Live Reaction: Debunking Candace Owens on Carlson & Putin

"It's the first correct thing that she said."

Hello Team

🎦 00:00-01:13⏩

Jonathan introduces a new video format: a live reaction and debunking of a Candace Owens video about Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin, joined by Tom, a viewer who reached out to him. Jonathan expresses anger towards the video's content and highlights Candace Owens's popularity among right-wing audiences. He acknowledges her niche in the information space, fueled by her controversial views.

Return to top⤴️

Candace Owens Introduction: Adulation and "Independent Journalism"

🎦 05:17-06:27⏩

Jonathan and Tom react to the opening of Candace Owens's video, noting her request for viewers to share the video. They criticise her praise of Tucker Carlson as an "independent journalist", questioning both his independence and journalistic integrity.

Return to top⤴️

Putin's History Lesson and Candice Owens's Fawning

🎦 06:29-09:10⏩

Jonathan and Tom comment on Candace Owens's admiration for Putin's hour-long history lesson during the interview, comparing it to how a similar situation with Biden would be ridiculed. They critique Owens's acceptance of Putin's potentially biased historical narrative as objective truth.

Return to top⤴️

Debunking Putin's Historical Claims: Kievan Rus and the Origins of the Russian State

🎦 09:10-14:23⏩

Tom debunks Putin's claims about the origins of the Russian state, specifically his emphasis on the Kievan Rus. Tom explains that the Kievan Rus was formed in 862 AD by the Varangians (Swedish Vikings) and ceased to exist after the Mongol invasion in the 13th century. He argues that the true origins of the Russian state lie in the Duchy of Moscow, which emerged about 400 years later and gradually gained power, eventually surpassing the Golden Horde. Tom draws a parallel with France claiming its origins in ancient Rome, highlighting the fallacy in Putin's historical narrative.

Return to top⤴️

Putin's Essentialist View of Russia and Ukraine

🎦 14:23-18:06⏩

Jonathan introduces the concept of "essentialism" and applies it to Putin's view of Russia and Ukraine. He argues that Putin believes in an essential "Russianness" that includes Ukraine, making Ukrainian self-determination irrelevant in his eyes. Jonathan explains that essentialism often leads to rigid thinking and a failure to grasp the complexities of historical and cultural evolution.

Return to top⤴️

Candace Owens's American Derision and Putin Fawning

🎦 18:06-19:15⏩

Jonathan points out Candace Owens's denigration of America and her continued praise of Putin, even after his dubious historical lecture. He contrasts Owens's criticism of Americans' alleged inability to focus with her admiration for Putin's long-winded history lesson.

Return to top⤴️

Candace Owens on 2014: Disinformation about the Euromaidan and Yanukovych

🎦 19:15-25:06⏩

Jonathan and Tom analyse Candace Owens's claims about the events of 2014 in Ukraine. They address her statement that "you don't even likely know what happened in 2014." They debunk her portrayal of the Euromaidan protests as a US-backed coup orchestrated through neo-Nazis. They detail the history of Viktor Yanukovych, highlighting his criminal record, accusations of election rigging, and his ties to Russia. They explain how the Euromaidan protests were a popular uprising against Yanukovych's broken promises and his pro-Russian policies.

Return to top⤴️

Debunking the Neo-Nazi Narrative: The Azov Battalion and Russian Hypocrisy

🎦 25:06-35:14⏩

Jonathan and Tom take apart Candace Owens's claims about neo-Nazis in Ukraine and her linking of the Azov Battalion to the Euromaidan protests. Tom clarifies that the Azov Battalion was formed in response to Russia's 2014 invasion of Eastern Ukraine and was initially composed of volunteers defending their homeland. He acknowledges the presence of neo-Nazi elements within the battalion but stresses that these individuals do not represent the Ukrainian army as a whole. They highlight the hypocrisy of Russia's claims of "denazifying" Ukraine while employing the Wagner Group, a mercenary organisation with known neo-Nazi links. Tom provides statistics on far-right violence in Russia, revealing a significantly higher rate compared to the US and Western Europe. He explains how Russia has been actively supporting far-right movements across Europe, further contradicting their "denazification" narrative.

Return to top⤴️

Candace Owens's Misleading Time Clip and Dubious Statistics

🎦 35:14-38:10⏩

Jonathan criticises the vagueness of the Time magazine clip presented by Candace Owens as evidence of a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. He points out the lack of concrete statistical data and the reliance on anecdotal evidence like tattoos and a recruitment event. Jonathan emphasises the importance of skepticism and questioning the validity of claims, especially those lacking in solid evidence.

Return to top⤴️

Candace Owens's Rhetorical Ploys: False Assertions and Conspiracy Theories

🎦 38:10-53:42⏩

Jonathan and Tom continue their critique of Candace Owens's rhetorical strategies, particularly her use of false assertions and vague claims about history and facts being suppressed. They address her accusation that the West is funding a Nazi problem in Ukraine, challenging her to provide evidence for this claim. They also analyse her attack on the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), arguing that she misrepresents their stance on the Azov Battalion, conflating it with the separate Azov movement. Jonathan condemns Owens's attempts to paint herself as a victim of censorship while ignoring the far more serious restrictions on free speech in Russia. He points out the hypocrisy of her complaints about censorship while supporting a regime that actively silences dissent.

Return to top⤴️

Candace Owens's "Facts" and the Language Debate

🎦 53:42-58:14⏩

Jonathan picks apart Candace Owens's repeated use of the word "facts" to lend credibility to her unsubstantiated claims. He calls out her false statement about the majority of Ukrainians speaking Russian and highlights the historical context of Russia's attempts to suppress the Ukrainian language. Jonathan and Tom ridicule Owens's framing of the conflict as a "civil dispute" and her admiration for Putin's "historical context," which they see as justification for Russia's invasion. They draw a parallel with the UK hypothetically invading Ireland based on historical claims and shared language, demonstrating the absurdity of Putin's and Owens's logic.

Return to top⤴️

Wrap up: Cognitive Dissonance and Recommendations

🎦 58:14-01:04⏩
:33
Jonathan concludes the video by reflecting on "Brandolini's Law", highlighting the effort required to debunk misinformation compared to the ease of spreading it. He expresses hope that viewers will recognise the unreliability of Candace Owens's and Putin's narratives. Jonathan addresses the potential for "cognitive dissonance" among viewers who may have previously admired Owens and Carlson but now find themselves confronted with their pro-Russian stance. He encourages viewers to reflect on their own thought processes and consider the validity of the information they consume. Finally, he recommends several documentaries and films: "20 Days in Mariupol," "Winter on Fire," "Navalny," and "White Raven" to provide viewers with alternative perspectives on the conflict and its historical context.

Return to top⤴️