What happened to Candace Owens? Now she claims Jews were responsible for establishing the Soviet Union and the cruelties of communism! She consistently defends the Putin regime, but her claims are ridiculous.

Populist pundit Candace Owens defended the unprovoked Russian invasion by saying “Ukraine wasn’t a thing until 1989. The Russians created Ukraine. . . They speak Russian.” She then went on to claim Russians living in Ukraine were horribly mistreated, so Putin’s invasion was necessary.
Her “Russian lives matter” article was retweeted by the Kremlin. Olga Lautman responded “Russian lives matter so much to Putin’s war crime regime that they sent portable crematories to hide the deaths. Candace is clearly on the payroll pushing Kremlin garbage while supporting genocide.”
I don’t enjoy criticizing social media influencers on the right, but lunacy and the outrageous claims made by many Putin Republicans must be answered.
That is especially true of someone such as Candace Owens who I repeatedly praised in the past on domestic issues. I wanted to be part of the effort to promote a young attractive and interesting black woman as a major spokesman for the conservative cause.
She is no longer part of Turning Point but her willingness to engage in debates on college campuses was fantastic. Owens became enormously popular as she advocated reduced government spending, economic growth and criticized the woke warriors.
Encouraging black participation in the GOP is a very admirable goal, and a Republican majority is inevitable if we can win at least 20% of the black vote. Several current polls demonstrate that goal is finally on track to happen this year for the first time since 1960.
I was also a major fan of Lara Logan in her CBS days, but now I am appalled by many of her conspiracy theories.
Owens appeared to change after developing a friendship with Kanye West which is about the time she started making antisemitic comments reflecting his outlook. It saddens me to see Owens, Logan and other “national populists” defending Russian aggression.
Several prominent conservatives have already answered Owens comments about Hitler and her claims Jews were responsible for communism in the Soviet Union. A recap of their points answering Owens after her Twitter (X) debate with Joel Pollak of Breitbart News includes:

1) She says 447 of the 525 Bolsheviks in the leadership of the Soviet Union were Jews. Of the actual Commissars of the USSR when it was founded, just three were Jewish: Trotsky, Kamenev, Sokolnikov.

2) Jews were most represented not among Commissars, but rather in the exceedingly early Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. What she doesn’t note is that Stalin quickly purged almost all of them.

3) Bolshevism was not popular among the Eastern Jewish population overall, per their voting records. Jews were 7th-most represented among Communist Party members compared to the other nationalities.

4) Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote “It is quite wrong to say Jews organized the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The attitude of the Jewish populations at large toward the Bolsheviks was guarded, if not hostile.”

5) Soviet anti-Zionism is extremely well-documented. Even the Jewish communists were strong anti-Zionists. They also targeted synagogues.

6) It is well known the Soviet Union was a cruel and despicable regime. She believes communist Jews were responsible for the construction of Christian death camps. They weren’t solely “Christian death camps.” In fact, the camps included Jews and all ethnicities. Every prisoner was subjected to extreme physical labor.

7) She claims Vladimir Lenin (real last name Ulyanov) was of Ukrainian Jewish descent. No he wasn’t. Lenin’s sister discovered after his death they had a single Jewish grandparent, but this was unknown to him during his life. 75% of Lenin’s heritage was “Christian,” and “Ulyanov” is not a Jewish surname.

8 ) She claims Josef Stalin’s ancestry is still hotly debated. It is not actually! Stalin was ethnically Georgian and raised as a devout Christian. This is detailed in many Stalin biographies.

9) She claims Stalin spoke Yiddish and his three wives were all Jews. That is completely false. He didn’t speak Yiddish, and none of his wives were Jewish. Once again, the sources are readily available.

10) The bulk of the Jewish ethnic presence in Bolshevism was the 4 Jews who happened to briefly find themselves in the Politburo until the mid-1920s. After Stalin’s purges, Jews were clearly underrepresented in the party leadership and government. Jews weren’t ever overwhelmingly in charge like Candace Owens claims. They were, easily replaced by a man Candace Owens absurdly alleges is Jewish.

11) One must wonder where Owens gets this stuff because even the most vehement Stalin critics do not claim he was Jewish.

12) The development of the Judeo-Bolshevism myth now repeated by Candace Owens was initially a tactic of the White Army and its emigres. Earlier they similarly blamed the assassination of Tsar Alex II on the Jews, despite a minimal Jewish presence in the conspiracy.

13) The main source for her claims about Jewish influence is White Army propagandist Robert Wilton, who was clearly not a neutral actor. It’s possible her mistaken numbers came from the Civilità cattolica publication, which was deeply involved in anti-Jewish propaganda.

14) Owens responded to these claims by writing “Utterly bonkers that you are denying Jew involvement and orchestration of the gulags.”

15) Professor Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University, a Yale and MIT graduate, reminded Owens that before the revolution Stalin was training to be a priest. He also said “Candace, you really do need to provide links when you make amazing claims.”

Which way for GOP foreign policy? The traditional conservative peace through strength approach or what Steve Bannon calls an isolationist and national populist revolution.

The ongoing struggle between conservatives and national populists on defense and foreign policy issues is integral to the major battle for the heart and soul of the GOP, and we are not going to predict a winner.
If America were a European nation, conservatives and national populists would be in separate political parties. There is common ground on many domestic, spending and border security issues, but populists often agree with the left on national security policy.
You constantly see it on Steve Bannon’s War Room, the Tucker Carlson Network, InfoWars and in the Gateway Pundit.
Steve Bannon says his goal is to turn the GOP into a national populist party advocating isolationism and protectionism. After numerous populist candidates won GOP primaries, Bannon claimed Republicans would gain 100 House seats in the 2022 election because they had “defied the GOP establishment.”
We wish his prediction about GOP gains was accurate but there was no significant red wave in 2022. For over a year, Bannon repeatedly said “If we put together a unity ticket of Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy, Jr. it would be insurmountable — we would bring over many of the national populists on the Left.”
Bannon has repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to reach out for support from the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. He told Bill Maher, “I like Bernie. He’s a populist. I don’t agree with his solutions. . . but one of the biggest parts is identifying the problem. I think Bernie has identified the problem. . . We can win by bashing the two parties and beating the uniparty.”
He says we must move beyond “Reaganism,” and “the old conservative vs. liberal battles”. Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens and Alex Jones envision common ground with elements of the radical left in forging a new populism.
Regarding Ukraine, Kennedy says, “The Russians were acting in good faith” and said Biden should apologize to Vladimir Putin who frequently talks about his goal of wiping Ukraine off the map along with its language and culture. Putin says he wants a “New Russia” which will rebuild the USSR.
Charlie Kirk of Turning Point also advocated a Trump/Kennedy ticket and said “We need a realignment outside the two-party system. I believe there is a new coalition being built — not a coalition that is right versus left, but instead, bottom-up versus the ruling oligarchy regime.” Kirk also wants to move beyond “Reaganism” and traditional conservative causes.
The American Conservative magazine, which was founded by Pat Buchanan, has also highly praised Kennedy and his call for foreign policy isolationism. Party unity is very important, and we believe in Reagan’s “big tent” vision of the GOP but there are times we must speak out.
For example, Pat Buchanan was exceedingly popular on the right in the 1990s but he embarrassed our cause by describing Adolph Hitler as a man of “great courage” and saying claims about the Holocaust are wrong because “diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.”
Like Putin Republicans today, Buchanan defended Hitler by saying the Nazi leader sought no empire or wider war with Europe, and his goal was German unification. He thought it was wrong for America to enter World War II.
Conservatives strongly believe Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and radical Islamists are significant regional threats. They emphasize that national security threats are growing and want an increased focus on military modernization and readiness programs. America’s time window for rearmament is far shorter than many believe.
Numerous conservatives strongly disagree with the tactics of the House Freedom Caucus and populist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) who claims Putin is “protecting Christianity and traditional values.”
On June 4, 2024, 46 House Republicans voted for Rep. Greene’s appropriations amendment to defund NATO. This was two days before the 80th anniversary of D-Day. Many of the lawmakers who want to end NATO are members of the Freedom Caucus and we understand why some conservatives call it the Putin Caucus.
National security conservatives know Russia is a lying and cruel terrorist state which is waging an unprovoked war of aggression. A billboard in Moscow has this Putin quote: “Russia’s borders do not end anywhere.”
Fabian Hoffman, PhD, says Russia will not be satisfied with conquering Ukraine and will next target a NATO member nation. Hoffman writes “They will follow the Gerasimov doctrine. With their maximum demand, the Russians manage to get at least half of what they didn’t have before. And that is their success.
“Russia does not need to match NATO’s conventional power. As long as NATO gives in first amid mounting psychological pressure, Russia can walk away with a victory. . . The long game has always been Putin’s trump card.
“It’s what emboldened him. Our lack of preparedness is encouraging Russia. Since 2014, Russian intellectuals have debated extensively and publicly how to win a war against NATO. Where is our debate? . .
“Russia certainly has the potential to beat us in war because we can defeat ourselves with infighting.
“If we were taking the China/Russia/Iran threat seriously we would be ramping up military production dramatically – both in the U.S. and NATO-Europe. Progress has been terribly slow. The U.S. shipbuilding industry has collapsed and there is no serious interest in businesses related to heavy machinery, steel, metals, and chemicals which are desperately needed for an adequate defense industrial base.
“Not only are problems being ignored, but in America many people in both political parties want us to do nothing.
“We went through the same arguments during the Cold War as the West increasingly relied on US nuclear deterrence for security.
“Those who advocated conventional readiness were dismissed as warmongers and globalists. A hard, denial frontline defense is needed for deterrence during crises. The way to begin is through military modernization.”
The West did practically nothing when Russia seized 20% of Georgia in 2008, illegally annexed Crimea and attacked Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region in 2014. The current war in Ukraine is teaching Russia a crucial lesson – the West lacks resolve if there is not an immediate victory. At the same time, China is pressing ahead with a rapid and unprecedented military expansion while Iran is surrounding Israel with its “string of fire” strategy. Now that sanctions are not being enforced, Iran is well funded and intent on destabilizing the Middle East.
We are much closer to war with China and Russia than people realize. Unfortunately, populist or libertarian Senators such Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) downplay the threat and want to cut the defense budget and end the post WW II system of collective security.
Both Senators are strongly attacking the new Senate GOP Armed Services budget which recommends a major focus on military modernization and says our technological edge is questionable given the fragility of supply lines needed to support it. Sen. Paul has praised a proposal by the Center for International Policy to cut defense spending by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.
We hope conservatives and populists will unite because the challenges are massive. In 2015, the national debt was $18 trillion but now it will soon be $35 trillion, and the interest costs already exceed the entire defense budget.
Mandatory spending has been ignored for 25 years and while even Republicans hate to hear it, all of George W. Bush’s fiscal warnings in January 2005 were correct. It should have been addressed at the time, but Democrats claimed there was no problem. Now mandatory spending will soon be 80% of the budget.
In unity there is strength, and we hope the GOP civil war will calm down, but we are not optimistic.