November 26, 2025 • 31 mins
Right-wing YouTube star Candace Owens just made a bombshell accusation. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, left-wing streaming star Hasan Piker gets a brutal reality check during an interview.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Right wing influencer Candice Owens cause a frenzy online when
she claims she is the target of an assassination plot
from French President Emmanuel Macron.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Just when you think the Candace Owens story can't get crazier,
she somehow finds a way. We're going to break this down,
plus so much more in today's episode of The Barad
Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where I take on
(00:29):
all the craziest ideas from across social media and the Internet,
all from an independent political perspective. And up first, guys,
we have got to talk about YouTube and podcasting star
Candace Owens, because listen, Do I think she's a reliable
or trustworthy No? Do I think she has some extreme takes?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Do I think she's kind of crazy?
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Do I find her incredibly entertaining? And do I love
a messy woman? Also? Yes? So we are going to
react to her latest bombshell claims, which, if true, would
be really really concerning and terrible. But that's probably like
the biggest, if true, connotation I have ever attached to
(01:14):
a sentence, because these are pretty fantastical and outlandish claims
and she has yet to provide any real evidence. But Candace,
the context that you need to know about here is
that she's had this long running feud with the leaders
of France, the Prime Minister I believe, Emmanuel Macron and
then his wife Bridget Macrone, who Candace alleges is born
(01:36):
male and secretly transgender. I personally have just never really
cared very much. I don't care about France, and I
don't really care if Bridget Macron is a guy or not.
But anyway, she's had this beef with them. They sued
her for defamation, and now she is saying that they
put out a hit on her and claiming that they
(01:57):
paid for an assassination to be done again. I'm serious.
Things are heating up, and she's now reported this very
real thing that totally happened directly to the Trump administration.
Here's some reporting from The Hill on the latest developments.
Then we'll take a look at some of Candace's tweets.
Let's watch.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Right wing influencer Canis Owans caused a frenzy online when
she claims she is the target of an assassination plot
from French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
In a lengthy post on x She says she was
informed of the plot by a high ranking employee of
the French government and goes on to say, in part quote,
after determining this person's position and proximity to the French couple,
I have deemed the information they gave me to be
credible enough to share publicly that in the event that
something happens. In short, this person claims that the Macrons
(02:47):
have executed upon and paid for my assassination.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
So far, we've got the proof, being an anonymous source
that told her so, and she says the information is
credible enough that she could release a public but not
unless something happens to her, which is like, well, then
why can't you release it now? The information the receipts
the proof because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as
we will get into this is an extraordinary, extraordinary accusation
(03:17):
and claim that candas Owens is making here. But let's
keep listening further.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
To this point, this person claims that Charlie Kirk's assassination
trained with the French Legion thirteenth Brigade with multi state involvement.
The Head of State of France apparently wants us both
it and has authorized professional units to carry this out.
Always has a history of hostility with the men.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
I'm sorry, I'm just laughing at the Robbie Suave, the
host for the Hill, who I like, we're friendly. Just
trying not to laugh at this, because listen, it is
outlandish that Candas has accused everyone from Turning Point USA
to various pastors, to the Trumpet administration in cash battel,
(04:02):
to Israel to now apparently France, all of being involved
in Charlie Kirk's death, most of which there's no evidence for. Certainly,
any French involvement is totally totally without evidence or proof
at all of any involvement. But maybe she'll drop some
I don't hold your breath, you might pass out anyway,
Let's watch the rest of us.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
With the Macrons, most notably, they filed a defamation lawsuit
against Owens earlier this year when she claimed that the
first Lady of France was born a man.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Owens reiterated her claims about the assassination plot on Sunday,
saying that the Macrones have allegedly paid one and a
half million dollars for it doesn't sound like enough money
to pay for an assassination in my view, but many
people on social media were highly skeptical, with some even
expressing concerns for her mental health.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Yeah, count me among those increasingly concerned for Candace and
her mental health because it is giving delusions to me.
I mean, of course, I'll leave space for the like
two percent chance that this is true and actually happen,
in which case it would be horrific. I don't want
any harm to come to Candace. And if a foreign
(05:10):
leader really did plot to kill an American commentator, that
would be a true international scandal and a really grotesque
insult and affront to our country that would warrant a
serious response. But I'm pretty confident that's not what's happening here.
I mean, there's just so much about this that doesn't
add up. I mean, she says she can share the
(05:32):
credible information if something happens, why not share it now? Candace, Seriously,
if you're going to drop this bombshell allegations, why not
provide your receipts? You could say, oh, well, she wants
to keep her source protected, But then she wouldn't have
said anything at all the person who's coming to her,
because now as soon as she says, I have a
high level source in the French government. They're going to
go crack down and find out if the source exists,
(05:54):
if the source is in the room with us. Now
i'll explain my theory. I don't think Candace is lying.
I think she's probably being deceived. But I will get
into that in a few minutes. But I'll say, like
the fact that you even came out with this and
mention this is already going to prompt a search inside
the Macrones and their government for who this source is.
If the source is actually part of their government, which
(06:14):
I doubt. But yeah, there's no documents, there's no receipts,
there's no proof here, and this is an extraordinary claim,
so you need to have some real proof before anyone
should believe it. Now. What I will also say is
that it doesn't make a ton of sense, even on
its face, as to why the Macrones would ever take
such a drastic step like trying to assassinate Candice Owans.
(06:37):
So you could say, oh, well, because Candace exposed the
truth about Brigitat, and let's say for the sake of
argument that that is true, why would assassinating her help?
Nobody logical could think that Candice Owans dying would make
the Becoming Brigitat series go away. If anything, it would
probably make it bigger. It wouldn't make this accusation go away,
(07:01):
and in fact, the Macrones are suing her, so they
probably want their day in court. The idea that they
would kill her, and that the insane risk of that
because if that got out, if they were caught doing that,
that would be such an international scandal and would earn
them such a huge rebuke in consequences from the US
government that it would be worth it to even attempt
(07:22):
such a thing, just in what like, to retaliate against
somebody who spread an allegation about them that was really
upsetting to them. I mean, the allegation's not going away,
The documentary wouldn't go away, and it might even make
it bigger. It makes no sense that they would actually
go there because the reward or satisfaction of like taking
(07:43):
out Candace Owens would be so minimal compared to the massive,
massive risk they would be taking with the entire nation
that they represent. And why exactly would they even want
Charlie Kirk dead. I mean, I know that he was
critical of a manual Macron over the years to some extent,
(08:04):
but it's not like it was a main topic for him.
It's not like he was regularly covering and talking about
France and Macrone. And there's hundreds of prominent commentators who've
made similar criticisms of Macrone. It just it doesn't make sense.
Of course, as you'll see, she tries to connect it
to Israel, and if it were true, obviously it would
(08:24):
be horrible. Like I said, I don't want any harm
to come to candas I think she needs help at
this point, and I just want people to stop trusting
her as a source for information and never saying ever,
I guess, but I think with ninety nine percent certainty,
I can say that this is this did not happen.
That's my hunch and my theory at least now. I
don't think Candace is lying. I don't think she is
(08:46):
making this up. I don't think she would do that. However,
my theory, and you guys let me know what you
think in the comments. Blow make sure subscribed and like
as well as we go along here. But my theory
is that Candace won contact it by somebody who claims
to be a high level inside source in the French
government and is telling her this information. But it's not true.
(09:10):
That person is not actually an inside French official and
the plot didn't actually happen. This person is either crazy
or is duping her, is trolling her. We have seen
that she humiliates herself by spreading a fake thing, and
that they have convinced her. Oh, I really am a
French insider with some piece of information that actually doesn't
(09:32):
check out, but she has fallen for because Candice can
be very gullible. She's fallen for many false bits of
information or hoaxes before. She's misinterpreted data and facts and
documents too many times to count, So I think that's
what's most likely happening here. I struggle to believe that
she would make this up out of whole cloth and
(09:53):
knowingly lie. I don't think she would do that. I
think she is being duped and setting herself up for
a humilion when nothing comes of this. Now here's a
tweet from Canvas that she put out that I also
have some further questions about. She wrote, My show will
be off air this week. As an update, both the
White House and our counter terrorism agencies have confirmed receipt
(10:15):
of what I reported publicly Emmanuel Macrone attempted to organize
my assassination, per a source close to the first couple. Also,
I will again state that the French legionnaires were involved
in Charlie Kirk's assassination, but they did not act alone.
For all of you who doubted my claims, you can
now look to the President of the United States and
(10:36):
our intelligence communities to issue a statement to confirm whether
I am telling the truth. Now, these tweets have gone megaviral.
This one I just read to you has thirteen million views.
And whether you like it or not, Candace Owens is
a massive media figure, so it's a big deal that
she's making these accusations. And the accusations alone are a
(10:57):
newsworthy event and frankly kind of a international incident. Just
the accusation itself is already going to be like a
significant diplomatic development that the drump administration will have to
at least process or figure out how it's going to
respond to as far as their relationship with the French
government is concerned. But I already have so many questions
(11:17):
from this tweet. For one, why is the show going
off air? What are you going to be doing all
week right that, like, you're not going to broadcast and
speak about this. If you can tweet about it, why
can't you get on camera and talk about it. That
doesn't really add up to me, And neither does the
idea that she would be so shaken by this that
(11:38):
she thinks that, oh, like she needs time off or
anything like that, because she's been saying that people might
try to kill her, that they want her to add
all sorts of things. So while I can understand that
thinking this or receiving this tip, if it was a
tip from a hoax or even would be scary, she
has shown in the past when things happen involving her
(12:00):
real willingness to get on camera and discuss them. I
don't understand why this would be different. And a lot
of people are misunderstanding something important. When Candace says that
the intelligence agencies and the Trump administration have confirmed the
receipt of her accusations, some people are saying, wait, the
Trump administration confirmed this. No, no, no, no, no, they confirmed
(12:21):
receipt of her complaint. Like, I don't know exactly what
she did, but she contacted them, like, Okay, we have
received this and that's what they mean by confirm receipts.
So somebody wrote in a response to Candace that has
over a million views, Candace, receipts simply means someone opened
an email or logged an online report. It does not
(12:42):
confirm your claim, your source, or your interpretation. That is
not how intelligence cerification works. And you know it. If
the President of the United States or any counter terrorism
agency believed France had attempted to assassinate an American citizen,
the response would not be silenced from Washington and an
Instagram story from you. It would be a diplomatic crisis,
emergency briefings and an immediate press conference from the State Department.
(13:05):
And for the record, not a single reputable source, journalist, agency,
or government has corroborated even one detail of this story
you're repeating, not one. You can ask the government to
confirm it, but you know they will not because there
is nothing to confirm. Repeating it does not make it real,
and silence does not make it true. Now, Candice responded
(13:26):
to this person and said, why are you explaining English
to me like I'm not a native speaker. I said
what I meant, they confirmed receipt of my claims. Obviously,
they will have to investigate it and then inform the
public as to whether or not I'd made it up,
which I did not. Again, I think it's probably true
that she didn't make this up. That would just be
a truly, truly insane thing to do and a career,
(13:47):
just a risk your career. I mean, she has done
crazy stuff in the past, but that just feels it
feels like a bridge too far, even for her, and
I mean most people, even people who lied to their audience.
That's a pretty phrase big lie to stomach. And I'm
not so sure what she would gain out of it,
other than putting herself back in the spotlight, which she
does clearly love and crave. But yeah, I don't think
(14:10):
she's lying. I think she's being duped. I think the
tip here is probably a hoaxter or a crazy person,
and she's just running with it because that's what she does.
She often runs with crazy tips or things that aren't
true that people tip her off to. And I again
have to come back to this idea that she states
that French legionnaires were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
(14:31):
There's no evidence of that, Like, is there any proof?
And I can't even keep up with the claim she's
making about the Kirk killing. Now Israel was involved, now
Cash put Tel. Oh, and of course, by the way, guys,
she says in her original post about all this that
one of the people involved in the squad of French
hitman or whatever is Israeli. Because of course it has
(14:53):
to work that in. It's like this is too that
feels like a tell almost that this is a fake
someone made up. I don't know. But anyway, she suggested
Israel's involved in Charlie Kirk's death, Cash, Btel, Trump, TPUSA,
and now France. It's like I can't even track her
accusations at this point. And the other problem is how
(15:15):
she's setting this up is almost as an unfalsifiable premise. So,
for example, however the Trump administration responds to this to Candace,
it will be proof that she was right. So if
they remain silent and they don't respond to her complaint,
then their silence is deafening, guys, right, Like their silence
(15:38):
speaks volumes like that will be the narrative. Now, of course,
if they somehow did confirm her story and said, yes,
this is real, then I guess that would be the
one outcome where she comes out looking correct, and I
would come on here and eat my words and tell
you guys, I was wrong. This really did happen, and
holy crap, that's terrible. But I'm not actually particularly concerned
about that eventuality happening. But anyway, the other option is
(16:02):
that they come out and deny it and say that
we have no evidence of this, We've investigated this and
concluded there's nothing there, in which case she just talks
again about how they are corrupted and they're in on
it and they betrayed Charlie and see like this is
the deep stay or I must be onto something. When
they're saying there's nothing there, it really does become a
dangerously like unfalsifiable oh or it's impossible to improve wrong,
(16:25):
because no matter what happens, they will contort themselves into
viewing that as confirmation of their worldview. The confirmation bias
is so strong as to be almost impenetrable, And that's
what I think is most likely to play out here.
But I honestly think this saga is kind of sad.
I think Candice Owans genuinely needs help. I don't know.
(16:48):
I don't want to try to diagnose her or anything
like that. I'm not a medical professional, but the frequency
to which she is just losing touch with reality, insisting
on things that are obviously untrue, falling and twisting herself
into all sorts of conspiracies, while doing it all with
this feedback loop that just encourages it, encourages it, and
(17:10):
encourages her to go further and further. It's not healthy.
And I really do believe that she needs help and
that people need to stop turning to her as some
kind of source for information until she reconnects with reality.
But that's my take. You guys will have to let
me know what you think in the comments below. Make
sure you're subscribed if you aren't yet, do it the
(17:32):
like button while you're at it, and all of that.
Up next, guys, we are going to react to a
truly wild interview that the left wing streaming and YouTube
star Hassan Piker just did with the guys over at
Trigger Nometry, which I'm a fan of. I think they
do a great job. Francis and Constantin the two hosts
(17:53):
over there that podcast, he sat down with them. Hassan
sat down with them even though they are from a
very different kind of I do logical or political camp
and I give a Hassan credit for that. But the
interview did not go well for him. He seemed unprepared
and out of touch with reality and made some pretty
startling and stunning admissions. We're going to take a listen
(18:14):
to this clip and I will offer my thoughts spoiler alert.
I am not a fan of some of the statements
that he made, but let's, without further ado, let you
hear for yourselves.
Speaker 4 (18:24):
I don't believe that anyone is coming into the United
States of America or the UK as a matter of fact,
because they want to bring about a Salafis style Islamic
caliphate in London.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I know you won't agree with me on that.
Speaker 5 (18:37):
What about whether I agree, It's about whether the facts
agree with you.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
See, he kind of set himself up for failure here
by saying I don't think anyone is doing this. There
wouldn't be an entire narrative about people concerned about Muslim
immigration to Europe and other places. If nobody was coming
here with radical ideas, or coming here and committing attacks
or anything like that, We're going there rather, And so
I think he set himself up for the absolutely brutal
(19:04):
fact check he's about to get hit with by making
such an absolutist statement on something where I don't think
the better answer would be like that. Listen, I don't
I follow American politics more closely. I'm not quite sure
what's going on there, but I believe in freedom or religion,
and I think refugees should be welcome or whatever. But like,
don't make these absolutist claims. You are setting yourself up
(19:24):
when you're talking to somebody who knows a lot about
that issue to get kind of embarrassed, and that is
what happened next. I don't think that's hold on.
Speaker 5 (19:32):
I think let me just give you some facts. Then
if we have a terrorist attack on a monthly basis
by an isula mist effectively we just had two in
the space of the last month as we're recording this,
thirty three percent, I think of British Muslims, one Sharia
law on Britain. Like according to Paul's.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Why is he laughing at that? Like, isn't it funny
that a third of Muslims want an authoritarian, theocratic legal
system and force onto all of society. No, it's actually
not funny. Now, I don't think Hassan believes in shreal law.
I hack he's like a leftist on social issues. But
I guess maybe he just has a blind spot, or
(20:11):
he doesn't take that seriously. I don't know. But they're
putting polling on screen here that shows very clearly some
very illiberal and authoritarian sentiments among some of the Muslim
population in Britain. That of course does not apply to
all Muslims, and people should be judges individuals. But he's
(20:32):
acting like this is all just a right wing hoax
or something, and it's clearly not. And he's clearly also
out of his depth on this issue.
Speaker 5 (20:39):
More than half want to ban well we can put
them in for people to see. More than half want
to ban homosexuality, right, So when you say people aren't
coming in to introduce an Islam and stuff, well some
of them want to if they're in a position to
do so. We have five MPs or effectively elected on
a sectarian tickets, and we are Muslims. Vote for us
(21:01):
because you're a Muslim.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
Who would you say those imps are.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
The five independent MPs that call the Gaza MPs or
whatever way you want to call them.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Are you talking about like Zara Sultana.
Speaker 5 (21:11):
I don't know if she's one of them. I think
one of them is Calladinan who's signed that. There's five
of them. You can you can look them up. We
can put them in for people to sing. Right, So,
I think it should be said that the overwhelming majority
of British Muslims don't want to real law. But if
thirty three percent of them do, you can see why
a lot of people who don't want to real lad
might be concerned about.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
That, right, sure, I the sure, yeah, of course people
should be concerned by that. And it's not even about
the religion of the immigrants, it's the attitudes. I've always
thought that, while I'm somebody who's generally supportive of legal immigration,
you do have to make sure that people have compatible
(21:49):
values with your civilization and believe in things like freedom
of religion and freedom most speech, and that they want
to assimilate. And America has generally speaking done a better
job of that, but really struggled with that in much
of Europe. But I feel like Hassan just feels like
he can't say that because giving any acknowledging any truth
to like a right wing narrative about this issue is
(22:10):
like islamophobia or is not you know, progressive and welcoming
and I stand with immigrants. And you can kind of
see him just glitching in real time because he's being
presented with these facts that he would not encounter in
his usual echo chamber. And I really actually do give
him credit for doing these interviews because he doesn't really
have to, like he, if anything, would probably be doing
(22:33):
fine just not doing it. But he does put himself
out there. And sunlight can be the best disinfectant, and
it was a very sunny shot that day, so yeah,
maybe that's what's happening here. He's being disinfected by the sunlight.
And people can see that he actually doesn't know very
much and is very overconfident and seems to think he
(22:53):
has the whole world figured out while actually not grappling
with a lot of the nuances and complexities that gas
some conservatives and some right wing arguments might have some
truth to them. Sometimes now he tries to play a
little bit of what about ism next, Let's listen.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Don't I don't know what I haven't seen these bulls,
and I also don't know what British Muslims or the
thirty three percent that are saying that want sharia.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Law like what they're talking about.
Speaker 4 (23:23):
The counter example always is, I mean, there's plenty of
right wing forces in the country that also want to
ban homosexuality.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
So there's a couple of problems with this one. He's
kind of playing dumb when he says, so, I don't
know what they mean by sharia law. I think Muslims
who are asked about sharia law do know what that is,
and if they're saying they support it, probably have a
pretty good idea what that means. And it does mean theocracy,
it does mean repression, and it is of course incompatible
(23:51):
with Western civilization or liberal democracy, you know, things that
I guess. I don't know if it's not, as you'll see,
if he really even believes in those values, but he's
sometimes would pretend to, I guess, and then to compare
it to Christians like one. There is a difference between
immigrants who are coming into a country, which is what
constantint originally raised, and people who are already there because
(24:13):
they have a right to be there because they're citizens.
Whereas immigrants you do get to select whether to allow
them in or not, So it's kind of a disingenuous
comparison to begin with. But then also it's not. No,
I'm sorry, the attitudes of Muslim immigrants are different from
those of domestic Christians on many of these issues, and
it is not a reasonable comparison where apples to apples.
(24:36):
I don't believe that is significant anywhere near the same
percentages of Christians in America or in England would say
that they want to deprive women of rights in society
or make homosexuality illegal, or any of these things at
the same rates as again, not all, not even necessarily most,
but a significant portion of the Muslim populations. There us
(25:00):
realities that you have to grapple with. I'm just saying, no,
I haven't seen it. I don't even know what they mean.
It's like denial is not a strategy, dude, but he
is going in on it.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
And no, I'm oh, I mean or trans people in general, right,
Like there is not Okay, well that's not what I
have seen so far. But maybe I'm wrong on this,
but I mean, I feel like there's a lot of uh.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
This is a this is a.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
Point of contention for uh, for for you guys as well,
but it's like when you want to ban trans people
all together.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
He keeps saying that I don't know what does that
even mean, ban trans people all together? If I can't
change my sex on my passport to something, it's not
are trans people banned?
Speaker 4 (25:48):
Maybe, he explains, together when you want to.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Remove access to medication, Oh okay, Well, if what he
means is medically transitioning, I don't think the mainstream, respective
even among gender critical types or people who are pushing
back on the trans movement in America or the UK,
is that people shouldn't be allowed to take cross sex
(26:12):
hormones or alter their bodies. I think there's a couple.
The questions are about what spaces people can access and
about sex segregated spaces, and then the other question is
whether insurance should cover it or taxpayers should cover it.
But I'm not really aware of a significant push to
stop people from purchasing with their own money hormones and
(26:34):
taking them adults. That is, of course, minors is a
totally different issue. So it does kind of seem like
he is invoking a straw man here again to try
to downplay or deflect Constantine's original points about Islamic immigration.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
For trans people to transition and conform their own gender identity.
You don't start off by saying we want to all
together band transfaval. You start off by by trying to
find the most successful approach that the broadest majority of
the masses would be in tune with, would be in
agreement with, and then you slowly but surely expand on it.
Speaker 5 (27:12):
Wouldn't that be saying wouldn't that be like me saying, well,
you say you want socialism, but actually you're a communist
because you just want to edge your way towards communism
step by step.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
I mean that's not my way of looking.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
No, my retort that would be that while I don't
call myself a communist, I don't have an issue with
an end goal of communism.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
I don't think it's like.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
A I think I just think that it's probably not
likely to happen a stateless, moneyless, borderless society, but moving
towards that end goal, I don't have any real ad.
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Like communism in America.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
I think that communism would be most likely an international
thing and be like the Star Trek universe. And it feels,
especially at this point, it feels far too utopian to achieve.
So while I think that the concept in and of
itself is not one that I did disagree with, and
I don't think you would either. Don't you think it
would be nice?
Speaker 5 (28:04):
Yeah? We was.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Well, the USSR was, as you know, as well, trying
to implement communism. They never actually were able to successfully
implement communists guys.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
He actually hit us with the well, real communism hasn't
been tried. Yeah, well you could say the same thing
that pure free market capitalism hasn't been tried either. But
communism in practice versus liberal democracy, free societies, capitalism in practice,
I think I know which one I prefer. But more importantly,
(28:36):
I do find it remarkable how these the trigonometry guys,
they just they're not like the harshest interrupters, most hostile interviewers,
but they just give people an f rope and and
let them talk themselves and expose themselves. And Hasan really
did that right here by saying that he would be
totally I'd be down for communism. I just like socialism
(28:58):
because communism maybe is a little utopian, but uh yeah,
I like communist. That should be a disqualifying statement that
should be viewed with an equal level of disgust and
disdain as somebody saying I love Nazism because arguably communism
is responsible for more deaths than the Nazis and it
is just as evil in the totalitarian ideology. But here
(29:20):
you have one of the most prominent left wing influencers
in America saying he's totally down with it, and he
is influencing with his platform millions of young people all
the time to support those kinds of ideas or even
just normalize them, even just remove the stigma from them,
because somebody who they think is chill and funny and
cool likes communism, so it can't be that bad. Yeah,
(29:41):
that's actually incredibly toxic and dangerous. But unfortunately that kind
of is in keeping with all of his son Piker's
career advocacy and rhetoric. But other than that, he's doing
absolutely amazing. I would really encourage you guys to go
check out the full Triggeronometry episode with Hassan Piker, and
(30:03):
if your kids or if you tune in to him,
make sure you are doing so with a healthy dose
of skepticism for everything that he says, because he comes
from a radical place and doesn't know a whole lot.
That's my take at least that you guys will have
to let me know what you think in the comments
down below. Make sure subscribed, hit the leg button and
(30:23):
all of that, or YadA, YadA YadA, as I often say,
all right, guys, that will be it for today's episode
of the Bread Versus Everyone Podcast. Thanks so much for listening.
Do take a second to rate and review the show
on Apple, iHeart, Spotify, or wherever you listen to audio podcasts,
and consider recommending it to a friend. That's the number
(30:44):
one way that podcasts grow. With that, guys, hope you
all have a great Thanksgiving and we will talk again
next week.
Right wing influencer Candice Owens cause a frenzy online when
she claims she is the target of an assassination plot
from French President Emmanuel Macron.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Just when you think the Candace Owens story can't get crazier,
she somehow finds a way. We're going to break this down,
plus so much more in today's episode of The Barad
Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where I take on
(00:29):
all the craziest ideas from across social media and the Internet,
all from an independent political perspective. And up first, guys,
we have got to talk about YouTube and podcasting star
Candace Owens, because listen, Do I think she's a reliable
or trustworthy No? Do I think she has some extreme takes?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Do I think she's kind of crazy?
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Do I find her incredibly entertaining? And do I love
a messy woman? Also? Yes? So we are going to
react to her latest bombshell claims, which, if true, would
be really really concerning and terrible. But that's probably like
the biggest, if true, connotation I have ever attached to
(01:14):
a sentence, because these are pretty fantastical and outlandish claims
and she has yet to provide any real evidence. But Candace,
the context that you need to know about here is
that she's had this long running feud with the leaders
of France, the Prime Minister I believe, Emmanuel Macron and
then his wife Bridget Macrone, who Candace alleges is born
(01:36):
male and secretly transgender. I personally have just never really
cared very much. I don't care about France, and I
don't really care if Bridget Macron is a guy or not.
But anyway, she's had this beef with them. They sued
her for defamation, and now she is saying that they
put out a hit on her and claiming that they
(01:57):
paid for an assassination to be done again. I'm serious.
Things are heating up, and she's now reported this very
real thing that totally happened directly to the Trump administration.
Here's some reporting from The Hill on the latest developments.
Then we'll take a look at some of Candace's tweets.
Let's watch.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
Right wing influencer Canis Owans caused a frenzy online when
she claims she is the target of an assassination plot
from French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
In a lengthy post on x She says she was
informed of the plot by a high ranking employee of
the French government and goes on to say, in part quote,
after determining this person's position and proximity to the French couple,
I have deemed the information they gave me to be
credible enough to share publicly that in the event that
something happens. In short, this person claims that the Macrons
(02:47):
have executed upon and paid for my assassination.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
So far, we've got the proof, being an anonymous source
that told her so, and she says the information is
credible enough that she could release a public but not
unless something happens to her, which is like, well, then
why can't you release it now? The information the receipts
the proof because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as
we will get into this is an extraordinary, extraordinary accusation
(03:17):
and claim that candas Owens is making here. But let's
keep listening further.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
To this point, this person claims that Charlie Kirk's assassination
trained with the French Legion thirteenth Brigade with multi state involvement.
The Head of State of France apparently wants us both
it and has authorized professional units to carry this out.
Always has a history of hostility with the men.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
I'm sorry, I'm just laughing at the Robbie Suave, the
host for the Hill, who I like, we're friendly. Just
trying not to laugh at this, because listen, it is
outlandish that Candas has accused everyone from Turning Point USA
to various pastors, to the Trumpet administration in cash battel,
(04:02):
to Israel to now apparently France, all of being involved
in Charlie Kirk's death, most of which there's no evidence for. Certainly,
any French involvement is totally totally without evidence or proof
at all of any involvement. But maybe she'll drop some
I don't hold your breath, you might pass out anyway,
Let's watch the rest of us.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
With the Macrons, most notably, they filed a defamation lawsuit
against Owens earlier this year when she claimed that the
first Lady of France was born a man.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Owens reiterated her claims about the assassination plot on Sunday,
saying that the Macrones have allegedly paid one and a
half million dollars for it doesn't sound like enough money
to pay for an assassination in my view, but many
people on social media were highly skeptical, with some even
expressing concerns for her mental health.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Yeah, count me among those increasingly concerned for Candace and
her mental health because it is giving delusions to me.
I mean, of course, I'll leave space for the like
two percent chance that this is true and actually happen,
in which case it would be horrific. I don't want
any harm to come to Candace. And if a foreign
(05:10):
leader really did plot to kill an American commentator, that
would be a true international scandal and a really grotesque
insult and affront to our country that would warrant a
serious response. But I'm pretty confident that's not what's happening here.
I mean, there's just so much about this that doesn't
add up. I mean, she says she can share the
(05:32):
credible information if something happens, why not share it now? Candace, Seriously,
if you're going to drop this bombshell allegations, why not
provide your receipts? You could say, oh, well, she wants
to keep her source protected, But then she wouldn't have
said anything at all the person who's coming to her,
because now as soon as she says, I have a
high level source in the French government. They're going to
go crack down and find out if the source exists,
(05:54):
if the source is in the room with us. Now
i'll explain my theory. I don't think Candace is lying.
I think she's probably being deceived. But I will get
into that in a few minutes. But I'll say, like
the fact that you even came out with this and
mention this is already going to prompt a search inside
the Macrones and their government for who this source is.
If the source is actually part of their government, which
(06:14):
I doubt. But yeah, there's no documents, there's no receipts,
there's no proof here, and this is an extraordinary claim,
so you need to have some real proof before anyone
should believe it. Now. What I will also say is
that it doesn't make a ton of sense, even on
its face, as to why the Macrones would ever take
such a drastic step like trying to assassinate Candice Owans.
(06:37):
So you could say, oh, well, because Candace exposed the
truth about Brigitat, and let's say for the sake of
argument that that is true, why would assassinating her help?
Nobody logical could think that Candice Owans dying would make
the Becoming Brigitat series go away. If anything, it would
probably make it bigger. It wouldn't make this accusation go away,
(07:01):
and in fact, the Macrones are suing her, so they
probably want their day in court. The idea that they
would kill her, and that the insane risk of that
because if that got out, if they were caught doing that,
that would be such an international scandal and would earn
them such a huge rebuke in consequences from the US
government that it would be worth it to even attempt
(07:22):
such a thing, just in what like, to retaliate against
somebody who spread an allegation about them that was really
upsetting to them. I mean, the allegation's not going away,
The documentary wouldn't go away, and it might even make
it bigger. It makes no sense that they would actually
go there because the reward or satisfaction of like taking
(07:43):
out Candace Owens would be so minimal compared to the massive,
massive risk they would be taking with the entire nation
that they represent. And why exactly would they even want
Charlie Kirk dead. I mean, I know that he was
critical of a manual Macron over the years to some extent,
(08:04):
but it's not like it was a main topic for him.
It's not like he was regularly covering and talking about
France and Macrone. And there's hundreds of prominent commentators who've
made similar criticisms of Macrone. It just it doesn't make sense.
Of course, as you'll see, she tries to connect it
to Israel, and if it were true, obviously it would
(08:24):
be horrible. Like I said, I don't want any harm
to come to candas I think she needs help at
this point, and I just want people to stop trusting
her as a source for information and never saying ever,
I guess, but I think with ninety nine percent certainty,
I can say that this is this did not happen.
That's my hunch and my theory at least now. I
don't think Candace is lying. I don't think she is
(08:46):
making this up. I don't think she would do that. However,
my theory, and you guys let me know what you
think in the comments. Blow make sure subscribed and like
as well as we go along here. But my theory
is that Candace won contact it by somebody who claims
to be a high level inside source in the French
government and is telling her this information. But it's not true.
(09:10):
That person is not actually an inside French official and
the plot didn't actually happen. This person is either crazy
or is duping her, is trolling her. We have seen
that she humiliates herself by spreading a fake thing, and
that they have convinced her. Oh, I really am a
French insider with some piece of information that actually doesn't
(09:32):
check out, but she has fallen for because Candice can
be very gullible. She's fallen for many false bits of
information or hoaxes before. She's misinterpreted data and facts and
documents too many times to count, So I think that's
what's most likely happening here. I struggle to believe that
she would make this up out of whole cloth and
(09:53):
knowingly lie. I don't think she would do that. I
think she is being duped and setting herself up for
a humilion when nothing comes of this. Now here's a
tweet from Canvas that she put out that I also
have some further questions about. She wrote, My show will
be off air this week. As an update, both the
White House and our counter terrorism agencies have confirmed receipt
(10:15):
of what I reported publicly Emmanuel Macrone attempted to organize
my assassination, per a source close to the first couple. Also,
I will again state that the French legionnaires were involved
in Charlie Kirk's assassination, but they did not act alone.
For all of you who doubted my claims, you can
now look to the President of the United States and
(10:36):
our intelligence communities to issue a statement to confirm whether
I am telling the truth. Now, these tweets have gone megaviral.
This one I just read to you has thirteen million views.
And whether you like it or not, Candace Owens is
a massive media figure, so it's a big deal that
she's making these accusations. And the accusations alone are a
(10:57):
newsworthy event and frankly kind of a international incident. Just
the accusation itself is already going to be like a
significant diplomatic development that the drump administration will have to
at least process or figure out how it's going to
respond to as far as their relationship with the French
government is concerned. But I already have so many questions
(11:17):
from this tweet. For one, why is the show going
off air? What are you going to be doing all
week right that, like, you're not going to broadcast and
speak about this. If you can tweet about it, why
can't you get on camera and talk about it. That
doesn't really add up to me, And neither does the
idea that she would be so shaken by this that
(11:38):
she thinks that, oh, like she needs time off or
anything like that, because she's been saying that people might
try to kill her, that they want her to add
all sorts of things. So while I can understand that
thinking this or receiving this tip, if it was a
tip from a hoax or even would be scary, she
has shown in the past when things happen involving her
(12:00):
real willingness to get on camera and discuss them. I
don't understand why this would be different. And a lot
of people are misunderstanding something important. When Candace says that
the intelligence agencies and the Trump administration have confirmed the
receipt of her accusations, some people are saying, wait, the
Trump administration confirmed this. No, no, no, no, no, they confirmed
(12:21):
receipt of her complaint. Like, I don't know exactly what
she did, but she contacted them, like, Okay, we have
received this and that's what they mean by confirm receipts.
So somebody wrote in a response to Candace that has
over a million views, Candace, receipts simply means someone opened
an email or logged an online report. It does not
(12:42):
confirm your claim, your source, or your interpretation. That is
not how intelligence cerification works. And you know it. If
the President of the United States or any counter terrorism
agency believed France had attempted to assassinate an American citizen,
the response would not be silenced from Washington and an
Instagram story from you. It would be a diplomatic crisis,
emergency briefings and an immediate press conference from the State Department.
(13:05):
And for the record, not a single reputable source, journalist, agency,
or government has corroborated even one detail of this story
you're repeating, not one. You can ask the government to
confirm it, but you know they will not because there
is nothing to confirm. Repeating it does not make it real,
and silence does not make it true. Now, Candice responded
(13:26):
to this person and said, why are you explaining English
to me like I'm not a native speaker. I said
what I meant, they confirmed receipt of my claims. Obviously,
they will have to investigate it and then inform the
public as to whether or not I'd made it up,
which I did not. Again, I think it's probably true
that she didn't make this up. That would just be
a truly, truly insane thing to do and a career,
(13:47):
just a risk your career. I mean, she has done
crazy stuff in the past, but that just feels it
feels like a bridge too far, even for her, and
I mean most people, even people who lied to their audience.
That's a pretty phrase big lie to stomach. And I'm
not so sure what she would gain out of it,
other than putting herself back in the spotlight, which she
does clearly love and crave. But yeah, I don't think
(14:10):
she's lying. I think she's being duped. I think the
tip here is probably a hoaxter or a crazy person,
and she's just running with it because that's what she does.
She often runs with crazy tips or things that aren't
true that people tip her off to. And I again
have to come back to this idea that she states
that French legionnaires were involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
(14:31):
There's no evidence of that, Like, is there any proof?
And I can't even keep up with the claim she's
making about the Kirk killing. Now Israel was involved, now
Cash put Tel. Oh, and of course, by the way, guys,
she says in her original post about all this that
one of the people involved in the squad of French
hitman or whatever is Israeli. Because of course it has
(14:53):
to work that in. It's like this is too that
feels like a tell almost that this is a fake
someone made up. I don't know. But anyway, she suggested
Israel's involved in Charlie Kirk's death, Cash, Btel, Trump, TPUSA,
and now France. It's like I can't even track her
accusations at this point. And the other problem is how
(15:15):
she's setting this up is almost as an unfalsifiable premise. So,
for example, however the Trump administration responds to this to Candace,
it will be proof that she was right. So if
they remain silent and they don't respond to her complaint,
then their silence is deafening, guys, right, Like their silence
(15:38):
speaks volumes like that will be the narrative. Now, of course,
if they somehow did confirm her story and said, yes,
this is real, then I guess that would be the
one outcome where she comes out looking correct, and I
would come on here and eat my words and tell
you guys, I was wrong. This really did happen, and
holy crap, that's terrible. But I'm not actually particularly concerned
about that eventuality happening. But anyway, the other option is
(16:02):
that they come out and deny it and say that
we have no evidence of this, We've investigated this and
concluded there's nothing there, in which case she just talks
again about how they are corrupted and they're in on
it and they betrayed Charlie and see like this is
the deep stay or I must be onto something. When
they're saying there's nothing there, it really does become a
dangerously like unfalsifiable oh or it's impossible to improve wrong,
(16:25):
because no matter what happens, they will contort themselves into
viewing that as confirmation of their worldview. The confirmation bias
is so strong as to be almost impenetrable, And that's
what I think is most likely to play out here.
But I honestly think this saga is kind of sad.
I think Candice Owans genuinely needs help. I don't know.
(16:48):
I don't want to try to diagnose her or anything
like that. I'm not a medical professional, but the frequency
to which she is just losing touch with reality, insisting
on things that are obviously untrue, falling and twisting herself
into all sorts of conspiracies, while doing it all with
this feedback loop that just encourages it, encourages it, and
(17:10):
encourages her to go further and further. It's not healthy.
And I really do believe that she needs help and
that people need to stop turning to her as some
kind of source for information until she reconnects with reality.
But that's my take. You guys will have to let
me know what you think in the comments below. Make
sure you're subscribed if you aren't yet, do it the
(17:32):
like button while you're at it, and all of that.
Up next, guys, we are going to react to a
truly wild interview that the left wing streaming and YouTube
star Hassan Piker just did with the guys over at
Trigger Nometry, which I'm a fan of. I think they
do a great job. Francis and Constantin the two hosts
(17:53):
over there that podcast, he sat down with them. Hassan
sat down with them even though they are from a
very different kind of I do logical or political camp
and I give a Hassan credit for that. But the
interview did not go well for him. He seemed unprepared
and out of touch with reality and made some pretty
startling and stunning admissions. We're going to take a listen
(18:14):
to this clip and I will offer my thoughts spoiler alert.
I am not a fan of some of the statements
that he made, but let's, without further ado, let you
hear for yourselves.
Speaker 4 (18:24):
I don't believe that anyone is coming into the United
States of America or the UK as a matter of fact,
because they want to bring about a Salafis style Islamic
caliphate in London.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I know you won't agree with me on that.
Speaker 5 (18:37):
What about whether I agree, It's about whether the facts
agree with you.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
See, he kind of set himself up for failure here
by saying I don't think anyone is doing this. There
wouldn't be an entire narrative about people concerned about Muslim
immigration to Europe and other places. If nobody was coming
here with radical ideas, or coming here and committing attacks
or anything like that, We're going there rather, And so
I think he set himself up for the absolutely brutal
(19:04):
fact check he's about to get hit with by making
such an absolutist statement on something where I don't think
the better answer would be like that. Listen, I don't
I follow American politics more closely. I'm not quite sure
what's going on there, but I believe in freedom or religion,
and I think refugees should be welcome or whatever. But like,
don't make these absolutist claims. You are setting yourself up
(19:24):
when you're talking to somebody who knows a lot about
that issue to get kind of embarrassed, and that is
what happened next. I don't think that's hold on.
Speaker 5 (19:32):
I think let me just give you some facts. Then
if we have a terrorist attack on a monthly basis
by an isula mist effectively we just had two in
the space of the last month as we're recording this,
thirty three percent, I think of British Muslims, one Sharia
law on Britain. Like according to Paul's.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
Why is he laughing at that? Like, isn't it funny
that a third of Muslims want an authoritarian, theocratic legal
system and force onto all of society. No, it's actually
not funny. Now, I don't think Hassan believes in shreal law.
I hack he's like a leftist on social issues. But
I guess maybe he just has a blind spot, or
(20:11):
he doesn't take that seriously. I don't know. But they're
putting polling on screen here that shows very clearly some
very illiberal and authoritarian sentiments among some of the Muslim
population in Britain. That of course does not apply to
all Muslims, and people should be judges individuals. But he's
(20:32):
acting like this is all just a right wing hoax
or something, and it's clearly not. And he's clearly also
out of his depth on this issue.
Speaker 5 (20:39):
More than half want to ban well we can put
them in for people to see. More than half want
to ban homosexuality, right, So when you say people aren't
coming in to introduce an Islam and stuff, well some
of them want to if they're in a position to
do so. We have five MPs or effectively elected on
a sectarian tickets, and we are Muslims. Vote for us
(21:01):
because you're a Muslim.
Speaker 4 (21:03):
Who would you say those imps are.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
The five independent MPs that call the Gaza MPs or
whatever way you want to call them.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
Are you talking about like Zara Sultana.
Speaker 5 (21:11):
I don't know if she's one of them. I think
one of them is Calladinan who's signed that. There's five
of them. You can you can look them up. We
can put them in for people to sing. Right, So,
I think it should be said that the overwhelming majority
of British Muslims don't want to real law. But if
thirty three percent of them do, you can see why
a lot of people who don't want to real lad
might be concerned about.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
That, right, sure, I the sure, yeah, of course people
should be concerned by that. And it's not even about
the religion of the immigrants, it's the attitudes. I've always
thought that, while I'm somebody who's generally supportive of legal immigration,
you do have to make sure that people have compatible
(21:49):
values with your civilization and believe in things like freedom
of religion and freedom most speech, and that they want
to assimilate. And America has generally speaking done a better
job of that, but really struggled with that in much
of Europe. But I feel like Hassan just feels like
he can't say that because giving any acknowledging any truth
to like a right wing narrative about this issue is
(22:10):
like islamophobia or is not you know, progressive and welcoming
and I stand with immigrants. And you can kind of
see him just glitching in real time because he's being
presented with these facts that he would not encounter in
his usual echo chamber. And I really actually do give
him credit for doing these interviews because he doesn't really
have to, like he, if anything, would probably be doing
(22:33):
fine just not doing it. But he does put himself
out there. And sunlight can be the best disinfectant, and
it was a very sunny shot that day, so yeah,
maybe that's what's happening here. He's being disinfected by the sunlight.
And people can see that he actually doesn't know very
much and is very overconfident and seems to think he
(22:53):
has the whole world figured out while actually not grappling
with a lot of the nuances and complexities that gas
some conservatives and some right wing arguments might have some
truth to them. Sometimes now he tries to play a
little bit of what about ism next, Let's listen.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Don't I don't know what I haven't seen these bulls,
and I also don't know what British Muslims or the
thirty three percent that are saying that want sharia.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
Law like what they're talking about.
Speaker 4 (23:23):
The counter example always is, I mean, there's plenty of
right wing forces in the country that also want to
ban homosexuality.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
So there's a couple of problems with this one. He's
kind of playing dumb when he says, so, I don't
know what they mean by sharia law. I think Muslims
who are asked about sharia law do know what that is,
and if they're saying they support it, probably have a
pretty good idea what that means. And it does mean theocracy,
it does mean repression, and it is of course incompatible
(23:51):
with Western civilization or liberal democracy, you know, things that
I guess. I don't know if it's not, as you'll see,
if he really even believes in those values, but he's
sometimes would pretend to, I guess, and then to compare
it to Christians like one. There is a difference between
immigrants who are coming into a country, which is what
constantint originally raised, and people who are already there because
(24:13):
they have a right to be there because they're citizens.
Whereas immigrants you do get to select whether to allow
them in or not, So it's kind of a disingenuous
comparison to begin with. But then also it's not. No,
I'm sorry, the attitudes of Muslim immigrants are different from
those of domestic Christians on many of these issues, and
it is not a reasonable comparison where apples to apples.
(24:36):
I don't believe that is significant anywhere near the same
percentages of Christians in America or in England would say
that they want to deprive women of rights in society
or make homosexuality illegal, or any of these things at
the same rates as again, not all, not even necessarily most,
but a significant portion of the Muslim populations. There us
(25:00):
realities that you have to grapple with. I'm just saying, no,
I haven't seen it. I don't even know what they mean.
It's like denial is not a strategy, dude, but he
is going in on it.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
And no, I'm oh, I mean or trans people in general, right,
Like there is not Okay, well that's not what I
have seen so far. But maybe I'm wrong on this,
but I mean, I feel like there's a lot of uh.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
This is a this is a.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
Point of contention for uh, for for you guys as well,
but it's like when you want to ban trans people
all together.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
He keeps saying that I don't know what does that
even mean, ban trans people all together? If I can't
change my sex on my passport to something, it's not
are trans people banned?
Speaker 4 (25:48):
Maybe, he explains, together when you want to.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Remove access to medication, Oh okay, Well, if what he
means is medically transitioning, I don't think the mainstream, respective
even among gender critical types or people who are pushing
back on the trans movement in America or the UK,
is that people shouldn't be allowed to take cross sex
(26:12):
hormones or alter their bodies. I think there's a couple.
The questions are about what spaces people can access and
about sex segregated spaces, and then the other question is
whether insurance should cover it or taxpayers should cover it.
But I'm not really aware of a significant push to
stop people from purchasing with their own money hormones and
(26:34):
taking them adults. That is, of course, minors is a
totally different issue. So it does kind of seem like
he is invoking a straw man here again to try
to downplay or deflect Constantine's original points about Islamic immigration.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
For trans people to transition and conform their own gender identity.
You don't start off by saying we want to all
together band transfaval. You start off by by trying to
find the most successful approach that the broadest majority of
the masses would be in tune with, would be in
agreement with, and then you slowly but surely expand on it.
Speaker 5 (27:12):
Wouldn't that be saying wouldn't that be like me saying, well,
you say you want socialism, but actually you're a communist
because you just want to edge your way towards communism
step by step.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
I mean that's not my way of looking.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
No, my retort that would be that while I don't
call myself a communist, I don't have an issue with
an end goal of communism.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
I don't think it's like.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
A I think I just think that it's probably not
likely to happen a stateless, moneyless, borderless society, but moving
towards that end goal, I don't have any real ad.
Speaker 5 (27:41):
Like communism in America.
Speaker 4 (27:43):
I think that communism would be most likely an international
thing and be like the Star Trek universe. And it feels,
especially at this point, it feels far too utopian to achieve.
So while I think that the concept in and of
itself is not one that I did disagree with, and
I don't think you would either. Don't you think it
would be nice?
Speaker 5 (28:04):
Yeah? We was.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Well, the USSR was, as you know, as well, trying
to implement communism. They never actually were able to successfully
implement communists guys.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
He actually hit us with the well, real communism hasn't
been tried. Yeah, well you could say the same thing
that pure free market capitalism hasn't been tried either. But
communism in practice versus liberal democracy, free societies, capitalism in practice,
I think I know which one I prefer. But more importantly,
(28:36):
I do find it remarkable how these the trigonometry guys,
they just they're not like the harshest interrupters, most hostile interviewers,
but they just give people an f rope and and
let them talk themselves and expose themselves. And Hasan really
did that right here by saying that he would be
totally I'd be down for communism. I just like socialism
(28:58):
because communism maybe is a little utopian, but uh yeah,
I like communist. That should be a disqualifying statement that
should be viewed with an equal level of disgust and
disdain as somebody saying I love Nazism because arguably communism
is responsible for more deaths than the Nazis and it
is just as evil in the totalitarian ideology. But here
(29:20):
you have one of the most prominent left wing influencers
in America saying he's totally down with it, and he
is influencing with his platform millions of young people all
the time to support those kinds of ideas or even
just normalize them, even just remove the stigma from them,
because somebody who they think is chill and funny and
cool likes communism, so it can't be that bad. Yeah,
(29:41):
that's actually incredibly toxic and dangerous. But unfortunately that kind
of is in keeping with all of his son Piker's
career advocacy and rhetoric. But other than that, he's doing
absolutely amazing. I would really encourage you guys to go
check out the full Triggeronometry episode with Hassan Piker, and
(30:03):
if your kids or if you tune in to him,
make sure you are doing so with a healthy dose
of skepticism for everything that he says, because he comes
from a radical place and doesn't know a whole lot.
That's my take at least that you guys will have
to let me know what you think in the comments
down below. Make sure subscribed, hit the leg button and
(30:23):
all of that, or YadA, YadA YadA, as I often say,
all right, guys, that will be it for today's episode
of the Bread Versus Everyone Podcast. Thanks so much for listening.
Do take a second to rate and review the show
on Apple, iHeart, Spotify, or wherever you listen to audio podcasts,
and consider recommending it to a friend. That's the number
(30:44):
one way that podcasts grow. With that, guys, hope you
all have a great Thanksgiving and we will talk again
next week.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com