You know the face you make when you're not sure what the Hell you're reading but you keep reading trying to figure it out because it's your job?
Yup, just made that face.
What’s going on with Elon Musk, and why is he doing this to Twitter?— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) October 3, 2023
I spent the last few months digging into it.
I found a pretty big clue. pic.twitter.com/kRPNCzEhhs
A pretty big clue? REALLY?
New from me:— Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) October 3, 2023
What was Elon Musk’s strategy for Twitter? A game plan published by a fired Trump White House staffer provides a clue.https://t.co/DmlgEfQ69r
Ummm ... what?
You are an idiot. The Revolver article, which you appear not to have read, lists the steps the elite and government would be likely to take *against* Musk should he buy Twitter. It isn't a "roadmap" for him to follow, but a warning of the type of opposition he is facing.— Double Secret Mutation (@horsewithnonick) October 3, 2023
Yeah, this is just ... weird.
Jarvis was good enough to put a thread together:
Maybe it's my COVID brain fog, but I'm just completely at a loss here. Is Ben Collins' last and greatest journalistic endeavor a lie?— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) October 3, 2023
Ben says that Musk's ownership of twitter is following a SECRET PLAYBOOK of evil with the following four steps that were texted to him: https://t.co/cUgsA6vgjy pic.twitter.com/0fYDuMbMtB
It certainly doesn't seem to be the EARTH-SHATTERING story he was pumping up a few weeks back. Was this the story he was threatening Elon Musk with?
Sounds evil! So someone texted Musk that he should unfairly blame the platform for its users and engage in coordinated pressure campaigns? That's bad.— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) October 3, 2023
As Ben notes, the texts reference an article that was published (openly, not secretly!) in Revolver prior to Musk's purchase… pic.twitter.com/czfY52jwR0
So, no big gotcha.
But . . . that's not what the article is saying. It isn't a playbook FOR Musk. It's a prediction of what the security state and media would do TO Musk if he bought Twitter and restored free speed to it.— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) October 3, 2023
The article is saying that these actions are BAD. pic.twitter.com/8xalfdS2q0
So Ben's thesis that I highlighted here . . . I mean it's just an obvious lie. You can read the article here - it's a bit far out for my taste, but it's CLEARLY saying that these things will be done TO Musk, not BY Musk.— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) October 3, 2023
What the hell am I missing? https://t.co/M36ve3Uj2F pic.twitter.com/nVBFstln7k
Not a damn thing.
Ben went on Maddow to explain further and it was a bit of a stuttering mess. I'm not sure he understands his own thesis. https://t.co/elonEvm7tg— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) October 3, 2023
Because you know, nobody is saner and more reliable than Rachel Maddow. Heh.
He says he's spent MONTHS working on this short article, which, as far as I can tell, is based solely on the fact that Darren Beattie wrote a blog post predicting that the journos would be mean to Musk if he bought Twitter.— Jarvis (@jarvis_best) October 3, 2023
Seriously. That's it. pic.twitter.com/E30ISpnwTv
He spent MONTHS ... on this.
In a hit piece by @oneunderscore__, where he claims that @elonmusk took over Twitter at the urging of white nationalists and neo-Nazis, Ben Collins said the notion that FBI had planted agents in the January 6 crowd is nothing more than “baseless claim.”— Ian McKelvey (@ian_mckelvey) October 3, 2023
Do you stand by that… pic.twitter.com/HDG5htfbfk
Collins is so desperate to take Elon down.
Ask yourselves why.
Or don't, it's not like Collins matters all that much.
Editor's Note: Hi there. I know it's been some time since we changed this up but changing it up now to see if any of you read this far. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? ALSO, if you are reading this far please sign up for Twitchy VIP and help us continue bringing you the truth, especially the truth Biden and his Big Tech goons don't want us sharing.