Candace Owens Dismantles Socialist Protester's Claim That Conservatives Control the Media and Police
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Charlie Kirk Dismantles the Jesus Was a Socialist Myth with Biblical Evidence
2:18
Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens Launch Turning Point UK Amid Protesters and Free Speech Crisis
1:51:23
Charlie Kirk Debates Socialism Student: Who Did Mark Zuckerberg Exploit When He Made Facebook?
3:40
Candace Owens Dismantles Socialist Protester's Claim That Conservatives Control the Media and Police
Candace Owens confronts a self-described anarchist who claims conservatives don't protest because they already control the police, military, and media. The heated exchange escalates when the protester becomes physically aggressive, prompting Owens to defend her working-class background and challenge the notion that conservatism is an ideology of the rich. She argues that conservatives don't riot because they have jobs, not because they hold power, and condemns socialism as the creed of envy.
A tense exchange unfolds between Candace Owens and a self-identified anarchist protester who challenges conservative principles on limited government and social activism. The protester makes the claim that there is no conservative equivalent to Antifa because conservatives don't need to protest—they already hold the levers of power. According to the protester, conservatives own the police, the army, and the media, making street demonstrations unnecessary.
Owens immediately pushes back against this characterization, questioning whether the protester has read any media coverage of Turning Point UK. She points out that if conservatives truly controlled the media, the coverage of Turning Point would be far more favorable. The protester's own argument, she suggests, contradicts itself: if reading articles means ruling the media, then the protester himself would be part of the ruling class.
Rejecting Class Stereotypes
The conversation takes a personal turn when Owens addresses what she calls a "lazy intellectual argument" that paints all conservatives as wealthy elites. She refuses to accept the premise that conservatism is merely the ideology of the rich and powerful. Drawing from her own life experience, Owens emphasizes that she came from nothing and built her platform through hard work, not inherited wealth or privilege.
She challenges the protester to come up with a more substantive argument about why conservatives don't engage in violent protests and street demonstrations. The real answer, according to Owens, is simple: conservatives have jobs. They believe in working within the system rather than disrupting it. This isn't about controlling power structures—it's about valuing productivity over performative activism.
The Protester Doubles Down
The protester attempts to clarify his position, insisting he isn't stereotyping conservatives as rich white people but rather as subscribers to an ideology that serves corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the poor. He argues that whether someone is personally rich or poor is irrelevant if they support a system that benefits the powerful.
When Owens shares that she came from nothing, the protester offers brief congratulations but quickly pivots to discuss those left behind by society—the "losers" created by a free market system. He emphasizes his desire to "raise his people" rather than just himself, framing his activism as a communal effort rather than individual ambition.
Owens Fires Back
Owens responds with sharp criticism, rejecting the protester's attempt to position himself as a noble advocate for the working class. She tells him he sounds pathetic and needs to get a job, mocking what she perceives as his self-important rhetoric. She questions whether he sees himself as a modern-day Martin Luther King, delivering speeches that will be remembered for generations.
The exchange becomes increasingly heated when the protester makes what appears to be a physical gesture or threat, prompting Owens to call out his behavior as violent and unhinged. She asks what kind of example he's setting for his community by acting aggressively and making threatening statements.
Socialism as the Creed of Envy
Owens concludes her remarks by diagnosing what she sees as the true motivation behind leftist activism: envy. She argues that leftists are fundamentally envious of people who work harder than they do, and that this envy drives their political ideology. In her view, socialism is not about lifting up the poor or creating equality—it's about tearing down those who have achieved success through their own efforts.
The accusation of envy and greed becomes the final blow in an exchange that highlights the deep ideological divide between conservatives who champion individual responsibility and free markets, and leftists who advocate for collective action and systemic change. Throughout the confrontation, Owens maintains that her conservatism is rooted in personal experience and a belief that anyone can succeed in a free society, regardless of their starting point.
