Thunder Cock

Let me speculate an agenda here: I believe the real play here is setting up a future agenda, which will be to remove the 2nd amendment. Erika is being propped up to take office in the future, VP or president. She'll use Trumps 3 fake assassination attempts, Charlie's murder, and probably some future high profile assassination that will spark discussion and action for disarmament. The future high profile shooting? The most impactful way to accomplish this goal will be an attempt on her. She'll survive, but her kids won't. Cue the tears, public sympathy, then start the gun talks. The logic is there, but unfortunately for the deepstate, no one likes Erika. No one is buying her phony act.

@jonnyrmitch A day in the life I want you (she's so heavy) Happiness is a warm gun Baby's in black Things we said today

This was pretty difficult, but these are my Top 5 Beatles songs; A Day in the Life Yesterday While My Guitar Gently Weeps Something I Want to Hold Your Hand What’s in your Top 5?

@BroylesChaz @AbakpaJob Is this the new liquid death? Should we partner up and make millions?

@Thunder__Cock @AbakpaJob Ha! Lemon lake juice - LLJ.

@BroylesChaz @AbakpaJob "Can I get lake juice with lemon" I like it!

@AbakpaJob Lake juice Sky suds River drips I’m just spitballin here

@Rich_Cooper Not completely true...Nikki will pivot to complain about her thin lips too

Mens podcasts: Develop yourself, make money, don't be fat, lift weights, be calibrated... Womens podcasts: Dicks, more dicks, dicks, this dick, that dick..

@paleochristcon Andrew still plays in the left vs right game...

How?

@RealCandaceO @candaceoshow I hope she asked Hunter about tall Joe Biden

This Thursday. Hunter Biden and me. @candaceoshow

@RandyBTweeden @consequence Ya thats why I said Paul has a point...I was just pointing out that his live show isn't without valid criticism too.

@Thunder__Cock @consequence What you’re describing is the equivalent Paul playing “I’ll Be Back” or “Fixing a Hole” at his concerts. That’s not what Dylan does. He doesn’t play deep cuts. He plays completely different songs with the same lyrics as his actual songs. not acceptable from a fan standpoint

Paul McCartney says fans deserve to hear the songs they paid for, which is why he's never fully embraced Bob Dylan's approach to rearranging classics or playing obscure tracks live. "I've been to see a couple of shows of Bob's, and I couldn't tell what song he was doing. Now that's a bit much, because I know his stuff. I get it if he doesn't want to do 'Mr. Tambourine Man.' Maybe he’s fed up with that, but I would like to hear it. And I've paid." consequence.net/2026/05/paul-m…

Or hear me out Paul plays Uncle Albert which makes it fresh and can also have a single along anchor moment with "Hands across the water" "Heads across the sky" Lots of options. Paul needs to switch up his act too. More bands need to take the King Gizzard approach when it comes to touring...best live band today.

@Thunder__Cock @consequence Paul could definitely mix it up, but not having Hey Jude as a permanent anchor for you and the crowd is just dumb

@george_for_now @RealCandaceO

@Thunder__Cock @RealCandaceO Love how a guy named thundercock genuinely has the best take so far

🚨BREAKING: As we reported on our show yesterday, approximately 1 Hour following the WHCD shooting, the White House Military Office sent an e-mail directing the amplification of Erika Kirk’s “I want to go home” video clip. Unfortunately, the e-mail was sent to the wrong internal groups. They then attempted to have I.T revoke the e-mail. When that failed they ordered every person to destroy the e-mail. I have manually retyped the relevant portion of the e-mail that they wanted destroyed. (As explained on my show yesterday, this is because the DOD’s IT department has imprinted the e-mail with canary tactics to identify individual leaks) So the question now is— why did the military so quickly prioritize making Erika Kirk the face of WHCD shooting? Is that normal emergency protocol or was this unnaturally preplanned?

@Panagiotou90St I'll wait till its on plex

If Nolan's Odyssey bombs, it will send the message across that even a big team of A-listers adapting one of the greatest and most popular epics of all time, cannot survive bending the knee to wokeness. You know what to do.

@Thunder__Cock Well said thunder cock

There’s a reason all your favorite podcasts are full of “ex CIA” guys. There’s no such thing as ex CIA. The nightly news died so the illusion of independent media could live. You’re just getting the state sanctioned narrative delivered through a more intimate frequency.

@CommieGibberish The noticing has become the understanding

The Jews are pivoting. White disgust is growing more obvious and unavoidable. Whites Noticing has truly breached their containment. Thank you, by the way. 👏🏻 It’s because of YOU, millions of you, talking about it in the open, intelligently, and refusing to back down, that has shifted the Overton Window and made Noticing THE norm, not the exception. 👑🔥

@Leonidas_of_PA @elonmusk @MassieforKY @joerogan After Theo and Metzger latest appearance on Rogan...im now convinced Joe is controlled opposition

It's shocking to me that @elonmusk didn't end up supporting @MassieforKY as promised. Also, @joerogan could have made a real difference here.

@adamemedia1 This is AI...the technology is getting better but you can still tell, plus that doesn't even look like him

@BeatlesEarth Shit song...last good thing McCartney did was the instrumental track 222

Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr have released their first-ever duet, “Home to Us”, available on streaming everywhere. What do you think of the song? 🤔⬇️

@imelizabethlane @MrsErikaKirk She's a phony...no need for the story

Dear @MrsErikaKirk Honestly, I didn’t feel the need to make a big post or comment about your attendance at the correspondents’ dinner. Where you go or what you do isn’t really something I focus on unless it has a direct impact on things I care about. That said, there’s a pattern that’s hard to ignore, whenever you’re called out for something people perceive as inappropriate, your response tends to be to insult your critics or position yourself as above them, while dismissing others as malicious. At some point, it may be worth recognizing a simpler reality. Many people just don’t like you. And that’s their right. People are free to form their own opinions, even when those opinions aren’t favorable. Maybe you genuinely don’t see what you’re doing wrong and maybe the criticism you receive feels completely unfair. But have you ever taken a moment to ask yourself, - What part am I playing in this? If you truly aren’t doing anything wrong, then why do the reactions you get seem so consistently at odds with what you expect? Guess what, there could be a hundred Candaces in the world criticizing you and it still wouldn’t move people unless what they’re saying actually resonates. People don’t just fall for narratives that easily especially today. You cannot force someone to see something they fundamentally don’t see or don’t believe. That kind of influence is incredibly difficult to manufacture just ask the CIA they will tell you all about it. Quick history lesson, even organizations like the CIA with billions in funding, massive infrastructure, coordinated networks and thousands of operatives have had to invest enormous effort over long periods to shape public perception in any meaningful way. And even then, results are never guaranteed. So the idea that one commentator (Or two or three) no matter how skilled, can single-handedly turn people against you just doesn’t hold up. The reaction you’re getting isn’t because of Candace, it’s because of you. Your own actions are what people respond to. That’s the uncomfortable reality, wake up to it already, I say this with no hate. At some point, you have to stop deflecting and ask yourself an honest question: why does this keep happening to me? Why do people consistently react this way? We’re not living in North Korea, people are allowed to form and express opinions freely and as long as America is America they will do just that, it is their right, just like it is yours to be unhappy about it. Dismissing all criticism as manipulation avoids the real issue here. And let’s be clear: you’re not some untouchable public figure in the mold of Jacqueline Kennedy. That comparison doesn’t land the way you think it does. Whoever told you, you could be her is not your friend, get rid of him/her. Curve your own path. Again I don’t say this to be disrespectful. This isn’t coming from a place of hate, not at all, it’s frustration. A lot of people are tired of the constant back-and-forth, the blame-shifting and the refusal to reflect. You are clearly bothered by all of this, but I don’t see you saying, ''Oh, you know what? These people don’t like me no matter what I do. It’s so unfair, but maybe I should step out of the limelight for a while and see if things change. So it doesn’t hurt the company.'' No, instead, you come out and you have no problem attending parties, dinners and opening events with Nicki Minaj, holding hands, even though your husband clearly didn’t like her. I’m guessing he didn’t like her because most of her songs start with a dick and end with a pussy, or one inside the other (should I tag the songs?). I’m sorry for the expression, but it’s not mine, it is the woman’s you chose to have on stage next to you. Then, at that same event, you’re going to mention the Lord like 50 times and have a literal former stripper speaking in front of students about how they should live. Then you go ahead and criticize the students and everyone else who judge you for this. Do you see the problem? As Leo Tolstoy wrote, ''All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.'' And while you can understand it as - everyone grieves differently, the point he made was actually much simpler, dysfunction is usually self-generated and unique in its causes. And if Tolstoy were around today, he might put it even more bluntly: no one creates their own problems quite like you do… I assume you’ve seen my post, most people have, so you’re aware that my opinion of you is far from favorable. That said, in my capacity as a journalist, I haven’t made a habit of targeting you or spending weeks analyzing your every move, event, or speech. I only comment on matters where you have influence over issues I care deeply about. Quite frankly, I’m not extremely interested in you, especially when our country is facing serious challenges. But what’s actually concerning to me is watching you come out and double down on claims that are demonstrably false. Saying things like, ''Candace Owens is accusing me of murdering my husband,'' or that people who criticize you are evil or something similar, this is simply not accurate. She has not accused you of murder. Not publicly anyway. So why say it? Because you're reframing the criticism into something more extreme than it is. You’re acting as if anyone who questions you must believe you were involved in your husband’s death and that they must be all evil, while you must be a constant victim of this supposed malice. That’s not what’s being said here at all. Let’s be clear: The issue people have with you is different, it’s behavioral, not criminal. I’ve described you as a person exhibiting traits of psychopathy and I stand by that as my opinion. Again I’m allowed to have one, just like you are allowed to disrespect it. I’m not saying this to be cruel, I mean it seriously. Psychopathy reflect something deeply complex and very difficult to deal with in life, not something trivial so trust me when I say, I do not say this with hate at all. It ’s a simple observation. You may disagree, that is your right. And it is my right to expressing my opinion on a public figure that has made herself a target by refusing to leave the spotlight and cameras even when she gets a negative feedback constantly. Constantly! And to be precise, if you go back to what @RealCandaceO actually said, her claim was that she intends to prove that something is off about you. She did not say she intends to prove you killed your husband. Those are two completely different arguments and conflating them only distorts what’s actually being discussed. It also should be noted that Charlie Kirk’s investigation is ongoing for Candace and for most of us, and the “Charlie’s Bride” series Candace produced is separate from that ongoing investigation. That is why it is placed separately as an 8-episode series on her YouTube. It is a standalone thing. I kindly invite you to check it out. So to put it plainly, someone could lose a spouse in a completely unrelated event, like a car accident and still face criticism if their behavior afterward appears detached, performative, or inconsistent with what most people understand as grief. Being criticized for how you act is not the same as being accused of murder. And if Charlie had died in a car accident and you behaved the way you are behaving now, the reaction would be the same (I can speak for myself her). So no, this is not about Charlie or Candace, it’s about you. People are questioning your behavior and what it suggests about your character. That’s the real issue, not murder. You can keep saying that everyone grieves differently, but apparently this nation and others as well has never seen anyone grieve the way you do that is why they keep talking about it. So maybe you should take a step back and reflect. When millions of people (And they are in millions, this is why it got to the point where it bothers you and your organization) are telling you something feels off, you don’t lash out. You take time to ask yourself why people perceive you that way, especially if you believe that perception is absolutely incorrect. That’s the mature response. Rolling your eyes at people and calling them names isn’t the answer, especially if you want a public career or hope to lead others. And if you don’t want that scrutiny, then walk away. The spotlight is not for everybody. Or take an example from your husband, who was a warrior, he handled it perfectly. He faced being hated all the time and he still engaged them and accepted them he didn’t tell them to shut up. If he thought people who criticized him were evil, he wouldn’t be sitting in front of them trying to understand their point and help them. You have the money, you’re taken care of thanks to Charlie. If the spotlight is a burden, step aside and let someone else take on the role, someone the public will accept. If you do that, you’ll likely be forgotten in six months and you won’t have to deal with criticism anymore. You will be able to finally live privately, attend events all day long and no one will care. But when you say that 'evil people won’t stop you from having it all or what your husband built for you or whatever idea is driving your actions and you say you’ll continue regardless of what people think, great, good for you - but then you should expect people to do exactly that: THINK. And their opinions may not align with what you want. That’s life. Get over it. You claimed you attended the dinner not to mingle with influential people or enjoy the spotlight, but to meet some journalists who have written negatively about you, to put faces to names. Well, let’s put a face to the name. I’m ready to sit down with you any day, at your convenience, even in your own studio if you prefer. You’re not the only one who values being direct. So here I am, willing to have a genuine conversation. The offer stands. No hate, no disrespect. Just a difference of opinion. Let’s see if what you say is true. And if you can’t handle an interview with someone who disagrees with you and doesn’t like you,then that’s fine. I totally understand that. Not everyone can do what Charlie did - engaging directly with critics instead of avoiding them. In that case, you can always put a face to a name in Utah court. Come see me in court, where your husband’s supposed killer is on trial, I'm always there. I suggest you bring a pre-prepared lunch, it can be an absolutely grueling ordeal. Sometimes it goes on for 6+ hours with only 15-minute breaks, with no time to go out and eat. But we sit through it because it’s important. It’s Charlie Kirk! We are interested in who killed Charlie Kirk and whether we have the right guy and if we do, we want to see that the process goes exactly how it should. So yes, you can find me there. I haven’t seen you even once, not once attending the hearing. Maybe one day you can show up. I bet it will help with the criticism part of things :)). You said you like directness, so do I. So here you go. I’ll leave my invitation open for you to sit down with me.

@philthatremains Who's arcade fire??? You ever thought about getting out of your bubble...

No Van Halen. they should be in the top ten at least, but they didn’t make the list at all? Arcade Fire? who the fuck is Arcade Fire? Wilco? Kraftwerk? Rolling Stone not only has dogshit politics they have dog shit taste in music, too.