shyt-list' as anti-semetism on MJ's part....

The head of MJ's security at the time of his death could be significant for us, and how a 21 year old fresh out of college got to be head of security for the KOP is a curiosity, but, presumably it would be through his standing within the Nation of Islam who MJ trusted because MJ trusted Farrakhan.

As for Muhammad suporting Diddy's operation, that is a completely seperate matter from MJ. and...that part about the record execs partying inappropriately with Diddy is believable but that has nothing to do with MJ.

She's one of the few I've ever heard confess that they had been brainwashed by the media into believing the lie despite MJ being found not guilty, because she was young at the time and later revisited the case and learned that there was not 1 shred of evidence.

Dismissing her because of what someone has said about her is a political opinion as she's controversial whenever people want her to be, since she's all politics and she supported Trump who was a friend of MJ, - - both MJ and Trump being 'controversial' so that's nothing new.

Delete and dismiss because she supports Kanye? What about him does she support?

I only know they're both Christian.

Maybe she supported Kanye taking back control of his own product not unlike the artist, Prince did, for the same reason.

MJ said in WYBT, "everyone's taking control of me..."

which nobody seemed to understand what he was talking about until it was too late.

Poor MJ! being taken over by the industry after Thriller, was probably shocking to him considering how hard he and his brothers had worked to become independent artists...and how hard he worked to control his future by buying the ATV catelogue...

This just proves MJ's name still gets so-called independent journalists all giddy for the views it will attract.

I guess you all will dismiss & delete it for your own reasons. I wouldn't really care about this, its just some opinions and its best imo to know what people are saying because it shows how much more work there is to do.

Thanks for this. I agree that what she said in that clip is interesting and relevant in several ways.

I do think what she says here is believable and makes sense.

Maybe she doesn't deserve to be discredited so easily. I had not heard of her and freaked out a bit when people started calling her out for all kinds of hate speech and opportunism.

 

[SoS]

Thanks for this. I agree that what she said in that clip is interesting and relevant in several ways.

I do think what she says here is believable and makes sense.

Maybe she doesn't deserve to be discredited so easily. I had not heard of her and freaked out a bit when people started calling her out for all kinds of hate speech and opportunism.

I too know very little about her except for here and there so I mean it when I say, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I appreciate you being brave and humble about rushing to judgement about her.

She's young (in my eyes) and is willing to admit being wrong about MJ. I feel she deserves at least a point for being brave and humble enough to admit that, especially as a (social) media pundent.

 

[PixieJ]

I too know very little about her except for here and there so I mean it when I say, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I appreciate you being brave and humble about rushing to judgement about her.

She's young (in my eyes) and is willing to admit being wrong about MJ. I feel she deserves at least a point for being brave and humble enough to admit that, especially as a (social) media pundent.

Yes. Absolutely.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Candace Owens is insane lol.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Cadence Owens is an alt right hate preacher

She is, yes.

 

[zinniabooklover]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1766149261794947418

 

[PixieJ]

Oh No.

 

[Amaya]

I gotta say, I find it very concerning that when a pro-Michael thing does come out in the media, it seems to come moreso from the right than the left. It's just... not a good look, you know? Especially given how fucked up the politics of the right have gotten in the last decade. And it's also ironic considering how nearly 20 years ago both the left and right wing media were collectively shitting on Michael.

 

[TAW1979]

Candace is a far-right commentator with ties to other far-right hatemongers and dabbles in conspiracy theories. She's not the best person to listen to when it comes to facts and politics.

I've noticed that in the news, people with mostly right wing views believe that MJ is innocent, while the overall media atmosphere that assumes MJ's guilt and sides with the accusers are left leaning. Left-wing media wants to present itself as the side that believes victims or accusers rather. They went along with the Me Too movement and made it mainstream. (Nothing wrong with it in itself. Just speculating.) Each accusation against a rich and/or powerful person was, and still are, treated with support as if the accusers are telling the truth, especially if there's more than one.

When LN came, the media jumped on top of it. They watched it and accepted it without so much as a question or concern about the claims. They just took Wade and James' testimonies in as 'proof' that MJ was a pedo. (One could call it confirmation bias as the media pretty much had suspicions about MJ and children from the beginning, and they thought LN was what they needed to close their case.) Wade, James and Dan Reed all got their 15 minutes of fame for a while. The media might have thought that there would be an influx of accusers against Jackson like with Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein.

But that never happened.

Soon after, the media began reporting on the train station claims as being inaccurate. And soon LN's popularly waned, but the accusations are still kinda fresh in the media's memory banks where as of yet, no one stood up and said that they have problems with the testimonies, at least not from left wing media like Salon, the Guardian or even the Root.

Piers Morgan was one commentator that questioned Dan Reed on his show. That's the only person from the media that I remember that had questions and he has conservative views. I remember Geraldo Rivera from Fox News and Mike Cernovich, a far-right provocateur, both saying that Jackson is innocent. But I haven't heard anyone from the left so much as wonder if the claims were true or not. They basically used the accusations to not only paint Jackson as guilty, but held Wade and James up as survivors that deserve to be heard.

One writer who wrote essays for the Daily Beast, a left-leaning news site, had questions about the claims in LN and wrote about them on Medium. He goes by the name Stereo Williams. Here's his essay: https://medium.com/@stereowilliams/correct-me-if-im-wrong-6336108a25db

 

[SoS]

While I'm disappointed to hear that about Candace's view of George Floyd, I have to confess that politics is something I care nor know nothing about because it is messing up the entire world.

I don't distringuish them as left or right or red or blue because, I can't keep straight their colors any more than I can the bloods and the krypts because I don't care about their game or their team colors because, the way I see it, they are playing "good cop-bad cop" neither of them fully committed to making this sad world a better place, and I pretty much look at all media pundents as well as politicians as individuals just as with this forum of such different ages, races, proclivities, ethnicities and everything,

so if for instance, a poster here writes something I utterly disagree with, or if they write something I fully harmonize with, I take them point by point regardless and see you as an individual albieit possibly severrely misguided about this or that. Not as an entirety as a human being due to some point of view you have, because I'm aware that the same person who is wrong as two left shoes could also be the person who could come through in an emergency.

I also observed one thing about Black Lives Matter that disappointed me greatly and that is, it was not created nor sustained to eliminate anti-black injustice. A view of their website back then told me that. And the new president of america that "all" the black people voted for created a crime bill in his first month in office to protect from gun violence asians and south pacific islanders and for black people he created and ACT.

The George Floyd ACT. That did not surprise me at all. This is why I'm glad I was taught as a child to pray for God's Kingdom/Government to come. I'm not "religious" any more than political, its just the only thing that makes sense for me to trust in. NOT any human. No, not even 1.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Candace is a far-right commentator with ties to other far-right hatemongers and dabbles in conspiracy theories. She's not the best person to listen to when it comes to facts and politics.

I'm in the UK. I have no idea who she is. I've heard of Tucker Carlson, never heard of this Candace person.

I've noticed that in the news, people with mostly right wing views believe that MJ is innocent, while the overall media atmosphere that assumes MJ's guilt and sides with the accusers are left leaning. Left-wing media wants to present itself as the side that believes victims or accusers rather. They went along with the Me Too movement and made it mainstream. (Nothing wrong with it in itself. Just speculating.) Each accusation against a rich and/or powerful person was, and still are, treated with support as if the accusers are telling the truth, especially if there's more than one.

When LN came, the media jumped on top of it. They watched it and accepted it without so much as a question or concern about the claims. They just took Wade and James' testimonies in as 'proof' that MJ was a pedo. (One could call it confirmation bias as the media pretty much had suspicions about MJ and children from the beginning, and they thought LN was what they needed to close their case.)

This. I've seen it often in the UK msm, journalists clearly believing LN to be all the 'proof' that could be needed.

Wade, James and Dan Reed all got their 15 minutes of fame for a while. The media might have thought that there would be an influx of accusers against Jackson like with Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein.
But that never happened.
Soon after, the media began reporting on the train station claims as being inaccurate. And soon LN's popularly waned, but the accusations are still kinda fresh in the media's memory banks where as of yet, no one stood up and said that they have problems with the testimonies, at least not from left wing media like Salon, the Guardian or even the Root.
Piers Morgan was one commentator that questioned Dan Reed on his show. That's the only person from the media that I remember that had questions and he has conservative views.

It was good that Piers did this but he is a divisive figure and no-one who is left-leaning is going to listen to him bc it goes against their preferred stance on things. It was great that he questioned the premise of LN and he is high profile but I just don't know how many people would have really listened or been prompted to think about this a bit more deeply.

I remember Geraldo Rivera from Fox News and Mike Cernovich, a far-right provocateur, both saying that Jackson is innocent. But I haven't heard anyone from the left so much as wonder if the claims were true or not. They basically used the accusations to not only paint Jackson as guilty, but held Wade and James up as survivors that deserve to be heard.

I've seen people dismiss John Ziegler's thoughts on LN. He's another one I don't know anything about. He comes across as a bit of a radio shock-jock (I might be wrong) but he seems to have done what a journalist should do and look at a serious claim more closely. A lot of people live in an echo chamber which doesn't help.

One writer who wrote essays for the Daily Beast, a left-leaning news site, had questions about the claims in LN and wrote about them on Medium. He goes by the name Stereo Williams. Here's his essay: https://medium.com/@stereowilliams/correct-me-if-im-wrong-6336108a25db

Oh, I'd forgotten about this. Thank you for posting, it's a really good piece of work, imo, and it was good to read it again. He asks great questions. Obvious questions, sure, but he states them so intelligently and articulately. I'm sure most LN supporters didn't even see this.

 

[zinniabooklover]

While I'm disappointed to hear that about Candace's view of George Floyd,

The thing that concerned me was the fact that she attributed his death to drugs. I haven't researched this properly but it looks as though one page from the autopsy report has been taken out of context and the page which states Floyd's death as being a homicide has been ignored. The report clearly links the asphyxiation to the actions of Chauvin. She apparently wanted exoneration for Derek Chauvin when the video evidence clearly showed him to be at fault. I'm not denying the other facts of this story but I cannot see how anyone could look at the video evidence and see anything other than culpability on the part of Derek Chauvin. And if this Candace woman is a tv journalist (or is she just one of those 'shock-jock' type of commentators? I'm in the UK, I have no idea who she is) she should be able to see what was in front of her.

I have to confess that politics is something I care nor know nothing about

I'm the same. I'm politically homeless and pretty neutral on most things. I don't live in an echo chamber.

because it is messing up the entire world. I don't distringuish them as left or right or red or blue because, I can't keep straight their colors

If it wasn't so serious it would be almost laughable. Here in the UK people try to pigeon-hole you (politically) based on what newspaper you read. It's ridiculous.

any more than I can the bloods and the krypts because I don't care about their game or their team colors because, the way I see it, they are playing "good cop-bad cop" neither of them fully committed to making this sad world a better place, and I pretty much look at all media pundents as well as politicians as individuals just as with this forum of such different ages, races, proclivities, ethnicities and everything, so if a poster here writes something I utterly disagree with, or if they write something I fully harmonize with, I take them point by point regardless and see you as an individual albieit possibly severrely misguided about this or that. Not as an entirety as a human being due to some point of view you have, because I'm aware that the same person who is wrong as two left shoes could also be the person who could come through in an emergency. I also observed one thing about Black Lives Matter that disappointed me greatly and that is, it was not created nor sustained to eliminate anti-black injustice. A view of their website back then told me that. And the new president of america that "all" the black people voted for created a crime bill in his first month in office to protect from gun violence asians and south pacific islanders and for black people he created and ACT. The George Floyd ACT. That did not surprise me at all. This is why I'm glad I was taught as a child to pray for God's Kingdom/Government to come. I'm not "religious" any more than political, its just the only thing that makes sense for me to trust in. NOT any human. No, not even 1.

Interesting stuff to think about.

 

[SoS]

The thing that concerned me was the fact that she attributed his death to drugs. I haven't researched this properly but it looks as though one page from the autopsy report has been taken out of context and the page which states Floyd's death as being a homicide has been ignored. The report clearly links the asphyxiation to the actions of Chauvin. She apparently wanted exoneration for Derek Chauvin when the video evidence clearly showed him to be at fault. I'm not denying the other facts of this story but I cannot see how anyone could look at the video evidence and see anything other than culpability on the part of Derek Chauvin. And if this Candace woman is a tv journalist (or is she just one of those 'shock-jock' type of commentators? I'm in the UK, I have no idea who she is) she should be able to see what was in front of her.

I agree 100% with this. While I haven't watched Candace Owens enough to know what she wanted or didn't want, I heard others making reference to George Floyd's drug use and I was tempted to completely give up on humanity's potential to become free of racial prejuce and hatred of blacks overall. It was bad enough what happened to Briana Taylor, an emergency responder herself, shot while sleeping in her own bed, and on and on I could go.

This is exactly why I'm sticking to the Only One Who can fix this mess. The Creator of all, just watching, waiting for people to turn around, then, at some point its lights out for all this mess. jmpo

 

[SoS]

Candace Owens is insane lol.

One thing I will say (again) about her, she is young, and I've noticed that once she is corrected, she straightens up her act.

I even corrected her myself one time when she published a TIK TOK I came across where she was down grading uneducated blacks for not being more interested in education.

I pointed out to her in the comments fact that, the American Psychological Association confirms the existence of, and severe impact of generational trauma, (even though as far as I can tell it ignores the effects of it on black people in America) and with that understoood, the price the majority of blacks had to pay for learning to read was getting their eyes gouged out of their heads, and the penalty whites had to pay for teaching them was death.
The next time I saw a Candace TikTok she was talking about the generational trauma blacks had to undergo just for learning to read.

The fact that she changed her view of Michael Jackson after digging deeper and publicly admitting it, is giving me hope that one day, she will awaken from whatever it is that has her unconscious about George Floyd's obvious murder.

Some young people are in this life experience to grow with age, I hold out hope she is one of them. Meanwhile, I frankly don't care what she thinks about anything. She's just another squirrel collecting nuts in the form of 'views'. jmho

 

[SmoothGangsta]

One thing I will say (again) about her, she is young, and I've noticed that once she is corrected, she straightens up her act, I even corrected her myself one time when she published a TIK TOK I came across where she was down grading uneducated blacks for not being more interested in education, when I pointed out to her the fact that, the American Psychological Association confirms the existence of, and severe impact of generational trauma, (even though as far as I can tell it ignores the effects of it on black people in America) and with that understoood, the price the majority of blacks had to pay for learning to read was getting their eyes gouged out of their heads, and the penalty whites had to pay for teaching them was death.
The next time I saw a Candace TikTok she was talking about the generational trauma blacks had to undergo just for learning to read.

The fact that she changed her view of Michael Jackson after digging deeper and publicly admitting it, is giving me hope that one day, she will awaken from whatever it is that has her unconscious about George Floyd's obvious murder.

Some young people are in this life experience to grow with age, I hold out hope she is one of them. Meanwhile, I frankly don't care what she thinks about anything. She's just another squirrel collecting nuts in the form of 'views'. jmho

She hates LGBTQ+ people and called them a plague and is a very well known conservative conspiracy nut. I'm not gonna go around giving her the benefit of the doubt because she thinks MJ is innocent.

I feel like you don't know a lot about her and are hoping she can change purely for that reason.

 

[SoS]

She hates LGBTQ+ people and called them a plague and is a very well known conservative conspiracy nut. I'm not gonna go around giving her the benefit of the doubt because she thinks MJ is innocent.

I feel like you don't know a lot about her and are hoping she can change purely for that reason.

Well, that reason and the reason of seeing her change with enlightenment.

The trouble in our society imho, is, right now everyone is so completely invested in a single person's opinion because of the numbers of people they reach with those opinions but at the end of the day an opinion is just that, and if you or I "cancel" a whole person because they don't see what we see, then what are we really doing?

ie., I'm 5'7. There was a time that 5'7 was considered the ideal height for females, ie., flight attendants, models etc. but now its much taller. Does that change my view of myself? Does it make me "despise" those people who decided that? I have better things to do with my time than worry about what anyone is saying about me as they profile an entire group of females. I have new decisions to make about being 5'7 now and I probably won't try to change those opinions just so that I can be a model or flight attendant, I would focus on who I am, what I have to offer an environment that will appreciate me for who I am. Heck with the rest. jmpo

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Well, that reason and the reason of seeing her change with enlightenment.

The trouble in our society imho, is, right now everyone is so completely invested in a single person's opinion because of the numbers of people they reach with those opinions but at the end of the day an opinion is just that, and if you or I "cancel" a whole person because they don't see what we see, then what are we really doing?

ie., I'm 5'7. There was a time that 5'7 was considered the ideal height for females, ie., flight attendants, models etc. but now its much taller. Does that change my view of myself? Does it make me "despise" those people who decided that? I have better things to do with my time than worry about what anyone is saying about me as they profile an entire group of females. I have new decisions to make about being 5'7 now and I probably won't try to change those opinions just so that I can be a model or flight attendant, I would focus on who I am, what I have to offer an environment that will appreciate me for who I am. Heck with the rest. jmpo

Well yeah, I think it's perfectly normal to be concerned about people spreading opinions when those opinions cause real world hate and violence/harm.

 

[SoS]

Well yeah, I think it's perfectly normal to be concerned about people spreading opinions when those opinions cause real world hate and violence/harm.

This is where I get lost as it seems you may be saying that because Candace Owens said....that's why people hate and harm. I suggest those people are acting out of who they are. Those people may feel supported in their heinious acts but its still on them.

If we use opinions about MJ as an example, I can see why you say opinions of 'influencers' can cause others to think a certain way, and even with MJ I believe that people don't see things as they are but rather as THEY are, ie., Dan Reed, who in my mind is more than likely the very things he's trying so hard to prove about MJ which is why it will fail but people who already think that about MJ will think that regardless.

By the same token I believe that people who already feel the way they do about LGBQT may feel supported by others' opinions but I doubt they 'cause' it. People think what they already want to think.
OR,

if they are an open-minded, they will have sense enough to change their minds like it seems Candace is willing to do. It takes a tremendous amount of true humility to publicly learn as you go/grow.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

This is where I get lost as it seems you may be saying that because Candace Owens said....that's why people hate and harm. I suggest those people are acting out of who they are. Those people may feel supported in their heinious acts but its still on them.

If we use opinions about MJ as an example, I can see why you say opinions of 'influencers' can cause others to think a certain way, and even with MJ I believe that people don't see things as they are but rather as THEY are, ie., Dan Reed, who in my mind is more than likely the very things he's trying so hard to prove about MJ which is why it will fail but people who already think that about MJ will think that regardless.

By the same token I believe that people who already feel the way they do about LGBQT may feel supported by others' opinions but I doubt they 'cause' it. People think what they already want to think.

Spreading hate on a massive platform 100 percent makes people more comfortable doing it themselves and causes more real world violence and harm. I'm not understanding the separation you're trying to establish here between Candace and the people that agree with her, they are the same.

Her and others like her should not be absolved of the hatred and violence caused by ideas they try to instill into others as that is their intention.

 

[SoS]

Spreading hate on a massive platform 100 percent makes people more comfortable doing it themselves and causes more real world violence and harm. I'm not understanding the separation you're trying to establish here between Candace and the people that agree with her, they are the same.

Her and others like her should not be absolved of the hatred and violence caused by ideas they try to instill into others as that is their intention.

I think for me it goes back to what you said the first time, that I'm not familiar enough with her to know specifically from listening to her, what she said about LBGTQ and since I really don't give attention to what people think about LBGTQ hate I'm just saying, 'influence' it seems to me, is not so much a cause of the hate as it is a support of it just like how the world stood by and watched the cop choke the life out of George Floyd. Nobody's opinions about his drug use caused that. They have that opinion because of their hate, not the other way around.

Racists pundants who hate black people don't cause hate of black people, they support it. A person chooses love or hate from within their human spirit. That's why we can see a person being mistreated and respond from within ourselves as to how we feel about that. Some will be disgusted and some will see it as a license of support.

If I were a LBGTQ person I can't see why what Candace Owens or some 'pundent' thinks about it would cause anything other than to strengthen the opinions of others who think that way already or to embolden their actions just as the KKK were free to do to blacks in the racist South.

Now, with that said, I'd have to analyze, does it have the power to kill my friends or family legally such as with black people? That would be different.
If the U.S. Consititution deemed LBGTQs as 3/5 of a human being as it did blacks, that would be different.

If LBGTQs were flagrantly blantantly willfully and won-ton used as a symbol of injustice as blacks are, that would be different.

If they fed LBGTQ babies to allegators causing intrinsic generational trauma, that would be different.

I don't understand very much about the whole LBGTQ problem, and I admit I don't understand why LBGTQ brothers and sisters of the world care so much about everyone else's opinions of their personal choices, so I also don't understand why anyone who's not LBGTQ care so much about the life choices of LBGTQ either, unless it will make some kind of negative difference, of course.

It seems to me the LBGTQ community have established that they have a place in society and are just as worthy of human rights as anyone who is not LBGTQ.

Help me understand what it is you're after? For me to be PRO LBGTQ?
Why? If I agree that every human without exception are worthy of human rights, does that mean the society must be permeated with a LBGTQ value system overall? Is that what you're wanting? If so, WHY? How does it make the world more functional for everyone to share the LBGTQ value system?

If they are just as worthy of human rights as everyone, to me it means they have the absolute right to live............ and LET live. But I'm not sure "let live" is actually what they want. It seems they want to world to be LBGTQ?

For example, I saw where they think drag queens should entertain young children, which if you know or care anything about the development of young children, you'll know they don't function as well with ambiguity as they do with clarity. Some things they are not cognitively equipped to understand, which leads to confusion and young children deserve to live a life free of confusion.

Young children don't intrinsically have a frame of reference for "Queer" unless they're given one by a "Queer" early foundation, which the average child dos not, and I believe if I were a LBGTQ member, it would be irresponsible of me to disagree with that, just to exercise my rights as an adult LBGTQ person.

I'm old enough to drink red wine yet I don't think young children should be allowed to drink it, even if in some cultures they are allowed to, because the only house I'm concerned with is my own, no matter what anyone else is doing, or thinking or saying, fully expecting and realizing that everyone will not agree with me, but why would I care.

It may be an extreme opinion, but I believe that we live in a society now where "celebrity culture" has caused people to place so much attention on what other people say to the point of idolatry. If your maker is the one you are here to please then Candace Owens' opinions ultimate don't matter.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

You're acting like LGBTQ people aren't facing people who want to eliminate their existence. That's what people like Candace Owens want. They're quite clear on that. "Live and Let Live" with people who want you to not exist any more is ridiculous.

How can you say that LGBTQ people have a place in society whilst also asking why they want you to be pro LGBTQ?

I totally disagree that LGBTQ people want to make everyone like them, also ridiculous.

Also the whole children having no concept of queer thing implies there's something inherently negative about it to me. I'm not really sure what is being said with that.

 

[SoS]

You're acting like LGBTQ people aren't facing people who want to eliminate their existence. That's what people like Candace Owens want. They're quite clear on that. "Live and Let Live" with people who want you to not exist any more is ridiculous.

Also the whole children having no concept of queer thing implies there's something inherently negative about it to me. I'm not really sure what is being said with that.

No, I didn't know anyone was trying to eliminate your existence and sorry to hear it.

The essential definition of the word, "queer" is "weird"...just like the essential definition of the word "gay" is happy.

Little children process information through their emotions because they do not possess the cognitive understanding or vocabulary to process, "MasculineFemineMix" unless they have that in their home environment, so they will experience "Queer" as weird. "Weird" is a feeling. Children process through their feelings.

 

[TAW1979]

I'm in the UK. I have no idea who she is. I've heard of Tucker Carlson, never heard of this Candace person.


This. I've seen it often in the UK msm, journalists clearly believing LN to be all the 'proof' that could be needed.


It was good that Piers did this but he is a divisive figure and no-one who is left-leaning is going to listen to him bc it goes against their preferred stance on things. It was great that he questioned the premise of LN and he is high profile but I just don't know how many people would have really listened or been prompted to think about this a bit more deeply.


I've seen people dismiss John Ziegler's thoughts on LN. He's another one I don't know anything about. He comes across as a bit of a radio shock-jock (I might be wrong) but he seems to have done what a journalist should do and look at a serious claim more closely. A lot of people live in an echo chamber which doesn't help.


Oh, I'd forgotten about this. Thank you for posting, it's a really good piece of work, imo, and it was good to read it again. He asks great questions. Obvious questions, sure, but he states them so intelligently and articulately. I'm sure most LN supporters didn't even see this.

Well, Candace is the type to listen to the likes of Tucker Carlson and would absorb what he says no matter how wrong or hateful it is and would likely repeat them as if it's gospel.

Oh, I forgot about John Ziegler. He has right wing views too, but from observing my time on Twitter, he doesn't seem to be far-right. At least not while I was there. He seemed okay to me though.

I remember a little that Reed was on a French news show, and he got grilled there by the interviewers. I don't know what side they were on though.

 

[Whatever]

Saw this on twitter/x whatever people call it

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1766580888597401603

 

[zinniabooklover]

Well, Candace is the type to listen to the likes of Tucker Carlson [...]

That much is evident.

[...] I remember a little that Reed was on a French news show, and he got grilled there by the interviewers. I don't know what side they were on though.

That French panel was good. Quite rigourous. DR did not get an easy ride, imo.

 

[SoS]

That much is evident.


That French panel was good. Quite rigourous. DR did not get an easy ride, imo.

Good

 

[SoS]

Saw this on twitter/x whatever people call it

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1766580888597401603

Thanks for posting.

It has to have been difficult for MJ to be a lone black man in the hands of a mega corp. Even a good employee in a regular job has crapp to deal with.

I hope the Jewish people are not duped into thinking that MJ "hated" Jews just because he felt he could get through to Hitler and wake him up.

Michael saw Hitler as a misguided human, seeing every human as a human.

And I hope they understand "black lingo" when Michael says, "the jews are out to get me'', because its like when black people say, "white people" .. they don't mean everyone ever born under the category of "white'

they mean the ones that are effecting them in the moment, the situations ...etc.

And I hope everyone knows the black man in America from the beginning of the pilgrims arrival here, . . have sabotaged the black man, esp. w/ power.

I guess its obvious to most, just wanted to get it said because there may be some young or naive fans who swollow and dijest before they chew.

And are quick to toss away a whole person due to one discordant point or sound bite.