Why is Candace Owens controversial?

Why?  That's what I want to ask The Guardian.  You know who I think is controversial?  Oprah Winfrey.  Stephen Colbert.  Just about any late night comedian.  Most of what passes for news anchoring on MSNBC.  The BLM movement.  The Parkland students only about gun control, using vulgarities and attack speech against any non-conformers while never letting us know just who were the bullies.  Most Hollywood operatives.  I could name others.

And yet I almost never hear any of them labeled as "Controversial."

Of course controversial is entirely subjective.  What's controversial to some might not be to others.  The Mapplethorpe exhibit was mighty controversial in its day, and brought people's opinions from all over the country.  But some didn't care. When Rosanne mocked the National Anthem, it was controversial.  But some didn't care.  Heck some thought it was hilarious.

Naturally in a nation where there are hundreds of millions of people, almost anything could be controversial to someone.  I guess the point really isn't so much why Candace Owens is called controversial.  Subjective as that term is, I'll grant you that she probably is controversial to some.

The question is why the others are almost never qualified the same way.  The answer is obvious (that's called a rhetorical question).  The press, propaganda organ for the Left, uses little digs like that to implant images in the minds of readers.  They wouldn't want someone like Stephen Colbert to be considered 'controversial', or Jimmy Kimmel, or any other Leftwing pundit.  That might get people to think twice before taking them at face value.

But by dropping the 'controversial' modifier in front of almost any non-liberal pundit or position, it has a propaganda effect, a sort of subliminal 'this is controversial, which means troubling' before you even begin to read it.  The tactic has been used by the press for decades to frame the debate around one possible resolution.

Remember, the purpose of most journalism in the West today is to advance a secular, leftist agenda and narrative.  Some of it is innocent enough.  It's merely the result of bias.  After all, to people in an echo chamber who all hold the same biases that they toss back and forth, the socialist, Marxist, secular,  post-Christian, global government template is as true as gravity.  To them, anyone who denies this is a case of man biting dog.  And that, as we know, is newsworthy.

But it can also be deliberate; meant to break down, harm, or destroy those who don't conform.  I feel that young Ms. Owens, like Jordan Peterson, is in for a wild ride.  They had best have it wired tight, or the slightest deviation from perfection will be seized upon to attack and destroy.  In an age of Identity Politics, there is no forgiveness, reconciliation, mercy or letting bygones be bygones.  Errors and mistakes and sins are used to destroy and exterminate.  They, and other prominent voices who buck Pravda, have been warned.

As if to illustrate my point, obviously Ms. Owens has touched a nerve.  Liberal nonpeople (liberal designated demographics that matter, and yet stray from the liberal fold) are always a threat.  Women who want to stay home and raise kids, former homosexuals who saw it as an ill fated choice or who sought counseling and overcame their desires, immigrants opposed to immigrants breaking immigration laws, and blacks who buck the Democratic boat, are all part of these nonpeople.  So expect the daggers to start flying.  You'll no doubt see some racially colored barbs and insults, as often happens to minorities who break from the Left.  For most leftist rags, like The Daily Beast, it will just be condescending insults and name calling and more insults and name calling and some attempts at possible character assassination.  Again, they've been warned.