The capturing of Maduro was a pivot point in American history. What does it mean for the future of the country? Megyn Kelly joins us live tonight at 6 PM ET on TuckerCarlson.com to discuss. We’ll see you there.

What happened a few days ago in Venezuela is not just a big surprise to people who are watching it, it's not just a kind of exciting foreign policy story, it is the effective announcement by the U.S. Government that our system is changing, that we are now explicitly an empire. We're an empire.

So of course, the argument has been made, and probably there's some truth to it, the United States has been an empire for a long time, for at least the last 80 years since 1945, when we emerged victorious from World War II, or maybe even 1918 when the British Empire effectively ended, maybe even 1898 when we got Puerto Rico and then a few years later Cuba from the Spanish Empire. So you could argue that the United States, like all big prosperous countries, inevitably became an empire.

But the difference between the last 120 years and earlier this week is that we never before admitted it, and now we are.

So every time we've gone into foreign countries in Latin America, but not just Latin America—really, around the world—there has been a pretext for that, usually about human rights or democracy. We're not going to put up with this or that government treating its people this way, and we have to go in to stop the tyranny because we are a force for openness and freedom. And there's been some truth in that, of course.

But behind that has been the calculation behind every big foreign policy move made by every big country: How is this good for us? Whether it's propping up the dollar or getting access to resources, there's always another reason that we're doing it, and people who are paying close attention know that.

Watch the full monologue here: https://youtu.be/7HgM0aI3IK8

Twitter phenomenon Buckley Carlson makes his on-camera debut: https://youtu.be/Ir_7ll4nEVM

Now that we're telling the truth about why nations do what they do, a lot of the arguments that we have relied upon, in fact, that have been the basis of a lot of our foreign policy positions, are now moot.

So once you say out loud, “we're grabbing Venezuela because we're annoyed they're selling what is our oil to the Chinese, our rival,” once you just say that out loud—and again, it's good to be honest—but once you are honest, it's kind of hard to make the case that, well, for example, Russia doesn't have an interest in what happens in eastern Ukraine. It's hard to scold Putin for moving into Ukraine. Here's a great power threatened on its border, and it takes action to protect itself. And we've been calling that an unprovoked invasion. The Biden administration called that. The State Department still calls it that. And our policy is based on the idea that this is illegitimate. And that's why we've been waging a proxy war against Russia for four years. You can't really make that argument anymore. How is it wrong for a great power like Russia to protect itself? Well, under the rules that we're now operating under, it's not wrong. You can say, I don't prefer it, but you can't point to some abstract principle and say it's absolutely wrong.

Why would it be wrong for China to retake Taiwan? The U.S. government already acknowledges that Taiwan is part of China. We have a so-called one China policy, and yet simultaneously we suggest we would defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression. But wait a second, Taiwan is Han Chinese. Same people, same language. Tons of cultural similarities. We want the microchips in Taiwan. We hope it doesn't happen because it would give China greater leverage over the United States. But as a matter of principle, can you really say it's wrong for China to reunify with Taiwan? No, you can't say that anymore.

All you can say is we will try to prevent it if we can, but we can't appeal to any higher authority. Now, some will say that higher authority was made up. Well, it certainly was made up. That principle was the basis of the entire fabled post-war order. What was the post- war order? It was based on one idea: it is wrong for bigger countries to swallow up smaller countries just because they want to. That's why we declared war against Germany when they went into Poland. But weirdly we did not declare war against the Soviet Union when they did the same thing the same day.

But whatever, the point is big countries are not allowed to act in a predatory way towards smaller countries because that's wrong. And there's always been, as noted, tons of fakery around that, of course, tons of pretending and pretense, we're all wearing a veil to hide our true motives. But that has still been the basis of the way countries deal with each other. And that is no longer the case as of last week because the world's great superpower, the United States, just acted purely in its own interest and said so out loud.

So where does it leave all these international bodies? The UN most famously, but all of them. The World Health Organization. How about NATO? Do they have any authority at all? Is there a reason to have them once we stop pretending? Probably not. They may not know that yet. And of course they're all very well funded and will live on into the future to some extent. But basically they're dead men walking. They're over. That's all over.

Watch the full monologue here: https://youtu.be/7HgM0aI3IK8

What would it take for the US to rethink its relationship with Russia? Putin advisor Sergey Karaganov gives us the Russian perspective. Watch live tonight at 6 PM ET on TuckerCarlson.com.

Thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow from Con Inc. for saying that immigration was destroying the country. Turns out Brimelow was right: https://youtu.be/zI3xsvH7b6U

The West isn’t just tolerating mass migration. Our governments are funding it.

In our new documentary Replacing Europe: Following the World’s Deadliest Migration Route, our cameras uncover what no one wants you to see, speaking directly with migrants, locals, and officials who quietly admit what the public is never told.

Watch it now only on TuckerCarlson.com.

According to Don Lemon, white Christians are racist for complaining when screaming lunatics threaten them in church. Tonight we’re joined by one of the pastors he’s slandering. Watch live at 6 PM ET on TuckerCarlson.com.

Europe is being invaded and destroyed by Africa, in a crime orchestrated by global leaders. A new TCN documentary shows how it’s happening: https://youtu.be/K_2_7fxyIEI

Let's talk about what exactly is going on in the United States, and why it's led to the battles in, say, Minneapolis. What's happening in the United States is a wholesale change of who lives here. Total demographic change.

Now, some have called this replacement. And the question is, is it really replacement? So we thought we would look it up.

If you were someone following along at home, trying to figure out, you know, what is everyone so mad about? What is this great replacement theory? You might go, as almost everybody does, first to Google and just type in “great replacement theory” and AI would come up with the following result. This is hot off Google AI. Here's what it says if you look up “great replacement” on Google.

We're quoting: “the great replacement theory is a debunked,” meaning untrue, “far right,” meaning Nazi, “white nationalist,” meaning racist, “conspiracy claiming that white populations, particularly in Europe and the US, are being deliberately replaced by non-white immigrants and minorities, often orchestrated by replacist elites leading to demographic shifts and cultural erosion, fueling extremist violence and anti-immigrant sentiment.”

That's one sentence, by the way, a run-on sentence, but it is AI. And it's quite a sentence. And it tells you point blank, “this is not true.” Anyone who believes in it is deranged and is stoking violence simply by believing in it.

And it goes on to explain how this works: the theory “posits that mass migration, declining white birth rates, and political agendas by elites are intentionally replacing white populations. It has inspired numerous acts of mass murder and violence with perpetrators often citing this theory. Research shows that endorsers of the great replacement theory often hold anti-social traits, authoritarian views, and negative attitudes toward minorities and immigrants.”

In other words, once again, believing that the population of this or any other country is being manipulated by people in power and the people who were born here are being replaced by people who weren't—believing that is not only wrong, it's misinformation, it has been debunked, it's also dangerous. You can kill people by believing that.

Well, how does that work exactly? It doesn't sound like a cool objective analysis of the theory of replacement. It sounds instead like, well, a political screed, but maybe even more than that, it sounds like an article of religious faith. You're not allowed to believe this. Only bad people believe it. It's apostasy.

Watch the full monologue here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK0bJPE9PxM