Post

https://twitter.com/DeepBlueCrypto/status/1376579136391671809

@elonmusk

@nytimes

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1599082545635000320

@elonmusk

@joerogan

@elonmusk

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1600259916182130688

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1600266245722341376

More from @DeepBlueCrypto

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

@DeepBlueCrypto

Sep 9

Joe Rogan: "Before COVID I would have told you that vaccines are the most important invention in human history.

After Covid, I'm like, I don't think we went to the Moon and I think Pizzagate is real."

A thread on #ConspiracyTheories 👇

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1823445252700848548

Here’s a prev thread on the same

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1823445252700848548

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1804474878214508965

Follow @shipwreckshow if you don’t already… she’s amazing 🔥🔥🔥🔥

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1804474878214508965

Read 25 tweets

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

@DeepBlueCrypto

Sep 1

ELON MUSK IS A CHAMPION OF FREE SPEECH THROUGH X AND THEY HATE ELON MUSK FOR IT BECAUSE THEY CANNOT CONTROL THE NARRATIVES

Elon Musk's acquisition and rebranding of Twitter to X has not only transformed the platform's identity but also its role in global discourse, particularly in how it challenges establishment narratives. Through X, Musk has positioned himself as a champion of free speech, often clashing with regulatory bodies, governments, and judicial systems over what he perceives as overreaches in controlling information. This stance has led to numerous conflicts, most notably with Brazilian Judge Alexandre de Moraes, highlighting Musk's commitment to allowing a broad spectrum of voices on the platform. This approach has made X a battleground for free speech, where Musk's decisions to reinstate previously banned accounts or resist content moderation requests are seen by some as defending the right to express diverse opinions, thereby exposing truths that might otherwise be suppressed by more conventional media or governmental controls.

The establishment's discomfort with X under Musk's leadership stems largely from this very commitment to unfettered speech. Musk's public feuds, like his labeling of Judge Moraes as dictatorial for attempting to regulate content on X, illustrate his broader critique of how power structures might use legal or regulatory frameworks to stifle dissent or alternative viewpoints. This dynamic has turned X into a platform where the establishment's narratives are frequently challenged, not just through policy but through the very content that users, encouraged by Musk's policies, are willing to post. This environment brings to light truths or perspectives that might be sidelined in more controlled media environments, thereby making X a unique arena for uncovering what might be considered hidden or inconvenient truths by those in power.

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1827477109603983626

Here’s a prev thread on the same

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1827477109603983626

Read 64 tweets

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

@DeepBlueCrypto

Aug 26

Democrats saw this chart and they said they wanted this badly… NOW

The "Great Replacement Theory" in America — there's a deliberate effort by liberal elites and political groups to demographically alter the country, replacing the white population with non-white immigrants. This shift is orchestrated to change the political landscape, ensuring a voter base more aligned with leftist policies.

A thread on election fraud👇

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1824537813108306248

Here’s a previous thread on the same

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1824537813108306248

Elon Musk was right 💯 as always…

🚩Democrats won’t support open borders if they don’t want to cheat in elections

🚩Democrats won’t block the Voter ID laws if they don’t plan on cheating in elections

Read 28 tweets

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

@DeepBlueCrypto

Aug 26

The Clinton family, particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton, have been at the center of numerous corruption allegations throughout their political careers, with the Clinton Foundation often at the heart of these controversies. The foundation, established by Bill Clinton in 1997, has been criticized for its financial dealings, especially during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Critics argue that the foundation's acceptance of donations from foreign governments and entities might have influenced U.S. policy decisions, suggesting a quid pro quo where donors gained access or favorable treatment in exchange for their contributions. This perception was fueled by investigations and reports, like those mentioned in the Durham report, which highlighted the FBI's interest in the foundation's activities, although these probes did not result in charges against the Clintons.

Moreover, the Clintons' involvement in various scandals, from Whitewater to Travelgate, has painted a picture of a family entangled in corruption. The Whitewater scandal involved allegations of fraudulent land deals, while Travelgate saw the controversial firing of the White House Travel Office staff, actions that critics argue were motivated by personal gain or retribution. These incidents, combined with the foundation's activities, have led to a narrative of systemic corruption within the Clinton family's operations, where personal enrichment and political influence are seen as intertwined. Despite investigations, the definitive proof of criminal wrongdoing directly linking the Clintons to these allegations has been elusive, yet the shadow of these controversies continues to influence public and political discourse around their legacy.

A thread on Clinton corruption 👇

https://twitter.com/DeepBlueCrypto/status/1802016793969729876

Here’s a prev thread on the same

https://twitter.com/DeepBlueCrypto/status/1802016793969729876

Because Clintons, Obamas, Bushes, McCains are all covered by the deep state DC machine

Read 34 tweets

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

@DeepBlueCrypto

Aug 25

THIS WILL BE YOUR FUTURE SOON…

In the year 2035, the digital landscape had evolved into a meticulously controlled environment, where the boundaries of free speech were redefined by the newly established Meme Regulation Authority (MRA). This Orwellian entity was tasked with monitoring, censoring, and prosecuting any digital content deemed subversive or offensive under the guise of protecting societal harmony. A Canadian woman named Elise, an unassuming graphic designer with a penchant for satirical humor, found herself at the center of this storm. One evening, after posting a meme that cleverly critiqued the government's latest surveillance policy, her life took an unexpected turn. The meme, which depicted a dystopian version of Canada where citizens were monitored by drones, went viral overnight. However, its spread was cut short when the MRA flagged it for "undermining state stability." Before dawn, Elise was awakened not by her alarm but by the sound of her door being forcefully opened by agents of the MRA, who arrested her under the newly enacted Digital Expression Act.

Elise's trial became a spectacle, not just for its novelty but for the chilling effect it had on digital expression across the nation. The courtroom was a blend of old-world justice and new-world surveillance, with screens displaying real-time analysis of public sentiment towards the trial. Prosecutors argued that Elise's meme could incite rebellion, citing its potential to influence thoughtcrime—a term borrowed from Orwell's "1984" but now legally recognized. Her defense, limited by the very laws she was accused of violating, struggled to argue the value of satire in a free society. The judge, after a deliberation that seemed more like a formality, sentenced Elise to three years in a reeducation facility, where she would be "reintegrated" into society with a corrected understanding of humor and loyalty to the state. The case set a precedent, chilling the once vibrant meme culture of Canada, where every share, like, or comment was now weighed against the specter of the MRA's watchful eye.

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1577279372053991424

Here’s a prev meme thread on the same

https://twitter.com/deepbluecrypto/status/1577279372053991424

In the year 2034, the world had become a tapestry of surveillance and control, where the lines between freedom and oppression blurred into a dystopian reality. Four friends, each residing in a different corner of the Anglosphere—Britain, Canada, France, and Australia—had unknowingly become the epicenter of a new form of governmental scrutiny.

The meme in question was simple yet potent: a cartoon depicting government officials as puppets, strings pulled by unseen hands, with the caption "Who's really in charge?" It went viral overnight, spreading like wildfire across social platforms, resonating with a public increasingly disillusioned with their leaders.

🚩Britain: In a quaint London flat, Tom was enjoying his morning tea when a knock echoed through his home. Opening the door, he found two officers in plain clothes, their badges gleaming under the overcast sky. "Mr. Tomlinson, we're from the Meme Regulation Unit. We need to discuss your online activity regarding a certain meme."

🚩Canada: Across the Atlantic, in Toronto, Sarah was woken by a similar intrusion. "Ms. Harper, we've traced IP addresses linked to the meme's origin. You're under investigation for spreading anti-government sentiment."

🚩France: In Paris, under the shadow of the Eiffel Tower, Jean was not surprised but rather resigned when the knock came. "Monsieur Dupont, we require immediate access to your digital devices. The meme you shared has been deemed a threat to national unity."

🚩Australia: In Sydney, the sun was setting when Mark's doorbell rang. "G'day, Mr. Thompson. We're here about a meme that's been causing quite a stir. We need proof you didn't create it, or evidence of who did."

Each friend, in their respective countries, faced the same ordeal. The Meme Police, a new branch of law enforcement, had been established to combat what was now legally defined as "digital subversion." They demanded logs, timestamps, and even biometric data to trace the meme's creator, arguing that such content could incite rebellion or chaos.

The friends, connected through their shared experience, realized the absurdity of their situation. They communicated covertly, using encrypted messages, discussing how their simple act of sharing a meme had turned their lives into a scene from Orwell's "1984." They pondered the irony of living in democracies where humor, once a weapon of the people, now required a license.

Their story, though fictional, served as a chilling reminder of a potential future where the line between satire and sedition could be dictated by those in power. The meme, a symbol of resistance, had inadvertently united them in a battle for digital freedom, highlighting the fragile balance between security and liberty in the digital age.

This tale, spread through whispers and encrypted channels, became a cautionary narrative of an Orwellian twist in the 21st century, where even a meme could make you an enemy of the state.

Read 10 tweets

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

@DeepBlueCrypto

Aug 24

The argument that "taxation is theft" hinges on several philosophical, ethical, and economic principles, often championed by libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and some conservative thinkers. Here's a breakdown of why this perspective exists:

1. Property Rights: At its core, this argument revolves around the concept of property rights. Proponents assert that individuals have a natural right to the fruits of their labor. When the government imposes taxes, it forcibly takes away part of what an individual has earned or owns, which, in their view, is akin to theft because it's taken without the individual's explicit consent.

2. Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): Many who argue that taxation is theft adhere to the NAP, which states that initiating force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property is inherently wrong. Taxation, enforced by law with penalties for non-compliance, is seen as an initiation of force.

3. Lack of Consent: The argument often points out that while one might benefit from public services funded by taxes, there's no individual consent mechanism for taxation. You're born into a system where you must pay taxes, regardless of whether you agree with how they're used or how much is taken.

4. Moral Equivalence: Some draw a direct moral equivalence between a mugger taking your wallet and the government taking your money through taxes. Both, they argue, are taking something that belongs to you without your voluntary agreement.

5. Government Efficiency and Use of Funds: Critics often highlight that taxes aren't always used efficiently or in ways that benefit taxpayers directly or equally. They argue that if individuals were allowed to keep more of their earnings, they could decide where their money goes, potentially leading to more efficient or charitable use.

6. Historical and Philosophical Roots: Thinkers like Lysander Spooner have historically argued against taxation on these grounds, suggesting that governments, without the explicit consent of the governed, are essentially engaging in theft. This perspective ties into broader critiques of government legitimacy.

7. Economic Freedom: From an economic perspective, some argue that high taxation reduces economic freedom, potentially stifling innovation and economic growth by reducing the incentive to work, save, or invest.

https://twitter.com/DeepBlueCrypto/status/1803813212309102649

Here’s a prev thread on the same

https://twitter.com/DeepBlueCrypto/status/1803813212309102649

Read 36 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @DeepBlueCrypto

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!