Tucker Carlson reacts to Mark Levin calling for the deplatforming of Nazis on Wednesday’s edition of his podcast.

TUCKER CARLSON: So here is Mark Levin’s solution to America’s greatest and most pressing problem from his perspective, which is criticism of the government of Israel. Here’s what we should do about it, says Mark Levin. MARK LEVIN: The violence that is being preached on different broadcast platforms by different politicians, largely, not exclusively, largely Democrats, largely leftists, Marxists, Islamists, although we have the woke Reich, R-E-I-C-H, is horrendous. And I believe is really, really adding fuel to the fire of hate out there and making it very, very difficult for a free people, even have a discussion about what they want or how they want it and so forth. And so it’s not the first time things like this have happened, but it really is problematic because so much of it is protected. And you heard people say, don’t you believe in the first amendment? They don’t even know what the first amendment believe. Do you want to de-platform people? You know, the libs do that. I don’t have any problem with de-platforming Nazis. CARLSON: Now, it’s hard, it’s hard to laugh at a Levin clip, not an attack on him, but it’s just the irony is so rich. So he begins by saying that people who criticize the government of Israel are espousing violence. And this is coming from a guy who’s literally called pretty recently on the air on Fox News for nuclear strikes against the government of Iran, who has relentlessly defended the murder of civilians by this and the Israeli government. So for this person to say that opponents of violence are actually the ones espousing violence is hilarious. But on brand, because it’s, of course, always the sin they’re committing that they accuse you of being guilty of always and everywhere. It’s the perfect inversion, which is the hallmark of evil. The evil lie is never five degrees from the truth. It’s 180 degrees from the truth. They accuse you of what they’re doing. And that’s how, you know, it’s not simply prevarication. It is a denial of the existence of truth. But in any case, you see Mark Levin saying people who criticize the government of Israel, and that is his, and to the extent there is one, the official definition of antisemitism is criticism of the government of Israel, the secular government of Israel, which is not supported by all Jews, that’s for sure. But no matter, criticism of a foreign government is hate. Tantamount to violence is stochastic terrorism, the left might say. And Mark Levin, the right wing MAGA guy, is saying those people should be silenced by the tech companies. But that’s not censorship because somehow it’s not. Well, that is exactly what Republicans, including Donald Trump, described as censorship when the last Democratic administration did it at scale during COVID. That is exactly what they were talking about when they said the Biden administration engages in censorship. And they were right. Telling tech companies, which are dependent on federal contracts, that they have to toe a political line is the same as banning speech because tech companies are the conduit through speech flows. So yes, that is censorship, legally and morally. And Mark Levin, who has positions that are shared by only a tiny percentage of the American population, and this is knowable through public opinion polling, is telling you that anyone who disagrees with him must be silenced. But he’s just a weekend host on Fox News. Who cares what Mark Levin says? Well, as if on cue, Mark Levin’s suggestion on Fox News has now been bolstered by an actual piece of legislation sponsored by Josh Gottenheimer, the Democrat from New Jersey, and amazingly, Republican MAGA stalwart Mike Lawler, two of the most florid and least ashamed neocons in the United States Congress, introduced legislation today to compel the tech companies to ban people who criticize Israel, the government of Israel, because that’s hate. And under the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, they’re right. The definition that’s been encoded in law in the majority of American states and in 40 countries around the world, the definition we didn’t pay any attention to because it seemed too dumb and like, who cares? That definition is now the operative definition, and it means that criticizing the behavior of a foreign government is a hate crime and can get you censored in your own country. So what’s the takeaway from all this? Well, the first takeaway is censorship is coming, and it will work unless people exercise their God-given and First Amendment-guaranteed right to push back against it with words and do so at high volume without any shame at all. It’s going to need a refusal to be intimidated by false claims of, quote, hate. And any Republican who voted for Donald Trump because he was sick of being told to shut up racist should join this chorus. No, you’re not going to intimidate me into being quiet about the behavior of a foreign government that I pay for just because you call it hate. Not playing that game. Sorry, I voted against this, and I’m going to stand on principle and fight it now no matter what. That’s the first thing. But the second thing to know is that the motive here is dark. This is not how you would ever treat people you cared about. This is how you treat people you hate, people you have contempt for, who you find inconvenient, annoying, whose mere presence you find grating. You’d rather live next to Haitians under temporary protective status than next to birthright Americans who have these outmoded expectations of, like, a job and health care they can pay for in an emergency room that’s not crowded with people who don’t speak English and, I don’t know, the right to say what they think, the right to complain about their leaders, even the right to complain about the behavior of a foreign country that they pay for. You hate people like that, and there may be other reasons you hate them, but you certainly hate them because they are a reminder of how you have failed. You have not done a good job running this country. You don’t even care to try. You’d rather run the world or the empire. You don’t want to improve Baltimore. You don’t care about Gary, Indiana. Rural America makes you sick, as Bill Kristol said, all those coupon clippers and people just barely holding on. Normal leaders would ask themselves, why are people mad? What are they dissatisfied with? How can I help them? They’re clearly in pain. They should have asked this question when Trump got elected the first time. Why would you elect an orange guy who ran casinos in Atlantic City when there are all kinds of great candidates, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz? You had a lot to choose from, but you chose Trump? A normal, reflective person would reach the only conclusion possible, which is because they’re dissatisfied with me. And maybe I need to change and serve their needs better and listen to them once in a while and not dismiss them with the back of the hand or charges of bad motives or hate or censorship. But they haven’t done that, and they haven’t even tried to do that. They’ve never looked inward once in 10 years, and now they’ve reached the point of a maximum frustration where the biggest thing they’ve ever done, which is try to regime change the Iranian government, and it hasn’t worked. That’s the biggest thing they’ve ever done. They staked everything on that. And you should just know that at this point, now that that’s not working out, they will not be mad at themselves. They’re going to be mad at you for not liking it or appreciating it or for talking about it at all or for holding on to your outdated expectations about what life in this country was like then and should be now. And above all, for the insistence that you have as a voter and an American that the people in charge should serve you, not just themselves and their families. Your insistence that, wait a second, this Epstein thing, what is the Epstein thing? Shut up. By the way, it’s just a few years ago that Harvard University took the name of Charles Glass off a building, famous congressman. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, half written by Congressman Glass, they took his name off a building. Why? Because he was a racist, and we have to get rid of all racists on the buildings at Harvard because we’re making a moral statement. Harvard does not tolerate racism, even retroactively. If we find a racist with a name on a building at Harvard, we’re taking it off. So pure are our motives. But guess whose name is still there? Not just on a building, but on the building at the entrance of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. At the entrance, the Lex Wexner building. Les Wexner, the guy who bankrolled Epstein.

RealClearPolitics Videos