• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Dinesh D'Souza article

H

Heavens Declare

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
This just appeared in my inbox. A little love triangle here perhaps!


[td]
​
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more​


[/td]​


Charlie's Angel and Candace Owens' Vendetta​

"I believe I’ve figured out what’s going on with Candace..."​

Dinesh D'Souza
Mar 10




​
How do you solve a problem like Candace Owens? Well, first we have to realize that something is deeply wrong here. I think most people have realized that.
The next step is to figure out what exactly is wrong—what’s going on with this woman? I believe I can answer this question. On the final question, what to do, I have merely a commonsense suggestion which I’ll give you at the end.
Candace continues her undeclared war against Erika Kirk. The latest is Candace’s multi-episode investigation into Erika’s life, “Bride of Charlie.” Now this is some weird stuff here. As my wife says, “What business is it of hers? Why doesn’t Candace leave Erika alone?”

I’m sure Candace would answer: Because there’s a chance that Erika is part of the Deep State. Because maybe Erika had something to do with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Because maybe Turning Point at the highest levels was also involved? And of course if that’s true—IF that’s true—then the assassins’ cabal is now running Turning Point, the most influential youth organization in America.
I’m seeing lots of memes on social media to the effect that Candace is insane, Candace is a demon, Candace is a secret leftist, and also calls for defenders of Candace, notably Megyn Kelly, to dissociate from her.
But we not only have to explain Candace; we also have to explain why people like Megyn are so reluctant to simply say, “She’s gone nuts.”



As many of you know, I know the main players in this story. Not Erika: I don’t know Erika Kirk. If I met Erika Kirk, I honestly don’t remember. As far as I know, I saw Erika Kirk for the first time at Charlie’s memorial. I was deeply moved when Erika said she forgave Charlie’s killer.
Debbie and I were in the very front, and I could see, I could feel, how difficult it was for her to say that. (CLIP) Yet it is the purest expression of Christian forgiveness, of Christ-like agape. I was deeply moved.
Charlie Kirk, I’ve known for many years, mainly through various TPUSA events, and also by doing his podcast. Shortly after I married Debbie, in 2016, I saw Charlie at a conference and I introduced my wife to him as “Dixie.” Which happens to be the name of my EX-wife. Charlie laughed. I laughed, more nervously. Debbie did not laugh.
I’ve known Candace since her early Blexit days, and I’ve spoken at some of her Blexit events. I’ve always liked Candace. There is something quite magnetic, quite effervescent about her. I get why Megyn Kelly is so taken by her. Sure, she’s an obvious megalomaniac, but guess what? Politics if full of them. Most congressmen and Senators are megalomaniacs. Most public figures are full of themselves. Being full of yourself is, regrettably, part of the job description in this field.





​


Continued...
 
Last edited:
I also know people who were very close to Charlie, and were, and are, very close to Candace. Through them, I believe I’ve figured out what’s going on with Candace and Charlie and Erika. It’s a dark triangle of a familiar sort, but with distinctive elements.
Consider the story of a young man who becomes hugely successful through his entrepreneurial genius, his gift of the gab, and his organizational skills. He creates a huge organization, absolutely blowing away other conservative youth organizations. In the process he befriends Trump and Vance, and he creates a massive donor network. He becomes Charlie Kirk.
But Charlie Kirk is in some respects an awkward fellow. He has lots of male buddies, but he doesn’t relate romantically to women. I know this from an elderly lady who is one of Charlie’s big supporters and was also a longtime friend. She came on board with Charlie from his earliest days. She tried to set Charlie up with a number of young women from prominent families, including the Charles Schwab family. But, she says, none of the women were interested. Their common complaint: “Charlie’s a nerd. I don’t have any chemistry with him.”
Charlie was a successful guy who hadn’t found a woman to marry. This is not to say that he didn’t have women friends. He did, but he related to them as buddies. Hey, they might as well have been male. Charlie talked to them like business associates in some cases, and like locker-room pals in other cases.



Candace was in the latter category. She was a close locker-room buddy of Charlie’s. They hung out a lot. They swapped messages. They confided in each other. But here’s the key point. For Charlie, Candace was merely a buddy, kind of like Tyler Bowyer or Andrew Kolvet. (These guys, whom I also know, are now two of the key figures running Turning Point.) Charlie would no more think of making the moves on Candace than he would think of making the moves on Tyler or Andrew. Charlie’s relationship with Candace was, from Charlie’s point of view, Platonic.
But from Candace’s point of view? Not Platonic! At least not according to my sources. Candace was definitely interested in Charlie. Candace saw Charlie as some kind of cosmically important figure, just like her. Candace has made some strange references to how both she and Charlie had extra-terrestrial powers. Maybe Candace thought the two of them were celestial beings placed on earth to find each other.
And then—horror of horrors—Charlie picks Erika. Erika! Now you have to understand, not what Erika Kirk really is, but what Erika Kirk represents from Candace’s point of view In reality, Erika seems to be lovely person, beautiful and accomplished, someone who came out of the world of pageants and modeling, but also established herself as an entrepreneur and a career professional, and of course she also seems to be a devoted mom. This is how Charlie saw Erika, and this is how most people see her as well.
But not Candace! From Candace’s viewpoint, Erika is a nobody. What does she know about politics, this Arizona beauty queen? She’s a bimbo. She’s a peasant. She is completely removed from the brightly-illuminated celestial realm inhabited by special creatures like Candace and Charlie. Besides, how did Erika jump out from behind the curtain and grab this guy? Why on earth did he go for her? After all, he and Candace had been so close for so long.





​

I believe Candace came to the conclusion that Charlie was hers by destiny, by divine right. And the fact that Charlie and Erika ended up together was more than she could bear. Candace has always been somewhat unhinged, but now she went completely berserk. She was inconsolable in her rage. She developed a vendetta.
Envy is a very powerful force in human nature. I’m reminded of Othello, Shakespeare’s great saga about the fruits of envy. In Othello the envious man is Iago, and in the play he expresses the nature of envy very powerfully, but not in a line about Othello, but rather about another attractive figure, Cassio. Iago says of Cassio, “He hath a daily beauty in his life that makes me ugly.” And Iago plots his vendetta against both Cassio and, later, Othello.
Now part of Iago’s dark cleverness is to recognize things thare are true, but that public opinion cannot acknowledge. Iago knows, for example, that Othello is black and that this makes him strange, controversial, even repulsive in Christian Venice. But you can’t say that, not even then, not even there, because Othello is also a war hero. But Iago plays on Othello’s blackness to carry out his plot against him.
Candace, like Iago, knows that there is a public mythology about Charlie and Erika that developed after Charlie’s assassination. It’s not that different from what happened to JFK. Suddenly after the assassination JFK became this wonderboy. His wife became the paragon of beauty and culture. None of this was actually true. Camelot was a public myth.





​


Same with Charlie and Erika. They have been canonized into something far more than they were. Candace sees behind that veil. Her attack on Erika is based on the premise: let me show you the real creature behind the veil of public sanctimony. This is the key to the fascination with Candace’s “Bride of Erika” series. From the point of view of her devotees, Candace is exposing the real Erika.
Candace, like Iago, has a vendetta, but against whom? The conventional view is that Candace is conducting a character assassination campaign against Erika. Most of the comments I see from Candace’s critics are focused on protecting Erika’s reputation. This, I think, misses the point. From Candace’s point of view, nothing could be more obvious than Erika wanting Charlie. Why wouldn’t she want to marry the prince?
The real mystery is why Charlie wanted Erika, and chose Erika over Candace. Why did Charlie make Erika “Charlie’s angel”? I think I know the answer to that. Charlie recognized Candace’s talent, her dark energy, but he also knew he didn’t want it in his home. Charlie might have been awkward, but he was also wise. He knew that Erica would be a nicer, prettier, more stable life partner than Candace could ever be.
Imagine being married to Candace. Imagine being her husband. Imagine life in that household. Yeah, I’d like to be a fly on that wall. I bet I’d had enough gossip to last a lifetime.
Yet for Candace, Charlie’s decision to choose Erika was the real betrayal. What I’m suggesting—and this is merely my psychological take on this strange and complex subject—is that Candace’s target is not Erika but Charlie. Candace’s vendetta is against Charlie.
“Charlie’s my friend.” That’s what Candace says repeatedly. She implies that she’s doing all this for Charlie. That is the great deception here. Charlie was her friend. But then Charlie not only chose Erika over her, but just as significant, he expelled Candace from his orbit in large part because of Erika. No one saw Candace at Charlie’s memorial. That’s because she wasn’t there. She wasn’t invited. So that’s when Candace became Maleficent, the wicked witch of the West, and when this vendetta got started.
Debbie and I watch a lot of true crime stories. The standard plot is different from what we’ve been talking about, but it’s still illuminating for our purpose here. Man and woman have long-term marriage. But over time, their romantic relationship dissolves and they are just room-mates, just friends.
Man takes up with younger, attractive woman. Suddenly they are always together, hand-in-hand, lovely-dovey. They are soul-mates, made for each other. They do everything together. His old partner cannot understand it—what do those two have in common?—and soon that incomprehension turns to rage. And sometimes that rage is aimed at the man, not the woman. That’s when the criminal plot to destroy him gets under way.
It’s a familiar plot-line and I think the parallels are obvious to our situation here. But there’ s a deeper point I want you to consider. Vendettas are typically between equals. A duke doesn’t have a vendetta against a serf. Duke don’t fight duels against serfs. The Duke of York will fight a duel, but only against the Duke of Sussex. Candace fancies herself an aristocrat—hey, have you noticed who she married in the end? A British aristocrat, or maybe pseudo-aristocrat. In any case, she went for European royalty, which is fairly common in Europe these days, and is also colloquially known as Euro-trash.
But my point here is that Candace isn’t dueling with Erika because she doesn’t consider Erika to be her equal. She’s really battling with Charlie, or perhaps today we’d have to say, she’s battling with Charlie’s ghost. “Erika, Bride of Charlie.” Think about that title. Erika is the subject, but her only identification is “bride of Charlie.” Charlie’s the real villain of the story, and it’s Charlie—Charlie’s reputation, and perhaps even Charlie’s memory—that this strange, angry, vengeful woman is bent on destroying through her relentless crusade.
 
Heavens Declare said:
I also know people who were very close to Charlie, and were, and are, very close to Candace. Through them, I believe I’ve figured out what’s going on with Candace and Charlie and Erika. It’s a dark triangle of a familiar sort, but with distinctive elements.
Consider the story of a young man who becomes hugely successful through his entrepreneurial genius, his gift of the gab, and his organizational skills. He creates a huge organization, absolutely blowing away other conservative youth organizations. In the process he befriends Trump and Vance, and he creates a massive donor network. He becomes Charlie Kirk.
But Charlie Kirk is in some respects an awkward fellow. He has lots of male buddies, but he doesn’t relate romantically to women. I know this from an elderly lady who is one of Charlie’s big supporters and was also a longtime friend. She came on board with Charlie from his earliest days. She tried to set Charlie up with a number of young women from prominent families, including the Charles Schwab family. But, she says, none of the women were interested. Their common complaint: “Charlie’s a nerd. I don’t have any chemistry with him.”
Charlie was a successful guy who hadn’t found a woman to marry. This is not to say that he didn’t have women friends. He did, but he related to them as buddies. Hey, they might as well have been male. Charlie talked to them like business associates in some cases, and like locker-room pals in other cases.



Candace was in the latter category. She was a close locker-room buddy of Charlie’s. They hung out a lot. They swapped messages. They confided in each other. But here’s the key point. For Charlie, Candace was merely a buddy, kind of like Tyler Bowyer or Andrew Kolvet. (These guys, whom I also know, are now two of the key figures running Turning Point.) Charlie would no more think of making the moves on Candace than he would think of making the moves on Tyler or Andrew. Charlie’s relationship with Candace was, from Charlie’s point of view, Platonic.
But from Candace’s point of view? Not Platonic! At least not according to my sources. Candace was definitely interested in Charlie. Candace saw Charlie as some kind of cosmically important figure, just like her. Candace has made some strange references to how both she and Charlie had extra-terrestrial powers. Maybe Candace thought the two of them were celestial beings placed on earth to find each other.
And then—horror of horrors—Charlie picks Erika. Erika! Now you have to understand, not what Erika Kirk really is, but what Erika Kirk represents from Candace’s point of view In reality, Erika seems to be lovely person, beautiful and accomplished, someone who came out of the world of pageants and modeling, but also established herself as an entrepreneur and a career professional, and of course she also seems to be a devoted mom. This is how Charlie saw Erika, and this is how most people see her as well.
But not Candace! From Candace’s viewpoint, Erika is a nobody. What does she know about politics, this Arizona beauty queen? She’s a bimbo. She’s a peasant. She is completely removed from the brightly-illuminated celestial realm inhabited by special creatures like Candace and Charlie. Besides, how did Erika jump out from behind the curtain and grab this guy? Why on earth did he go for her? After all, he and Candace had been so close for so long.





​

I believe Candace came to the conclusion that Charlie was hers by destiny, by divine right. And the fact that Charlie and Erika ended up together was more than she could bear. Candace has always been somewhat unhinged, but now she went completely berserk. She was inconsolable in her rage. She developed a vendetta.
Envy is a very powerful force in human nature. I’m reminded of Othello, Shakespeare’s great saga about the fruits of envy. In Othello the envious man is Iago, and in the play he expresses the nature of envy very powerfully, but not in a line about Othello, but rather about another attractive figure, Cassio. Iago says of Cassio, “He hath a daily beauty in his life that makes me ugly.” And Iago plots his vendetta against both Cassio and, later, Othello.
Now part of Iago’s dark cleverness is to recognize things thare are true, but that public opinion cannot acknowledge. Iago knows, for example, that Othello is black and that this makes him strange, controversial, even repulsive in Christian Venice. But you can’t say that, not even then, not even there, because Othello is also a war hero. But Iago plays on Othello’s blackness to carry out his plot against him.
Candace, like Iago, knows that there is a public mythology about Charlie and Erika that developed after Charlie’s assassination. It’s not that different from what happened to JFK. Suddenly after the assassination JFK became this wonderboy. His wife became the paragon of beauty and culture. None of this was actually true. Camelot was a public myth.





​


Same with Charlie and Erika. They have been canonized into something far more than they were. Candace sees behind that veil. Her attack on Erika is based on the premise: let me show you the real creature behind the veil of public sanctimony. This is the key to the fascination with Candace’s “Bride of Erika” series. From the point of view of her devotees, Candace is exposing the real Erika.
Candace, like Iago, has a vendetta, but against whom? The conventional view is that Candace is conducting a character assassination campaign against Erika. Most of the comments I see from Candace’s critics are focused on protecting Erika’s reputation. This, I think, misses the point. From Candace’s point of view, nothing could be more obvious than Erika wanting Charlie. Why wouldn’t she want to marry the prince?
The real mystery is why Charlie wanted Erika, and chose Erika over Candace. Why did Charlie make Erika “Charlie’s angel”? I think I know the answer to that. Charlie recognized Candace’s talent, her dark energy, but he also knew he didn’t want it in his home. Charlie might have been awkward, but he was also wise. He knew that Erica would be a nicer, prettier, more stable life partner than Candace could ever be.
Imagine being married to Candace. Imagine being her husband. Imagine life in that household. Yeah, I’d like to be a fly on that wall. I bet I’d had enough gossip to last a lifetime.
Yet for Candace, Charlie’s decision to choose Erika was the real betrayal. What I’m suggesting—and this is merely my psychological take on this strange and complex subject—is that Candace’s target is not Erika but Charlie. Candace’s vendetta is against Charlie.
“Charlie’s my friend.” That’s what Candace says repeatedly. She implies that she’s doing all this for Charlie. That is the great deception here. Charlie was her friend. But then Charlie not only chose Erika over her, but just as significant, he expelled Candace from his orbit in large part because of Erika. No one saw Candace at Charlie’s memorial. That’s because she wasn’t there. She wasn’t invited. So that’s when Candace became Maleficent, the wicked witch of the West, and when this vendetta got started.
Debbie and I watch a lot of true crime stories. The standard plot is different from what we’ve been talking about, but it’s still illuminating for our purpose here. Man and woman have long-term marriage. But over time, their romantic relationship dissolves and they are just room-mates, just friends.
Man takes up with younger, attractive woman. Suddenly they are always together, hand-in-hand, lovely-dovey. They are soul-mates, made for each other. They do everything together. His old partner cannot understand it—what do those two have in common?—and soon that incomprehension turns to rage. And sometimes that rage is aimed at the man, not the woman. That’s when the criminal plot to destroy him gets under way.
It’s a familiar plot-line and I think the parallels are obvious to our situation here. But there’ s a deeper point I want you to consider. Vendettas are typically between equals. A duke doesn’t have a vendetta against a serf. Duke don’t fight duels against serfs. The Duke of York will fight a duel, but only against the Duke of Sussex. Candace fancies herself an aristocrat—hey, have you noticed who she married in the end? A British aristocrat, or maybe pseudo-aristocrat. In any case, she went for European royalty, which is fairly common in Europe these days, and is also colloquially known as Euro-trash.
But my point here is that Candace isn’t dueling with Erika because she doesn’t consider Erika to be her equal. She’s really battling with Charlie, or perhaps today we’d have to say, she’s battling with Charlie’s ghost. “Erika, Bride of Charlie.” Think about that title. Erika is the subject, but her only identification is “bride of Charlie.” Charlie’s the real villain of the story, and it’s Charlie—Charlie’s reputation, and perhaps even Charlie’s memory—that this strange, angry, vengeful woman is bent on destroying through her relentless crusade.
Click to expand...
I am surprised and impressed with this analysis. I will keep this in mind as the Candace story continues....
 
Are we now a tabloid?
It is an interesting possibility, but at what point does it become celebrity gossip porn?
 
steve said:
Are we now a tabloid?
It is an interesting possibility, but at what point does it become celebrity gossip porn?
Click to expand...
These are not celebrities so much as they are voices giving political commentary. They have sway over the minds of many and should not be treated as mere celebrities. Some voices are fighting for good, some for evil. To know their bias is very important when vetting their statements.
Can a biased person tell the truth? Yes. But, knowing their bias helps you filter through the clutter.

Celebs who are societal celebs.... I genuinely don't care what they think! lol
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
These are not celebrities so much as they are voices giving political commentary. They have sway over the minds of many and should not be treated as mere celebrities. Some voices are fighting for good, some for evil. To know their bias is very important when vetting their statements.
Can a biased person tell the truth? Yes. But, knowing their bias helps you filter through the clutter.

Celebs who are societal celebs.... I genuinely don't care what they think! lol
Click to expand...
I posted it here, because of the love triangle, and we can see how a woman coming from the MO perspective reacts to another woman "unseating her".
 
I saw this angle long ago. It’s not new to me.
I’m just not sure how much of this is manufactured and how much is genuine. Outrage porn sells.

In all of this, I’m always looking out for intents. Many of these people purport to hold many of our Christian values, but do they? Are they working for themselves, a foreign government, or worse…the dark spirits? Who’s truly legit? All? Some? None?

When approaching influencers, we have to be wise as serpents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top