Tucker Carlson

Elon bought Twitter, and you just became a little more powerful

People who want a monopoly on speech and thought hate Elon Musk, not because he’s a racist, he’s not, but because they can’t control him.

Published

5 months ago

April 26, 2022

Alan Rugger

Tucker takes a look at why the media are so upset that Elon Musk purchased Twitter. Highlights include:

“Elon Musk bought Twitter today. That means that Twitter henceforth will be privately held, Elon Musk will determine what is allowed on the platform.”

“Now, why is this significant? Not because it signals the sudden arrival of oligarchy, as you’re hearing now. It’s too late for that, oligarchy is already here. Every major tech company is already controlled by billionaires, that’s been the case for a long time, so this is nothing new.”

“The reason today’s sale of Twitter is big news, the reason it could turn out to be a pivot point in our history, is that Elon Musk does not agree with the rest of the billionaires in the tech business. Unlike the leaders of Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Elon Musk believes in free speech. He thinks everyone should be allowed to talk, including people who disagree with him.”

“One platform going rogue is enough to break the monopoly. That means you now have real options for expressing yourself. Going forward, if you disagree with the administration’s latest directive, you get to say so out loud to an audience. So, they’re up there every day from the podium, the biggest megaphone in the world, commanding you to hate this or that group, lecturing you about who’s good and who’s evil as if you’re a child and have no right to decide for yourself these things, the basic things.”

“But before today, you didn’t have a right to express your disagreement in public. If you had an opposing opinion, or even more dangerous than that, if you had countervailing facts that undermine their storyline, the tech companies would shut you down immediately. Never hearing about those people was the whole point of shutting them down.”

“But that’s over.”

“So, in the case of Elon Musk, we will see how this turns out. But, for now, Musk’s purchase of Twitter is the single biggest political development since Donald Trump’s election in 2016. It is certainly the most threatening challenge to the corrupt and incompetent leadership of this country. Now, that may not be obvious to everyone yet, but the people in charge certainly understand it.”

“What you just saw was the collective grief of people who thought they were going to b fully in charge, who totally believe they’d be able to rule without limit. You’re watching those people learn that actually, other people get to talk, too. And that realization is crushing to them; it’s the one thing they fear, and that tells you everything about why those people should never be near power. People who want a monopoly on speech and thought hate Elon Musk, not because he’s a racist, he’s not, but because they can’t control him.”

“‘Elon Musk is a threat to the weak!’ say the most privileged and powerful people in our society.”

“Really, are they really standing up for the weak? No, the weak are the people who aren’t allowed to say what they really think, those are the weak, and what you just saw are the strong demanding the silence of the weak. Everyone’s kind of figured this out, except the people demanding it. They’re so far up their own butts, you just heard them say that Twitter has a fiduciary duty to ignore its shareholders, block the deal, and continue Twitter’s decline in the market.”

“It doesn’t even make any sense, and because it doesn’t, you can be sure you’re watching a meltdown. And, of course, at the bottom of the meltdown is always the same charge: ‘He’s a racist!'”

Watch the video below and practice your own free speech in the comments.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Up Next

Tucker: Stalinism vs Democracy, a test

Don't Miss

Tucker: Crime is out of control

Tucker Carlson

Martha’s Vineyard Hypocrisy

The ones who claim to be the ‘best people’ are actually the worst people.

Published

1 week ago

September 23, 2022

Alan Rugger

Tucker’s coverage of the recent visit some Venezuelans made to Martha’s Vineyard continues. Highlights include:

“Those brief hours our Venezuelan brothers and sisters spent on Martha’s Vineyard changed history and left what they’re calling ‘an indelible mark’ on the people who lived there. ‘They enriched us,’ said one resident, ‘we were happy to help them on their journey.’ Unfortunately, as it turned out, that journey ended abruptly at a military base on Cape Cod where our Venezuelan brothers and sisters are being held against their will.”

“The people of Martha’s Vineyard knew this was going to happen, and yet none of them thought to tell their Venezuelan brothers and sisters before it happened.”

“Fifty brown people was too many for the people of Martha’s Vineyard. They called in the army to have them removed, like trash, as one island resident said. So actually, judging by their behavior and not simply by their lawn signs, which is the best way to judge people, the people of Martha’s Vineyard are not especially compassionate. In fact, they’re small-minded, and cheap, and pretty nasty, as any waiter or babysitter who works on the island can tell you. So, once again, the ones who claim to be the ‘best people’ are actually the worst people.”

“Actually, the people of Martha’s Vineyard, the residents there are the ones who did the tricking. They tricked the Venezuelans into going to a military base. But that wasn’t deception, no. According to Elizabeth Warren it was an act of love.”

Watch the video below and give us some love in the comments.

Tucker Carlson

Obama’s DOJ allows record crime in Chicago

George Soros backed a prosecutor named Kim Fox who turned Chicago over to the most vicious people who live there.

Published

2 weeks ago

September 15, 2022

Alan Rugger

Tucker takes a look at how even the good neighborhoods in Chicago became gang run dystopias. Highlights include:

“Imagine dystopia. You hear that word frequently, what does it mean? Picture it in your mind’s eye. Dystopia is a world where the police will not protect you. They refuse.”

“And at the same time, you are not allowed to protect yourself.”

“So, who does that leave in charge? Who runs a world like that? Well, young men with guns. They’re in charge, the cruelest, most violent element of any society, the people with the least to lose. People like that have all the power. You have no power, and that means that everything you have is theirs.”

“According to reporting by CWB Chicago, just minutes after Ryan King was threatened with death for daring to walk outside in his own neighborhood, Chicago police spotted the gunmen’s vehicle, but there was nothing they could do about it.”

“Their supervisor ordered them not to pursue it, so the criminals just drove off, and of course they committed more violent crimes.”

“Police believe at least two organized armed gangs are now operating with impunity around Bucktown, which means the gangs are in charge now. That’s what the collapse of civilization looks like.”

“So, how did this happen? Well, it’s no mystery. There are many threads. But George Soros is a big one. Soros paid for this to happen. Soros backed a prosecutor named Kim Fox who turned Chicago over to the most vicious people who live there.”

“She’s not the only person who did this, the federal government also played a role. Over the eight years of the Barak Obama administration, the Department of Justice forced more than a dozen police departments around the country to enter into something called ‘dissent decrees.’ Chicago was one of them.”

“Now, all of these decrees took the same form. They pronounce police departments guilty of racism if those departments disproportionally interact with African Americans, regardless of whether those interactions were legally justified. In other words, the law is entirely irrelevaNt to the dissent decree, and so is reality itself.”

Watch the video below and tell us what you think in the comments.