The Breitbart Interview: Tucker Carlson

Young Chatsworth!

Tucker as a child

Some excerpts:

On How You Got President Trump:

“...not to take away from Trump, I think he’s a transformative president, and I know him and happen to like him, but not everything is about Trump.... But what’s actually happening is voters on the left and right are increasingly rejecting politics that has no positive effect on their lives. People vote for politicians to make their lives better. It’s not that complicated--democracy is pretty simple that way. Increasingly they don’t get caught up in some kind of theoretical scheme like global warming or diversity or on the Republican side ‘free markets.’ They’re serving theories rather than people. A little bit of that is fine, but over time that doesn’t work. People reject it because it doesn’t bear fruit for them. That’s really the big change.

Trump showed up in his instinctive way, he could smell all of this--he couldn’t always articulate it, but he could feel it. And he shows up and he’s basically like ‘the people in charge are doing a completely crappy job and they don’t care about you and they’re not meeting your basic needs.’ The expressions of that were immigration and trade and a couple of other things, but really that’s what it was about. The people in charge didn’t care about the country and the country was rotting. I think the realignment is really a response to that. It’s not just about Trump and they think he’s obnoxious or whatever--okay, it’s way deeper than that. They’ve been caught. They’ve been exposed as fraudulent. They haven’t done anything for the country. Like, how have you improved America? They haven’t, actually. And they’ve presided over its decline. They should be punished, and they are being punished--and thank God for that."

On the "#Resistance" (please) and the Coupists:

"What you’re seeing is the angriest people are the ones who have been doing the best under the status quo. They’re the ones--the really angry people on Twitter are all rich and well-educated. This is a revolution, they’re waging a revolution against people below them. You rarely see that happen. What they’re doing is fighting for their prerogative. They’re fighting for the stuff they have now. It’s a completely rotten system and they’re the beneficiaries. So of course they’re mad and of course they’re threatened."

On Big Tech Censorship and Free Speech:

"Mmm...mfff...mmmff!"

There’s a greater diversity of sources, but there’s also a greater concentration of power, which threatens all of it, which threatens speech, which threatens freedom of thought—your ability to come to your own conclusions, your ability to abide by your own conscience. All of that is threatened by Google, and to a lesser extent the other tech companies, Facebook and Twitter and Microsoft. Any time you have a portal as small as Google Search through which much information flows—Google has what, 90 percent, a monopoly on search--and all information in English flows through Google search. It’s sorted according to ‘algorithm,’ whatever that means. Sorted according to criteria we’re not privy to by people who clearly hate the United States and have no loyalty to it whatsoever and are working on behalf of our chief enemies in China and are highly political and despise the American right. These are the people who are in charge of sorting all human information in English, really? I don’t know, if there’s one thing that Congress needs to save us from, maybe it’s that? It’s hard to see what’s more important. And yet the Republicans are like ‘oh free markets, if you don’t like it build your own Google.’ And the Heritage Foundation, AEI, and all the other captive pointless conservative nonprofits in Washington-who have presided over the decline by the way, and who are still talking about Ronald Reagan’s victory 40 years later, these people are in effect protecting Google’s monopoly. And, you got to kind of wonder, okay, it’s great to have Fox and it’s great to have Breitbart and it’s great to have the Daily Caller, but if they control Google and they can shut you down if you say something they really don’t like, are we winning? No, we’re not winning. We’re losing. Actually, we’re moving at a high-speed toward the dark age, toward a time where you’re only allowed to have approved thought. That’s like actually Orwellian and nobody is actually saying anything about it.

It’s the prequel. This is like the fight we should have been having because it’s the predicate for everything. If you can’t express yourself to other people, then you’re powerless. Actually, there’s a metaphysical quality to this too. I mean, it like destroys your soul. If they can control what you say, then they can control what you think. They can control your conscience. That’s your soul. That’s who you are. Your beliefs are the sum total of you. If they have control over those, then that’s the definition of totalitarian. The stakes are really high. We act like they’re not, like this is some kind of procedural question of whether Google qualifies as a monopoly or whatever under the Sherman Antitrust Act. People like Sen. Mike Lee of Utah--who’s a handmaiden to the tech industry--will sit there with a straight face and tell you ‘this is a really important Constitutional question.’ No, the Constitution is not relevant if we can’t say what we think about the Constitution. Under the coming regime, which again is approaching at high speed, we possibly won’t be able to. We should be highly alarmed about this. We should see this as a foundational issue--and we’re not.

There’s nobody protecting dissident voices. I can’t get past it. I’m focused on it. I don’t really know what the answer is, but I’m just struck by it. It makes me very upset with the institutions that purport to be conservative in our country and consume hundreds of millions--billions, over time--in contributions, and they’re doing nothing to protect these people. In fact, they’re the first to abandon them. They’re like, oh someone liked a tweet by someone who said something naughty five years ago, therefore we have to distance ourselves. No, you’re cowards, you will be judged, and you are selling out people who actually believed in you. You’re horrible. That’s how I feel about it.

Conservatives, the institutions, have found themselves in this position where they’re like trustees in a prison, where they’re carrying out the orders of the warden. The warden in this case is like the institutional left. Why are we doing this? Why are we playing along? It’s especially, it’s almost like the left is trying to see how ludicrous they can make it. You send out a tweet saying ‘men can menstruate too.’ Anyone who laughs is punished. When that happens, they’re challenging us. They’re basically saying ‘we can make you,’ this is 1984, this is Winston Smith, ‘we can make you say this. And then we can make you believe it. Watch us.’ ‘Repeat after me: Men can menstruate too.’ Then after a while you’re like ‘yeah, men can menstruate too, for sure.’ That’s when you’re a zombie. That’s when your soul is gone. That’s when they’re fully in charge of you. You’re just hunk of flesh, and you’re like a ventriloquist dummy at that point. That’s what happens.

It’s not sustainable. You have a hyper partisan left, a supine conservative establishment, and an increasingly frustrated conservative and sincere left base--you know, just like normal people--this can’t continue. I would look for big changes to the status quo in 2020 and I hope that they’re positive changes, I really do.”.......

Brilliant, as usual. Hear it all.

Ace also asks some really good questions: "First of all, all conservatives believe that economic incentives change behavior. But the same people who depend on this basic assumption for all their articles and white papers and propaganda efforts deny its existence when it comes to their own incentives and behavior. Oh really? Google is putting money directly into your pockets and you claim that does not change your behavior with regard to Google at all?

They love publishing pieces like, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage." They love publishing pieces like, "Two Cheers for George Soros." It makes them feel "intellectually rebellious." It makes them feel like they're not just hacks and talking points robots, but curious and free-minded thinkers willing to give almost any position -- no matter how contrary to core conservative beliefs -- at least a public airing. Okay, fine.

But…[they're]  completely unwilling to publish any articles or white papers supporting anti-trust investigations into Google? Why is the one thing you're never allowed argue for in Conservative, Inc. -- the one unforgivable heresy -- the same thing that Google and the other tech monopolies are paying protection money for? Why is this the only issue not up for debate? You can argue for Transgender Strippers doing "story hour" for kids in taxpayer supported libraries, and your fellow members of Conservative, Inc. will slap you on the back and call you "brave" for taking on small-minded bigotries.

But none of these bravehearts apparently feel as if suggesting we simply enforce on the-books laws against trusts and anticompetitive behavior and improper coordination between monopolists is worthy." …….

Everything our Framers did--the Bill of Rights, a free press, devolving, decentralizing, layering and compartmentalizing power in checks and balances was meant to do one thing: thwart the impulse of fallen man to tyrannize his fellow citizens. Heritage knows this better than most. After all, that IS our heritage.

But when it comes to Big Tech tyranny, they have a blind spot a mile wide. And not just because Zuck paid their dry-cleaning bill. 

Big Government censorship of Big Tech may not be the answer, but neither is Free Market Economics. These companies rig markets, buy politicians and have abandoned neutral business policies to silence conservatives. Col. Schlichter wrote the book...or at least the article: 

Conservatives Must Regulate Google and All of Silicon Valley Into Submission

"There’s sometimes a moment when a system is unstable because one participant has changed the rules, but the other side hasn't yet reacted – like the period after feminism demanded total female social equality with men, but men still generally picked up the check. That imbalance cannot persist forever; eventually the people on the other side feel like suckers, so they stop playing by the old rules. That’s when the new rules arise. And that's why conservatives now need to savagely regulate companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. We need to use our political power in Congress and red state legislatures to incentivize Silicon Valley to return to a system where its companies embrace political and cultural neutrality, or suffer crippling consequences.

Yeah, I know that heavily regulating private businesses is not “free enterprise,” but I don’t care. See, “free enterprise” is a bargain, and they didn't keep their part of it, and I see no moral obligation for us to be played for saps and forgo using our political power to protect our interests in the face of them using theirs to disembowel us. I liked the old rules better – a free enterprise system confers huge benefits – but it was the left that chose to nuke them." .......

"Bullying people into silence is un-American. They have proven they cannot be trusted. 

But they can be Anti-Trusted."