CANDACE OWENS Is Anything But Crazy

[00:00] I'm going to be as simple as I possibly

[00:02] can.

[00:04] If you think Candace Owens is crazy,

[00:06] you're crazy.

[00:08] They're doing everything today. Boy, I'm

[00:10] telling you, she's in a remote viewing.

[00:12] Operation Stargate, she's lost her mind.

[00:15] Time Traveler and Premonitions of Death.

[00:19] She's finally lost it. You're kidding

[00:21] me, right?

[00:23] You're you're you're you're kidding me.

[00:24] Tell me. Tell me you're kidding me.

[00:28] Because if you really want to understand

[00:29] what's happening right now, if you

[00:31] really want to get it,

[00:33] when people rush to microphones and

[00:36] keyboards and social media feeds all to

[00:41] declare that Candace Owens is crazy,

[00:44] cray cray, non-compassment meant, if you

[00:48] want to know what's going on, you have

[00:49] to zoom out and recognize a much older

[00:51] human pattern. And I'm going to tell

[00:54] you, [laughter]

[00:56] this is not about one comment or one

[00:58] theory or one uncomfortable question.

[01:00] You know that.

[01:02] It's about who gets to define what

[01:04] beliefs are in terms of socially

[01:07] acceptable. Who

[01:10] who draws the line?

[01:13] Who draws the line between respectable

[01:15] curiosity and imagination and

[01:18] alternative theories and hypotheses and

[01:20] forbidden speculation? and who acts as

[01:24] the cultural referee when someone steps

[01:26] outside the approved narrative. Oh,

[01:28] that's crazy.

[01:31] I want to say something right now and I

[01:33] want to say this right off upfront and I

[01:35] want to be as polite as I possibly can.

[01:39] I'm irreligious. I'm not an atheist. I'm

[01:43] not an agnostic. I'm irreligious. It's

[01:46] like I don't speak French. You know,

[01:49] nothing against French. I don't

[01:50] understand it because I just don't speak

[01:51] it. I I I don't understand it. I have no

[01:54] thoughts about the French and I have no

[01:55] thoughts about this. But I will tell you

[01:56] this.

[01:58] I have heard people from various faiths

[02:00] tell me things that they believe

[02:01] absolutely positively apodictically.

[02:05] And I think it is I don't think it's

[02:07] insane, but I think you've got a lot of

[02:09] nerve thinking that Candace Owens is

[02:12] crazy because she mentions remote

[02:14] viewing, which I'll get to in a moment.

[02:17] You see, the reaction to this itself

[02:19] tells you everything. everything you

[02:21] need to know and tell you far more than

[02:23] the original statement ever could. You

[02:25] know, I think you'll know this

[02:27] throughout your life. You've heard that

[02:30] you've heard people from different

[02:31] religions and cultures and spiritual

[02:34] traditions express beliefs that that may

[02:36] sound strange or may sound exaggerated

[02:39] or even preposterous.

[02:41] Most reasonable adults do not

[02:43] immediately label those individuals as

[02:45] insane or clinically nuts. They may

[02:48] disagree. They may quietly dismiss the

[02:50] claims, but they understand the

[02:54] difference between between holding

[02:57] unconventional beliefs

[03:00] and being mentally unstable.

[03:03] And that distinction disappears the

[03:05] moment a politically inconvenient voice

[03:09] steps into questions of meaning and

[03:12] destiny or spiritual purpose.

[03:15] Candace Owens entered that forbidden

[03:17] zone. Not by declaring herself a prophet

[03:21] or building a cult, but by openly

[03:23] acknowledging that human experience may

[03:27] not be limited to spreadsheets or

[03:31] polling data and bureaucratic

[03:33] definitions of reality. The backlash was

[03:36] instant. Headlines appeared, clips

[03:38] circulated,

[03:40] performative kabuki outrage

[03:42] choreographed was beautiful. The goal

[03:45] was not debate. The goal was

[03:47] reputational containment. We've got her

[03:49] now. She's finally gone too far. Battle

[03:52] stations.

[03:54] We got her. She's nuts. And there's a

[03:57] reason this tactic works. Theor

[03:59] theoretically, social labeling triggers

[04:02] fear. And nobody wants to be isolated.

[04:04] And nobody wants to be cast outside the

[04:06] circle of acceptable opinion. So crowds

[04:09] rush to repeat the approved verdict. And

[04:12] this is crowd psychology in action, not

[04:16] science defending itself. And oh no, no,

[04:18] no, no, no. Now consider the irony of

[04:21] this. Curiosity about the unknown is not

[04:24] fringe. It is ancient. It's human.

[04:28] Governments have funded it. Militaries

[04:30] have studied it. Universities have

[04:33] explored it. You find it fascinating. I

[04:36] find it fascinating. Intelligence

[04:37] agencies have documented it forever. And

[04:41] one of the clearest examples is the

[04:44] United States government's Stargate

[04:47] Project. That's right. This classified

[04:51] program ran from 77 to 95 under CIA and

[04:55] DIA oversight. And it investigated

[04:58] whether trained individuals could use a

[05:01] disciplined mental process known as

[05:06] remote viewing to perceive distant

[05:09] locations and people or events all for

[05:13] intelligence purposes. And this was not

[05:15] pop culture entertainment. Oh no, no,

[05:17] no. It involved scientists and military

[05:19] personnel [snorts]

[05:21] and civilian specialists working under

[05:23] formal protocols. This was very

[05:25] scientific, very legitimate. Remote

[05:28] viewing was treated as a structured

[05:31] methodology

[05:33] and participants entered controlled

[05:36] meditative states and were given

[05:39] coordinates or sealed targets they had

[05:41] never seen before and their task was to

[05:45] describe or sketch impressions

[05:47] associated with those targets. In

[05:50] theory, it functioned as a form of of

[05:54] human reconnaissance. Recon figures such

[05:58] as Ingo Swan helped develop the

[06:01] foundational protocols. I love this

[06:03] stuff. Soldiers and civilian contractors

[06:06] were trained and tested repeatedly under

[06:10] laboratory and field conditions.

[06:14] You didn't know this? Of course you did.

[06:16] Project Stargate emerged partly from

[06:18] cold war competition.

[06:21] American intelligence agencies were very

[06:23] concerned, very worried, by the way,

[06:25] about reports that the Soviet Union was

[06:28] exploring similar psychic research

[06:30] programs. In response, multiple code

[06:34] named initiatives such as Grill Flame,

[06:38] Sun Streak, and Center Lane were all

[06:42] consolidated into Stargate. And the

[06:46] goals were ambitious. Locate hostages,

[06:49] identify foreign installations, gather

[06:52] intelligence inaccessible

[06:54] to, I guess, conventional surveillance.

[06:58] That was the goal. Wasn't crazy. It was

[07:01] real. And the results were mixed. Some

[07:04] sessions produce intriguing data and

[07:07] occasional correlations. Others failed

[07:09] to generate usable

[07:13] um replicatable

[07:15] uh operational intel and ultimately the

[07:17] project was was closed in 1995 after

[07:21] official reviews concluded that the

[07:24] results were inconsistent and unreliable

[07:27] for battlefield application. But the

[07:30] central point remains the program

[07:32] existed and operated for nearly two

[07:35] decades. crazy.

[07:38] Thousands of pages of documentation were

[07:41] produced and later declassified. That

[07:44] fact alone undermines the claim that

[07:47] that curiosity about consciousness

[07:49] automatically equals insanity. But you

[07:53] knew this. I know that. And Candace

[07:55] knows this. And at the same time,

[07:57] quantum physics continues to challenge

[08:00] traditional assumptions about reality.

[08:02] At the smallest scale,

[08:05] matter behaves less like solid objects

[08:08] and more like probability waves. This

[08:11] stuff gets weird.

[08:13] Observation alters outcomes.

[08:15] Entanglement links distant particles

[08:18] instantly. Even mainstream physicists

[08:22] acknowledge that the deeper they go, the

[08:25] stranger reality becomes.

[08:28] And they're not crazy.

[08:30] Some researchers have explored whether

[08:33] whether consciousness itself

[08:36] may interact with quantum processes

[08:39] inside the brain not as mysticism but as

[08:43] theoretical science. This leads directly

[08:45] to a question most people avoid.

[08:49] What happens when we reach the end of

[08:52] life? Is there anything beyond that?

[08:55] Every individual carries personal

[08:56] beliefs, fears or assumptions about this

[08:59] transition.

[09:01] Some approach it through religion,

[09:03] others through philosophy,

[09:06] others through strict materialism

[09:09] and anxiety and fear are common

[09:11] reactions to the thought of

[09:13] non-existence.

[09:14] Who can blame them? And much of that

[09:17] fear is driven by misunderstanding and

[09:19] cultural conditioning.

[09:22] Eastern traditions describe what vdadic

[09:26] science calls inertia or dull mind. This

[09:31] refers to a mental state that resists

[09:33] deeper inquiry and defaults to surface

[09:36] level interpretation.

[09:38] When people refuse to examine

[09:40] consciousness beyond physical form, they

[09:44] limit themselves to only a fraction of

[09:48] what may exist.

[09:50] of what may exist beneath observable

[09:52] reality. And modern society is dominated

[09:56] by empirical evidence.

[09:59] Empirical evidence that is not

[10:01] inherently wrong. Evidence-based inquiry

[10:04] has produced extraordinary advancement.

[10:08] But

[10:10] it has also created a habit of

[10:11] dismissing. Dismissing anything not

[10:14] immediately measurable as fantasy.

[10:18] Spiritual curiosity is labeled quackery.

[10:22] Abstract economic theories and

[10:24] ideological narratives, however, are

[10:26] treated as unquestionable truth. And

[10:30] this double standard weird it reveals

[10:33] cultural bias, not objectivity.

[10:37] Quantum physics offers an interesting

[10:40] bridge between material science and

[10:44] deeper questions of consciousness. At

[10:47] the most fundamental scale,

[10:50] reality consists of energy and waves

[10:52] derived from lightbased structures.

[10:55] Einstein demonstrated that matter and

[10:58] energy are interchangeable.

[11:01] Everything in the universe, everything

[11:03] from galaxies to human bodies can be

[11:07] reduced to energetic components.

[11:12] See where I'm going? If consciousness

[11:15] operates through

[11:17] physical structures in the brain, then

[11:19] it must also interact with energetic

[11:21] systems beyond beyond simple mechanical

[11:25] explanation.

[11:27] Researchers such as Sir Roger Pinrose

[11:31] and Professor Stuart Hamarof

[11:35] have proposed that microtubules inside

[11:38] neurons, listen to this, may function as

[11:41] quantum information carriers. These

[11:44] protein structures appear capable of

[11:47] maintaining quantum states longer than

[11:51] once believed possible.

[11:54] Where am I going with this?

[11:56] In simple terms, the brain may operate

[11:59] as a biological quantum processor.

[12:02] Conscious awareness, memory, and

[12:05] perception may not be limited to

[12:07] chemical reactions alone. Now, this

[12:10] doesn't prove life after death, but it

[12:13] does challenge, I guess, the simplistic

[12:16] assumptions many of us have about where

[12:18] consciousness begins and ends.

[12:21] Still think Candace is crazy?

[12:24] Eastern sciences frame this differently.

[12:27] Consciousness is defined as awareness in

[12:29] totality

[12:31] and awareness includes perception and

[12:33] memory and emotional processing and

[12:35] integration of experience.

[12:40] Vic traditions describe energy fields

[12:43] surrounding the body often referred to

[12:45] as bof fields. According to this

[12:48] framework, humans continuously transmit

[12:50] energy into what is called universal

[12:54] universal source consciousness.

[12:59] And these theories also describe

[13:01] chakras. You've heard this as energy

[13:03] centers aligned along the spine. Each

[13:07] center corresponds to different

[13:09] emotional and psychological functions.

[13:13] When energy flows freely, individuals

[13:16] report greater clarity and intuition.

[13:19] When blocked, distress and imbalance

[13:23] follow. Practices such as meditation and

[13:26] breath work and yoga all aim to regulate

[13:29] these systems through what amounts to a

[13:32] disciplined awareness. See where I'm

[13:34] going with this? Still think she's

[13:36] crazy? And at the base of the spine lies

[13:39] the eastern traditions called

[13:42] condundalini energy. I went to school

[13:44] with her cousin. When activated through

[13:47] spiritual practice, this energy is said

[13:50] to rise through the chakra system and

[13:52] produce experiences of unity and

[13:55] expanded awareness.

[13:57] People report calm, heightened intuition

[14:01] and a sense a sense of connection

[14:04] between the individual self and the

[14:06] universe.

[14:08] This brings us back to the end of life

[14:11] and the end of life question. Both

[14:13] western physics and eastern philosophy

[14:16] agree on one fundamental principle.

[14:20] Energy does not disappear. It

[14:22] transforms. It transmutes. It

[14:24] transmogrifies. If consciousness is

[14:27] linked to energy systems within the

[14:29] brain,

[14:31] then the assumption that awareness

[14:32] simply vanishes becomes less certain.

[14:37] From this perspective, death, as in

[14:39] Charlie's death, is not annihilation. It

[14:41] is transition. A movement from a

[14:45] physical form into another state of

[14:47] existence, however one defines it.

[14:52] You see where I'm going with this? You

[14:54] see where I'm going? This unsettles

[14:57] materialist culture because it

[14:59] undermines centralized control

[15:01] narratives. And that's why the stuff

[15:02] that Candace is saying, it drives people

[15:04] crazy. If existence extends beyond

[15:07] institutions and bureaucratic authority,

[15:09] then human life carries meaning beyond

[15:12] political circles and economic metrics

[15:14] and that idea scares the out of

[15:16] people and it threatens systems built on

[15:19] predictability and compliance. So

[15:23] when Candace Owen speaks about destiny

[15:26] or meaning or spiritual framing or

[15:29] walking or dreams or having been put on

[15:32] this earth and followed and cultivated

[15:36] and cultured and groomed and raised and

[15:39] trained, she's not representing some

[15:41] laboratory proof, but she's expressing

[15:43] something deeply human. People want

[15:46] their lives to matter beyond algorithmic

[15:50] engagement metrics or whatever the hell

[15:52] you want to call it and some kind of

[15:53] corporate messaging. And that instinct

[15:55] cannot be erased with ridicule. In fact,

[15:58] the more you ridicule her, the more

[16:00] people listen to her. Notice the

[16:02] selective outrage. When celebrities

[16:04] promote astrology or manifestation

[16:07] rituals or media outlets treat it as

[16:10] harmless lifestyle content, crystals and

[16:13] whatever it is. When billionaires

[16:15] speculate about simulation theory, it

[16:18] becomes some kind of intellectual

[16:19] entertainment. But when Hollywood

[16:21] packages spiritual wellness becomes

[16:25] profitable,

[16:26] great, great branding. But when a

[16:29] conservative political woman and her

[16:31] voice references meaning beyond

[16:34] materialism, the outrage machine

[16:36] activates because she's crazy, that

[16:38] reveals the real motivation.

[16:41] Ideological gatekeeping. Crowd

[16:43] psychology. I hope you saw my first

[16:45] video of the today about Gustav Leone.

[16:47] Crowd psychology explains the reaction.

[16:49] And labeling some labeling someone

[16:51] unstable and crazy signals social danger

[16:54] and it pressures conformity. It

[16:56] discourages independent thought. At

[16:57] least it tries to. And it protects

[17:00] centralized messaging systems. The

[17:03] louder the outrage becomes, the more it

[17:06] exposes insecurity among those who rely

[17:09] on

[17:11] some kind of narrative discipline, all

[17:14] to maintain influence. Candace Owens is

[17:16] not insane. She's disruptive. She's

[17:19] dangerous. She's provocative. She's

[17:21] unwilling to to to stay inside tightly

[17:24] managed ideological lanes. And that

[17:26] makes her threatening.

[17:28] That makes her threatening to those who

[17:30] profit from predictable public behavior.

[17:32] and the only thing they have is a caller

[17:33] crazy. Many who ridicule spiritual

[17:36] curiosity simultaneously hold abstract

[17:39] beliefs with no empirical certainty.

[17:42] They trust institutions and intuitions

[17:45] with long records of misinformation.

[17:47] They accept political narratives later

[17:50] uh later prove it to be false or

[17:51] incorrect. But those beliefs those

[17:54] beliefs are socially approved. They're

[17:56] acceptable. So they feel safe. The

[17:58] outrage is not about truth. It's about

[18:00] permission. And this moment matters

[18:02] because it exposes my friend how fragile

[18:06] modern authority has become so nuts. And

[18:10] when people stop trusting gatekeepers,

[18:12] gatekeepers panic. And when citizens ask

[18:14] deeper questions about meaning and

[18:16] what's it all about, Alfie and

[18:18] consciousness and all that, the system

[18:20] responds with with social shame. And

[18:24] that tactic, that very tactic, that

[18:26] methodology belongs to insecure systems,

[18:28] not confidence ones. Candace Owens is

[18:31] not a nut. She is participating in

[18:33] something better. She's participating in

[18:35] a tradition as old as civilization

[18:37] itself. Humans question reality. They

[18:41] seek purpose. They challenge authority.

[18:44] And whether one agrees with her

[18:46] personally, it's no big deal. That's

[18:48] irrelevant. What matters? What matters

[18:51] is that the reaction reveals how tightly

[18:54] controlled public discourse has become

[18:57] and how quickly independent voices are

[19:00] targeted. The real phenomenon

[19:04] is not remote viewing or quantum

[19:06] speculation or spiritual inquiry or past

[19:10] lives. The real phenomenon is watching

[19:13] modern media attempt to police

[19:14] curiosity.

[19:16] That's the story unfolding in real time.

[19:18] And it tells you exactly who feels free

[19:20] thought and why. So, let me tell you

[19:23] something right now. Believe me when I

[19:25] say you something. I know a little bit

[19:26] about mental illness. I've seen it. I've

[19:28] seen it with clients. I've seen in the

[19:29] middle in the criminal justice system

[19:30] and it's sad. I've seen people

[19:32] especially in their 20s at the at the at

[19:34] the height of their at their success or

[19:36] the trajectory to life and families and

[19:38] a new career and all of a sudden they

[19:40] have a a psychotic episode and it's

[19:43] schizophrenia time and they're never the

[19:45] same. to call somebody crazy. No, it's

[19:47] not fair. It's it's it's horrible. It's

[19:50] the ultimate in attempted gaslighting.

[19:52] Don't let it happen.

[19:56] Disprove her. Tell me what Candace Owens

[19:59] has said that's wrong.

[20:01] Don't call her crazy. If she's crazy,

[20:04] would that we were all that crazy.

[20:07] So, thank you. Thank you for your kind

[20:10] words.

[20:12] Please, my friend, like this video. Hit

[20:14] that little bell so you're notified of

[20:16] live streams and new videos. Make sure

[20:18] you

[20:20] make sure you subscribe. 70 something

[20:22] percent of the people who watch our

[20:23] videos don't even subscribe. And I've

[20:25] got some questions for you. Please weigh

[20:27] in. Weigh in. I want to hear what you

[20:29] think. Is Candace crazy? You think she's

[20:33] nuts?

[20:35] Who is it? Nick Fenty says she's crazy.

[20:37] People said Nick Fenty's is crazy. He

[20:39] said Alex Jones is crazy. Everybody's

[20:41] crazy. I don't think they're crazy.

[20:44] I think they're different and I like

[20:46] that. Now, comment as you see fit.