Life is apparently so disagreeable in Donald Trump’s America that 40 percent of women aged between 15 and 44 want to leave. That is four times higher than the 10 percent who wanted to quit the US in 2014. According to Gallup, which conducted the poll, nearly half the nation’s younger women have “lost faith in America’s institutions.” This disenchantment accelerated after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which enshrined the constitutional right to abortion.
Younger American men are bearing up better. Only 19 percent share women’s distaste for the Donald, a 21 percent differential which is the largest recorded by Gallup since it began asking the question in 2007.
As they point out, the question is about the “desire” to relocate, so probably only a minority of the 40 percent will leave. Nonetheless, concludes Gallup, “the data indicate that millions of younger American women are increasingly imagining their futures elsewhere.”
And where might that be? Canada is the first choice (11 percent) while 5 percent dream of a new life in New Zealand, Italy or Japan. Canada has that nice Mark Carney as its Prime Minister but be warned, women of America: our northern neighbor isn’t the same country that it was a decade ago.
A report last year in the National Post was headlined “Sexual assaults, robberies surging in Canada’s cities.” The Trudeau administration had tried to blame soaring crime on the aftermath of the harsh Covid restrictions, but the Macdonald Laurier Institute’s “urban violent crime report” rubbished that theory.
Crime of all types had been on the rise since 2016, particularly sexual assault, which had increased by 77 percent between 2013 and 2023. The Canadian media is curiously reticent to examine what is behind this surge, which has coincided with record levels of immigration. A clue perhaps might be found in the response to a parliamentary question asked earlier this year by Canadian Conservative MP Blaine Calkins. Troubled by the 31 percent increase in foreigners incarcerated in Canadian prisons, he wanted to know where they came from and what crimes they’d committed. The majority had been convicted of violent and sexual crimes, and the two countries most represented among felons were Jamaica and India.
Something else that has increased in Canada in recent years is the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood. A report in June by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy warned that Canada was facing a “rising national security risk” from the shadowy Islamist organization. Its goal is to establish a global caliphate, and the institute expressed its concern that Canada has allowed the Brotherhood to “grow and spread radical Islamist ideology, often benefiting from federal funding.”
With this in mind, if some American women find themselves going cold on Canada, what about Japan? In 2023, Japan was ranked 125th out of 146 countries in terms of gender equality (the US was 43rd and Italy 79th). The World Economic Forum report noted the low female representation in Japanese politics and industry.
Furthermore, cases of sexual harassment on public transport have risen sharply in recent years — what the Japanese call “chikan,” or groping. Most incidents are committed by Japanese men against foreigners.
So if not Japan, what about the dolce vita of Italy? Unfortunately, Italy is also experiencing a wave of sexual violence. Incidences have increased by 50 percent in the past five years, with crimes peaking in 2024.
Some 43 percent of men convicted of sexual crimes were foreigners, prompting Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, to state that, “I will be called a racist, but there is a greater incidence, unfortunately, in cases of sexual violence, by immigrants.” She added that this was particularly true of those “who arrived illegally.”
There are other options in Europe for American women. What about Paris, the City of Love? The smell of fresh croissants, the sight of Gallic heartthrobs. Oh la la! Alas, the real Paris bears no resemblance to Emily in Paris.
Earlier this year, a French government report revealed that seven in ten women in the greater Paris region have suffered some form of abuse while traveling on public transport. Recently, an Egyptian man allegedly tried to rape a young woman on a train just outside the French capital and, as a result, a petition has been launched demanding women-only train cars.
One could always try London, but women there are also demanding greater security on the city’s Tube network. Another phenomenon on the rise in both Britain and France is the segregation of the sexes as the Muslim population grows. In October, a Mosque in London organized a fundraising run that was open to everyone except women and girls over the age of 12. In November, a poll was published in France that revealed that 45 percent of French Muslim men and 57 percent of women under 35 practice some form of segregation, such as the refusal to shake hands or receive medical treatment from a person of the opposite sex, or to visit a mixed-gender swimming pool.
In December 2015, Trump lamented what had become of Paris, making his remarks a few weeks after Islamist terrorists had slaughtered 130 people during the Bataclan attack. “Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage, and frankly… Paris is no longer the same city it was.”
He was right. Paris is no longer the city it was, and nor is London or some Italian cities, such as Milan, where, according to city councillor Daniele Nahum, “the antisemitic situation is becoming unmanageable.”
The 40 percent of American women who dream of starting a new life elsewhere should take note. The grass in Trumpland might actually be greener.
My 11-year-old son joined the elementary school band, and so I went to the parents’ orientation night held at a local high-school. As the night went on it became obvious why young men rage against the larger social system and why they might find a character like Nick Fuentes attractive. The classrooms were inundated with DEI messages and trans pride flags. On the walls there were posters, stickers and decorations that all invoked the various totems of diversity. Black Lives Matter messaging, decolonization messaging, LGBTQ+ messaging and basically every sort of race and gender social justice messaging you can imagine was present.
The advertisements for post-secondary opportunities featured social justice education prominently, including advertising a course on “indigenous ways of knowing” as something grade 12 students should pursue upon graduation. Many of the teachers had “this is a safe space” stickers on their doors. The entire aesthetic which dominated the decoration of classrooms was the progressive, leftist-coded “in this house” and “be kind” variety. As soon as you walked into a classroom there was no doubt as to the political leanings of whichever teacher occupied that room. Progressive social justice activists have colonized the school and marked their territory. A woman in a mask (who was in charge) got up and read a number of land acknowledgements before recognizing the contribution of indigenous people to ways of knowing.
When it comes to how the teachers behaved, I am going to draw on both that night and the other times I have been at my son’s school to explain it. The boys are treated almost as though they are defective girls. The feminine modes of interaction and socialization are treated as though they are the only legitimate ones and serve as the accepted way to properly interact and navigate the world. Almost all the authority figures at my son’s school are women.
One day my son found out that the school had hired a single male education assistant, and he came home and told me, in wondrous amazement, that he saw a “boy teacher.” The level of surprise he expressed was as if he had walked into school and seen a triceratops walking the hallways. My son often comes home from school and expresses frustration that his preferred way of communicating, as well as the things that are aligned with his temperament, are treated as though they were somehow inferior.
As he is 11 (and being assessed for autism) he lacks the correct technical language to describe this, so it generally shows up as him getting in trouble for being insufficiently “gentle” and “kind” in response to various passive-aggressive power plays and instances of bullying carried out by his more socially developed female peers.
To say that the parents’ night for the school band was feminine-coded would be an understatement. It would be more accurate to say that feminized modes of behavior and communication were embedded in every single interaction. It was a totally alien environment for anyone who isn’t well versed in navigating the social codes of progressive, leftist institutional spaces. It was like the slogan “the future is female” was taken to be a command delivered from God himself and turned into an education program.
Now, I want you to imagine what it is like for an 11-year-old boy to be saturated in that environment day after day. He is an alien in his own school who is treated essentially like a ticking time bomb who needs to be managed rather than engaged with and taught, and he knows this is happening. It is hard to overstate the level of hostility towards boys that is floating around in the ambient culture of the school system. It isn’t so much that there is an explicit form of anti-male bigotry – although examples of that exist – it is more that there is an overall attitude of distaste for anything masculine and an utter indifference towards the interests, fortunes and inner lives of young boys. The expectations, norms, rules and standards of behavior cater to the sensibilities of girls and women. This is the entire social system that a young boy goes through from when he is aged six until he graduates from university.
It’s an old trope on the right to say “imagine if the roles were reversed,” but that would be to miss the point. I know that many on the left will say that all of this is perfectly acceptable because of historical injustices and the pursuit of social justice. What I want to point out is how absurd the world must appear through the eyes of the average 11-year-old boy. He is basically told he has a host of social advantages (white privilege, male privilege, straight privilege) that he has never experienced and will never benefit from, and this justifies the system which he is immersed in.
And the worst part is, if young men point any of this out, the very people who are doing it will look them in the eye and deny that any of it ever happened. Making matters worse, these men begin to figure out that the institutions have been used to advance a leftist political agenda that scapegoated their group (young white men), and when they point this out everyone in authority calls them evil bigots. And all this happens during their formative years.
Now, imagine you are a young white male. You graduate from the school system and are released into the world only to find that the feminine modes of socialization pushed on you are entirely unfit for purpose. That the social skills you were taught fail utterly in both the job markets young men tend towards (construction, engineering, building, landscaping, etc.) and have no purchase in the dating market where highly agentic, masculine, wealthy men have a huge advantage over the passive, docile “nice boy.”
On top of that, imagine that a great deal of the job listings that you peruse make it clear that preference will be given to women and “diverse” candidates, and that the job interview itself is full of shibboleths, coded statements and trap questions meant to elicit responses that allow the hiring party to exclude anyone who isn’t sufficiently versed in and aligned with the priorities of the DEI/Woke/Social Justice paradigm.
Then if you do get a job you will exposed to various sensitivity trainings, DEI trainings and intersectionality workshops in which your group (straight white men) are repeatedly scapegoated as the source of all the world’s pathologies. Laid at your feet are patriarchy, colonialism, racism, sexism and a great number of other social evils for which you are taken to be complicit in and have a responsibility for fixing in virtue of being a white male. While all this is going on a series of scandals (Covid, men in women’s sports, trans kids) reveal to you the degree to which the institutions that make up the society you live in have adopted an ideology that is actively hostile to you because you are a straight white male, and have been denying you opportunity while scapegoating you for all societies problems and treating you like you are a defective girl. Once you understand this, the real question is not, “Why are some young men radicalizing?” It’s more, “Why are there any young men at all who have not been radicalized?”
I am not claiming for a second that the women who make up the majority of teachers have malicious intent. In fact, most of the women I have met in the school system are genuinely doing their best. However, there remains a clear lack of male teachers and male influence in the public school system which heavily contributes to an imbalance in the way that the social environments of public school are constructed.
To make matters worse, well meaning teachers have been given a curriculum and a set of teaching tools that were designed by leftist activists with a political axe to grind. Many education colleges train teachers to make Critical Social Justice (aka “wokeness”) central to the teaching mission, and to bring social justice concepts into every area of education. Many of the teachers who are the most politically active are merely doing what they were told they were supposed to do when they were students in education colleges, and the result is a system loaded with teachers who believe social justice is central to education and who therefore do their best to do what they were trained to do: teach elementary school kids using Marxist theories of oppression they learned in college. While this doesn’t absolve them of responsibility, it does help explain the problem.
None of this is to excuse any of the extremist radicals who are attempting to harness the resentment and anger of young men for their evil purposes. It is more to explain why young men will attach themselves to any voice willing to stridently call for the obliteration of the social system and ideology which lied to them during their formative years and is currently doing things which rob them of opportunities for advancement and success. The institutions have totally blown their credibility with young men who view them in their present state as ideologically corrupt and totally illegitimate.
I am not saying the situation is hopeless, but unless you engage in a good faith attempt to understand what the school system, universities, non-profits, HR departments and other civic institutions have done to young men, you will never be able to gain their trust enough to lead them away from guys like Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate and Andrew Torba.
One of the reasons that Jordan Peterson became so popular in 2016 is that he spoke so clearly to the struggles that young men were being forced to go through and he did it in a way that was healthy. Peterson encouraged young men to take responsibility, to make something of themselves, to avoid bitterness, to put their lives together and, once they had done that, make some contribution to the world. Not only did he tell them to make something of themselves, but he told them that they could make something of themselves.
He told them that they were not evil, racist oppressors who needed to step aside, but that they were men who could and should make themselves into people who could be trusted to make contributions to the world and to take up places of authority and responsibility… and that this was a good thing to do. In essence, Jordan Peterson became the mentor figure for young men on the political right and in the political center.
Over the last few years Dr. Peterson has fallen ill and this has left the space for a mentor figure wide open, which a number of influencers are trying to exploit. Influencers with large followings on social media can gain currency among teenage boys quite quickly, and unlike college-aged men (Peterson’s initial audience) high-school boys are far more likely to gravitate towards crass humor than the university lectures Peterson became famous for.
In order to prevent young men from falling down the Nick Fuentes rabbit hole, we need to make an honest play for teenage boys, and we need to do it in a way that appeals to them on their own terms. Because Fuentes is already doing that, his strength is only going to grow.
Every few months or so, a new film comes along and anyone interested in the art of cinema braces themselves, because The Discourse will inevitably accompany it. There is no clearer candidate for fevered discussion next year than Emerald Fennell’s new adaptation of Wuthering Heights, which is released, with smirking predictability, on Valentine’s Day. Ever since the film was announced, there has been controversy over everything from the casting of the Caucasian Jacob Elordi to play Heathcliff (who is referred to in Emily Brontë’s original novel as a “a dark-skinned gypsy in aspect”) to the excessively clean and stylish-looking clothes worn by Margot Robbie’s Catherine Earnshaw. When reports of strong sexual content, including BDSM and hanging-induced ejaculation, leaked from a test screening, word got out: Fennell had made her film again.
For some, writer-director-actor Fennell is one of the most exciting figures in contemporary cinema, an Oscar-winning visionary whose previous pictures, Promising Young Woman and Saltburn, managed to say provocative and original things about gender, class and power while still remaining wholly entertaining. For her detractors, Fennell is a nepo baby one-trick pony who is only capable of making the kind of smirkingly superficial films that attract a great deal of attention and make her money without having anything to say about the weighty topics that she tackles. With her third film, the jury will finally return, and the verdict should be fascinating.
Certainly, Warner Bros. has enormous faith in Wuthering Heights. The studio has invested $80 million in the budget – Netflix were reportedly prepared to pay $150 million, a ridiculous amount for a literary adaptation, but did not want to release the film theatrically – and forked out for none other than Charli xcx, the pop star du jour, to provide the songs for the picture. The first previews released suggest that Warner have something entirely inimitable on their hands, a strange and dreamlike mixture of swooning Gothic romance, with two of the hottest actors of the moment, and something post-modern and ironic. I was reminded of a similarly divisive film, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which split audiences down the line on its release but still made a fortune at the box office.
The studio will presumably be hoping that the reunion of Robbie and Fennell (who respectively starred and cameoed in Barbie) will be vastly successful. At a time when most period literary adaptations never make it to the cinema, Wuthering Heights is a rare beast, but even as we prepare for endless thinkpieces upon its release, there are a few encouraging signs. Robbie, who has not always been used well by Hollywood, looks too clean and wide-eyed as Cathy, but Elordi, who was a stiff presence in Saltburn, might well be about to capture Heathcliff’s mixture of brutality and magnetism.
And the two Charli xcx songs released so far are both excellent. The first, ‘House,’ features none other than John Cale, reciting an increasingly disturbing spoken-word monologue over scraping viola, before the chorus “I think I’m going to die in this house” explodes in visceral fashion. The second, the more conventional ‘Chains of Love,’ is a perfectly judged pop song complete with old-school girl groups “oh-oh-ohs” in the chorus as Charli declares “The chains of love are cruel / I shouldn’t feel like a prisoner.” If they’re anything to go by tonally and thematically, Fennell’s film will be a decidedly modern and downbeat take on Brontë’s original, without the sappy romance of other, less demanding adaptations of the novel.
Yet this could also be a false promise. Saltburn marketed itself as a hyper-aware take on Brideshead Revisited and The Talented Mr. Ripley, which instead proved to be an excuse for Barry Keoghan’s charmless arriviste to kill people and dance around a big house naked. And Promising Young Woman was one of the least deserving Oscar-winners for best screenplay ever made, with a lazy, all-men-are-bastards premise that soon resulted in a misandrist twist that made the entire project a repellent one. So there is every chance that Wuthering Heights could be another artistic wash-out. But it could also be like Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette or even the don of all period films, Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon: a fascinating, breathtakingly original take on the material. Not long to go now, in any case, and then The Discourse will have its day. And until then, we’ll always have Kate Bush: “Heathcliff, it’s me! Cathy!” Etc, etc.
Call me unpatriotic but, although I’m German, nothing could ever have persuaded me to date a German man. I married an Englishman, finding Teutonic attitudes towards romance unbearable. Dating can go on for years, often ending in a quiet, dry dissolution after a decade. If you’re lucky, the relationship will limp on towards marriage, driven more by the need to save on taxes than any belief in what many Germans consider an antiquated institution.
Two hundred years ago, we had the tragic intensity of Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther, a cornerstone of the Romantic movement. It was so wildly popular that it sparked one of the first waves of romantic consumerism: perfumes, clothing and even mugs depicting scenes from the novel were sold. Fast forward to today, and we have Fack ju Göhte (2013), a comedy about a German-Arab ex-convict who poses as a literature teacher to hunt down the buried loot referenced in Young Werther. The country that once led the Romantic revolution now seems less interested in all-consuming passion than in cultural self-destruction.
Instead of declarations of love, the modern German man is more likely to insist on splitting the bill 50/50, even on a first date – and heaven help the woman whose cash app request is off by even a cent. It’s no surprise that German jewellry shops and florists are disappearing – not just victims of an economic recession, but of a romantic one too.
It’s tempting to blame communism. The German Democratic Republic’s drive for total female workforce participation aimed at turning women into men, with a few biological differences. Some progressives still call this empowerment, but it mostly meant steamrolling over what many women actually wanted. Personally, I’d take babies over a factory floor any day. Preferably babies that arrive with flowers and a husband who doesn’t ask me to split the hospital bill.
Another culprit is western feminism, which encouraged women to demand equal rights. Too often, that has meant demanding to be treated as men rather than respected as a woman. If you browbeat any man who dares to open the door for you or offers up his seat, then soon almost none will. As these small gestures collapse, so does the architecture of romance, which must be built on an imbalance between the sexes.
Sadly, Germany’s unromantic streak can’t even be said to be a recent aberration, despite the excesses of communism and feminism. Perhaps there is something more fundamental in the German character. You only have to read Erich Kästner’s 1928 poem “Sachliche Romanze” (“Sobering Romance”), which gruesomely dissects the eight-year death of love into wordless nothingness, to wonder. Certainly, we are a practical, taciturn people, and have adapted to the world of elasticated waistbands and low-maintenance short hairstyles quickly. Far too often, it isn’t just the men you see wearing cargo trousers or stretchy hiking gear, but the women also. Mata Hari would struggle to maintain any mystique in brightly colored moisture-wicking polyester.
That doesn’t fully explain the issue, however. The right-wing commentator Anabel Schunke has spoken about how far too many German men are a kartoffel “potato”) and compared them unfavorably with Turkish or Arab migrant men, who still bother to wear aftershave and offer expensive gifts. These talahons, as we call them in Germany (from an Arabic phrase meaning “come here,” popularized by a Syrian-German rapper), might like to wear designer tracksuits and get haircuts in barbers with black-and-gold color schemes, but at least they make an effort in the dating arena.
It’s possible the old ways are making a comeback, thanks partly to Instagram. German men who use the platform have started to present themselves as gentlemen. Influencers like Justus Hansen pose in suits and Barbour jackets, happily putting one foot in the past and another in the present. Without an older generation to guide them, young German men are looking to the internet to discover forgotten traditions. It helps if they can look good in the traditional trachten (the English call them lederhosen). Similarly, German women have discovered ways to look sexy in the dirndl, that Germanic bodice and blouse combination.
There is an upside to German men. Even Tacitus, writing nearly 2,000 years ago, singled out the Germanic tribes for their rare commitment to monogamy: barbarians, yes, but loyal ones. Not much has changed. For all his quirks, the German man is generally a solid provider, faithful and competent with a toolbox. He’ll even stick around if you get an Angela Merkel bowl cut and go up three dress sizes. Just don’t ask him to give up the jean shorts, the bad haircuts or his beloved cargo joggers. There are limits to his love.
Freddy Gray: Candace is being sued or threatened with legal action by the Macrons, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, the President and First Lady of France. Because, Candace, you believe that Brigitte Macron is a man. Why do you think the Macrons are choosing to sue you?
Candace Owens: Because they were trying to stop the story. I think it was an effective PR strategy. They had been suing and harassing the journalists that had initially brought this story forth to the French public for years, and then they lost their defamation suit against the two journalists, Amandine Roy, Natasha Roy. And that was pretty explosive news. So I think that they then filed suit against me and knowing that it would drive potentially the most media traffic to kind of say, “Oh no, but it still isn’t true at all. I know we lost this defamation case in our home turf, but we’re now going to try it in America,” just to kind of signal to the press that they’re not lying.
FG: If you wanted the story to go away, this is not a very sensible strategy.
CO: Yeah, actually if you look at the history of them as a couple, they haven’t been very good at PR… I do think it was poor advice. I think their advisors made the wrong decision, and we saw this even recently, the disaster of their PR when Brigitte was caught assaulting Macron on the plane. I mean, they lied, they forcefully lied, and then they essentially disappeared. The story the very next day from the French press. So they’re used to having that kind of power.
FG: It’s that clip that makes me think you’re wrong, because I’m pretty sure she punches like a girl. I mean, men don’t hit like that.
How did the theory start?
CO: The Daily Mailran a headline, and Emmanuel Macron was on camera saying it’s not true, and freaking out about these rumors and saying how hurtful they were. And I thought that was odd. I said, “What could possibly be going on in France that the President is having to lower himself to respond to such a ridiculous rumor?” And when I was reading this article, I was sort of interested in the dog that wasn’t barking, which is that the Daily Mail didn’t do a good job of instantly debunking it. Obviously, tons of photos could debunk this… It wasn’t a deep internet web conspiracy. It was actually French journalists that were on the left who loved Brigitte Macron and wanted to celebrate her by doing their due diligence and telling the story of Brigitte Macron. These were feminists… They felt that they were being threatened by the Élysée Palace. They were asking basic questions, asking for pictures and feeling like they had done something wrong. And they were essentially being told that the only person that could get them what they were looking for was a woman named Mimi Marchand, who at that moment was running communications for the Macron couple. Mimi Marchand has since been charged with forging documents… So it was very organic how this story took off in France. People just trying to figure out like, hey, can we get some photos of you? There’s 30 years of your life that seem to be missing?
FG: It is definitely strange that nobody seems to be able to find a lot of evidence about Brigitte Macron’s upbringing. But what occurs to me – I’ve watched the series – I know the journalist you speak to, Xavier Poussard. He uses a facial recognition app to say that these images of Brigitte Macron’s brother must be her. There’s a sort of 80 percent likelihood. That strikes me as not necessarily reliable, and also the fact that, you know, siblings can look very, very alike. So the fact that Brigitte Macron’s brother looks a lot like her is not quite that surprising, is it?
CO: No, it’s not surprising at all. And you’re correct. This is not a 100 percent technology… What’s more compelling is that this brother of hers is missing. At this point you would have to have a terrible relationship with your brother if you wouldn’t just come out before you had to sue anyone and say, “Hi, it’s me, I’m Jean Trogneux. I love my sister very much. I’m a private person, but this is getting ridiculous.” Or even her children, right? Her children could release photos of them being raised by her growing up. But I don’t care how angry you are at your parents, at a certain level, you’d go, “Guys, this is getting ridiculous. Here’s me and my mom.” We’re just like, hey, 30 years of your life is missing. It’s getting a little uncomfortable with how many people in your orbit have been arrested for pedophilia. You’ve lied – objective lies – you told the press at the beginning of your relationship. Don’t forget, when he first ran for president, the public told the media he was 17. Now we’ve got them down to 15. And the truth is that he was actually 14 when he was in that play where she says she saw him perform. But it’s not helping the media story that they lie. From the very beginning they presented it as if Brigitte was this really irresistible, sexy teacher, when when they actually got evidence of what she looked like when she was teaching Macron. She looks homely. It’s definitely not a very attractive teacher that was wearing skirts. It looks like a male that’s in the middle of a transition, to be honest with you.
FG: I’ve listened to what Xavier and you said about that. And it does sound a bit like Xavier was sort of just angry at the media for the way that they manicured her image. But that’s what happens with powerful and important people. Their images are always being manicured, and often they manicure themselves.
CO: Which is totally fine. It’s every piece of the Brigitte Macron story that has required so many lies. And yeah, they they did that, perhaps because they didn’t want people to realize that something really strange happened at that school. And it doesn’t help that when Emmanuel Macron entered office, they got to work trying to lower the age of consent to 13. It doesn’t help that Emmanuel Macron’s mother worked in her career assisting transgendered people in getting identities. The person that’s dressing Brigitte Macron that works with LVMH and Louis Vuitton specializes in androgynous dressing, trans people and of getting models that are trans. There’s so many other elements that are just peculiar. I want people to also know that before we published the first episode, we were in touch with Brigitte’s team. We said, “Look, we’re not interested in spreading conspiracies. Answer these basic questions. Could you produce some photos of your living for 30 years? Did you live as Jean-Michel? Have you ever lived as a person named Veronique?” And they forcefully declined to answer any of those questions.
French pedophilia?
FG: I think you’re sort of insinuating that the real scandal behind this is a kind of pedophilic elite in France.
CO: I believe that’s been a problem that’s happened in Paris for a very long time.
Owens mentioned Sigmund Freud, Richard Duhamel, Richard Trumbull, Eric Moretti and André Gide as examples of French pedophilia.
FG: Well, like me, you’re a Catholic. You’re a recent convert to Catholicism. And I know from my French Catholic family that there is this obsessive hatred in France of the French government and the secular French government and the French left, and this assumption that they are satanic somehow or Satanic driven. Is that something you think you’ve latched on to?
CO: Well, no, I was not aware of French politics. I got into this quite organically. I don’t follow French politics. I don’t speak French… The idea that there are is an orbit of people who could commit crimes and then have the audacity to sue people for writing books or sue people that are talking about it. It offends me. It offends my senses as a Christian and as a mother. And I felt that it was very important for the world to kind of look and go, what’s going on in France? … It definitely wasn’t driven by some idea of a satanic panic happening in France.
Trump tells Candace to stop saying Brigitte is a man
FG: The Donald Trump story. He leant on you himself to stop talking about the Brigitte Macron story.
CO: Yeah. Back in February, Macron was in the White House ostensibly to discuss Russia and Ukraine. I was contacted by the White House and told that he took Trump to the side and wanted me to stop talking about Brigitte. And the person who relayed this to me before Trump called me the next day, said that it was a contingency on the Ukraine-Russia conversation, which is ridiculous. When Trump called me the next day. He basically said he was very surprised. But Macron took him aside and asked if he could get me to stop talking about Brigitte. I said to him that I would not speak about Brigitte for a few months while he was looking for a signature on some document pertaining to the EU. But then certainly, of course, I would speak about it months later, which is exactly what I did.
The Candace-Trump fallout
FG: You were a keen supporter. He was a fan of you. And then it seems you’ve completely fallen out and largely over Gaza. Am I correct in saying that?
CO: You are correct in saying that. What’s happening in Gaza, to me is just a moment of are you a human? Are you not a human? And also the Epstein fumble as well – the gaslighting of the Epstein case. To effectively gaslight your supporters and say, why? Why are we still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? What do you mean, why aren’t we still talking about Jeffrey Epstein if there’s been a blackmail ring, and politicians are supporting things because they have been blackmailed. I’ve been very disappointed in him.
FG: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that he’s in the files that he sent this card, this bawdy card, to Jeffrey at birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein.
CO: I don’t buy the birthday card because Trump immediately came out and said, this is not true and sued. In May when Pam Bondi sat down for a meeting and said, you’re actually in these files, he never debunked that. Do I believe that Donald Trump was on Epstein Island? No. Do we know that he parted with Epstein in his youth? Yes, we know that… The bigger point is that he he could have come to his supporters and said, “look, I’m very surprised to hear this. I have nothing to do with anything that happened on that island.” He could have gotten ahead of it. When you choose to gaslight the public, you have become exactly what you knew that we hated when we sent you into DC.
Do you ever think you’re a conspiracy theorist, Candace?
FG: Do you ever feel that you’ve maybe taken crazy pills and you’ve become a conspiracy theorist?
CO: Absolutely not. The Macron story is one of the most fascinating stories ever. And in a sane world, I would be given a Pulitzer.
Owens responds to accusations of being anti-Semitic
FG: There’s a lot of suspicion of you that you have gone from that criticism of Israel into full-on Jew-hatred. How do you respond to that allegation of anti-Semitism?
CO: It’s nonsense to say that I have hatred for Jews. I worked for Prager University. It is a literal Zionist enterprise that is run by an IDF intelligence. I then worked for the Daily Wire, which is run by Ben Shapiro. Prior to that, I worked in private equity for two Jews in New York for four years. And I almost married a Jew, actually, while I was in New York… I’m the same girl who stood up to Black Lives Matter. I don’t care about your identity. I know when people are calling people racist because they are trying to stop the conversation. They said, “You’re a self-hating black.” I know exactly what’s happening when you start using your identity as a shield, and it just doesn’t work with me. What’s happening in Gaza is atrocious.
FG: Well, you married a self-hating Brit instead. Not self-hating, sorry. I meant to say you married a Brit. Let me say that again. I don’t know whether your husband’s self-hating. I’m self-hating.
