Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

[Ben]

Every time I watch Tucker Carlson I have to shake my head when I remember that I am watching FOX news. This is the channel we all loved to hate when the neocons launched their War of Terror 20 years ago. I can't believe some of the things he is able to talk about - Nord Stream, Ukrainian Nazis, all the juicy stuff. It's no surprise that he is being watched closely by the deep state, but I can't figure out why he is still in a position to reach such a large audience. I know he doesn't have the whole picture but it's more truth than I expect from mainstream news outlets. Is is to fuel division in US society, along the lines of the East Palestine incident as discussed in the last C's session? People can be allowed the truth as long as it gets them angry at the left?

 

[Mrs. Peel]

It's no surprise that he is being watched closely by the deep state, but I can't figure out why he is still in a position to reach such a large audience. I know he doesn't have the whole picture but it's more truth than I expect from mainstream news outlets. Is is to fuel division in US society, along the lines of the East Palestine incident as discussed in the last C's session? People can be allowed the truth as long as it gets them angry at the left?

I wonder how he is allowed to continue also. Although if the purpose is division, you'd think they'd want anger directed at the right??

 

[BHelmet]

Every time I watch Tucker Carlson I have to shake my head when I remember that I am watching FOX news. This is the channel we all loved to hate when the neocons launched their War of Terror 20 years ago. I can't believe some of the things he is able to talk about - Nord Stream, Ukrainian Nazis, all the juicy stuff. It's no surprise that he is being watched closely by the deep state, but I can't figure out why he is still in a position to reach such a large audience. I know he doesn't have the whole picture but it's more truth than I expect from mainstream news outlets. Is is to fuel division in US society, along the lines of the East Palestine incident as discussed in the last C's session? People can be allowed the truth as long as it gets them angry at the left?

Could be something along these lines:

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”​

― Lenin

IDK. A question might be: what does Tucker NOT talk about? I have not engaged in that, tbh. I only marginally follow Tucker.

 

[luc]

I wonder how he is allowed to continue also. Although if the purpose is division, you'd think they'd want anger directed at the right??

There might be all kinds of explanations that they don't do that, or a combination. The simplest one is just money, he's Fox' superstar and draws a huge audience. There might also be some influential people who protect him because they agree with him, i.e. they have been redpilled just like he has (no reason that shouldn't happen in elite circles too!), even if they keep it private for the most part. Some others might *think* they can control the conversation if they have him as part of a news organization, but might be deluded in thinking so... Or again a combination. It also might just not be so easy in practice to get rid of him at this point, so...

 

[PerfectCircle]

I agree with luc.
I believe that they are aware that they need to allow some talks and observations what Tucker has been doing, in order not to drop on CNN level of views.
Quite possible, part of their employees are conservative as well, which helps.

 

[benkostka]

This is pretty much my view as well. It seems that Tucker got a wake-up call from something, like maybe his experiences in Iraq, and once he began to "see the unseen", sort of, or at least behind the curtain of propaganda, the scales began to fall from his eyes.

What is REALLY important about Tucker is his REACH. His show is wildly popular, so it is not a bad idea to keep an eye on it.

That’s exactly why I brought the interview to the forum and I picked up the first clip from Mike Cernovich who is another figure people can hate for whatever reason, but he’s pushing good information about how terrible Reagan was, the horrors of the psychiatric history along with lots of good information about health.

It’s a matter of vision, some people want to expand in a reasonable and cautious way and others don’t. The only reasonable choice is to expand and help others.

Been trying to get Cernovich to read Richard Dolan’s book on UFOs, then maybe he can take that to his audience. Lotta gym bros could benefit from the knowledge on this forum, they’re not all bad people.

 

[1984]

I watched the video with Tucker and enjoyed it. Does that mean that Tucker is the new Messiah? No, but it is refreshing to hear someone in the media expose a few lies though that doesn't mean that one therefore should trust the person or put them up on a pedestal.

If we look at a historical figure like Caesar, then one could easily put a video together using Cicero as source to frame him as an evil power hungry dictator, which is what history by and large has done. But we know that it is a very false picture of Caesar.

JFK is another figure, which if one looks at his schooling and parents could easily judge as part of the evil establishment and make plenty of videos to justify such a view, yet we now know that such videos would be a complete misrepresentation of JFK.

If we take the Russian president, Putin, then he is also framed as being evil, often in the West with the fact that he once was a KGB agent. Yet, despite that something in him was biding its time and once he was in a position of power decided to act in favour of humanity. Yet, even while in power he has disappointed some people because he didn't do X, Y, Z, as they themselves would have done from their armchairs, such as invading Ukraine back in 2014 or nuke the US as others suggested. He had to deal with reality, with what he was given, the capabilities available and also with the knowledge of what he was up against. (The same points would have been the case for Caesar adn JFK). This dealing with reality would mean taking decisions which would sometimes be unpopular but necessary in the forced choices he was (and has been) presented with. That does not make him a saviour but likely the best we have to encourage each one of us to act in favour of a better future.

This is all just to say that someone like Tucker (and no, he is no Caesar, JFK or Putin) should also be allowed the possibility to grow up, change his views and be a figure whose courage in speaking up can be respected, despite his family background, schools he went to, and what he said and did 26 years ago or even 10 years ago.

Or should we not allow certain people the possibility to change just because of them coming from a wealthy privileged background or because of what their parents did or didn't do?

Agree. Is the same as when I used to dislike Russell Brand. He’s grown up quite a bit since his earlier days.

 

[kenlee]

Here's my view on Tucker at this point in time. He has a gift of being succinct and getting to the truth of the matter with a minimum of verbiage and BS. That imo is his gift, his "talent". He appears to be sincere and along with that he has some guts.

What has just crossed my mind is what Mouravieff called the "Principle Of Equilibrium". Tucker may be there to counterbalance the overwhelming propaganda/bullsh** that's fed to humanity at large scale by the Mainstream Media. It may be that his situation is governed by some 'higher law' to see how humanity responds. This "test" will not last forever though (assuming there is any truth to what I just said). Tucker and the media he is employed by may interpret the events happening around them in their own subjective way but it may be an objective law at work here. My 2 cents and FWIW!

 

[lilies]

What do y'all think? Is this Nolan guy credible? Is there any evidence, like court documents, for his claim that US military personnel have been killed encountering UFOs?

If the Stanford prof is CIA COINTELPRO, then here is more sewage:
1. Reverse engineered, thus shabby Area 51 "UFO" craft allegedly messed with pilots brains.
Even the navigation is problematic: because these new craft don't have jet engines, thus don't obey normal physics and "F-18 style flight characteristics" that all professional pilots are used to. During long years of their career they got the training based on "Jet flight physics" ingrained into their brains.

Instead there is a reported "gravity-lessening field" around such shabby Area 51-craft incorporating some UFO tech, which makes the craft float / levitate silently. So those triangle or saucer, etc.. craft the Deep State engineers put together don't fly like the F-18s that professional US pilots were trained for. This unique navigation-control while in flight reportedly messes up pilots brains and lots of pilots are decommissioned.

I think the stress as well, to not crash the experimental crafts, may cause neural damage / nervous breakdowns.

2. Also the radiation of the cheap "UFO"-imitation engines possibly gave pilots cancer because the inadequate shielding.

3. F-35 pilots were also suffering from simple CO poisoning, then check these out:

WASHINGTON — In at least two cases, sudden spikes in cockpit pressure have left F-35 pilots with searing ear and sinus pain, Defense News has learned.

Six total factors, including speed, helmet, oxygen, and flight control problems, led to this summer’s loss of an Air Force Lightning II.

Safety Experts: Some F-35 Ejections Pose ‘Serious’ Death Risk
-
House panel demands another investigation into F-35 pilot breathing system problems

If even the F-35 has these problems, imagine in how many ways a reverse-engineered rubbish "UFO" craft can hurt pilots.

Now since that time we’ve discovered that the brain has billions of microcrystals of magnetite that are single domain and can be magnetized on and off by perhaps passing an electron past them. I posted an article about that in another thread, so one could postulate that UFOs have devices that can send out microwave radiation in that range, much like the phased array 5G antennas can do and that type of radiation is absorbed by magnetite so it’s definitely within reason that brains can be fried by that type of radiation.

Charles Hall talks about his fictionary / factual[?] book titled Millennial Hospitality that the 'Tall White' aliens base all their stuff - hand-held and craft-mounted weapons, levitation suits, ships, onboard displays - on advanced microwave tech and how even the small hand-held device can be made to shoot "microwave beams" that ruptures artery walls causing fatal bleeding. The author describes how he was shot with such a simple hand-held one and almost died.

 

[Revolucionar]

Great video from Tucker.
The only thing he's wrong about is that it's not China pulling the strings, it's the global elites.
I think he's correct in his view that the plan is to supplant Western global dominance with Chinese global dominance. The reason, IMHO, is that the Chinese political and legal system is much more conducive to the sort of control they would like be able to impose on society.
The ideas of liberty, free speech and personal autonomy are anathema to the globalist plans, so China has been chosen to lead this new world order.
Just look at their heavy handed response to Covid, while even the most extremist Western countries softened their approach at the time. The Chinese were training their totalitarian muscle in preparation for what's to come.
I don't think China is planned to lead this new order through the US way of force, but they will be the shining example of how it's done and Western countries will copy it like they did with Covid.

 

[Alejo]

Every time I watch Tucker Carlson I have to shake my head when I remember that I am watching FOX news. This is the channel we all loved to hate when the neocons launched their War of Terror 20 years ago. I can't believe some of the things he is able to talk about - Nord Stream, Ukrainian Nazis, all the juicy stuff. It's no surprise that he is being watched closely by the deep state, but I can't figure out why he is still in a position to reach such a large audience. I know he doesn't have the whole picture but it's more truth than I expect from mainstream news outlets. Is is to fuel division in US society, along the lines of the East Palestine incident as discussed in the last C's session? People can be allowed the truth as long as it gets them angry at the left?

I think it's also partly his reach, it's better to keep people watching someone they somewhat know how far he will go, than to have a martyr. But also, Tucker has said a few times in the past that he has no editorial intervention from Fox, which clearly doesn't happen anywhere else.

But, it is also true that Tucker seems to respect the institutions and the law, and he can be controlled in a certain way, for instance, from that interview.. he was told not to go to Russia, and he didn't go. So, in a sense he is allowed to say what he says, and perhaps it's also for gauging public opinion, but I do not think he is in on it consciously, but I also do not think he's completely oblivious to that fact.

I think he is allowed to have editorial control over his show, he knows he's being allowed, which probably explains his care about certain topics, he knows, and has even warned everyone, that a point might come when censorship will not be covert, and he's probably doing what he can while he's allowed.

And on Fox, I still don't like most of their content.. not everyone else sounds as authentic and caring about what they say, most everyone else in Fox sounds rather ideological IMHO.

 

[hlat]

Seriously, criticize Tucker all you want for specific things he says or what he gets wrong, but how is it that people can't recognize courage and integrity when they see it?

To me it is as clear as day that Tucker has courage and integrity, is all I'm saying. And I just find it astonishing that some people can't see that, and instead of taking people like him as an inspiration, prefer some pattern-recognition-story and paint him as an evil psyop villain

But…What happened on election night in 2020? When push came to shove did Tucker cave in and will he cave in the next time he is “asked”?

I don't recognize courage and integrity in Tucker.

Right after the 2020 election, before 2021, when it mattered, he repeatedly stated there was no election fraud significant enough that it stole the election from Trump. I recognize Tucker as one of the participants who stole the election from Trump, providing cover for the people who committed the election fraud.

That wasn't some thing in the distant past. It's less than 2 and a half years ago. As the Cs said, the result was an immediate slide into totalitarianism. Tucker bears responsibility.

 

[luc]

I don't recognize courage and integrity in Tucker.

Right after the 2020 election, before 2021, when it mattered, he repeatedly stated there was no election fraud significant enough that it stole the election from Trump. I recognize Tucker as one of the participants who stole the election from Trump, providing cover for the people who committed the election fraud.

This isn't sound reasoning: because you have strong feelings about this issue and Tucker took a different stance, you infer that this is due to lack of courage and integrity, i.e. that he acted cowardly and/or with nefarious intent. Maybe. But there could be all kinds of other reasons and explanations. Would you say the same about his stance about China for example, where he tends to get things very wrong as well?

Sure, I have my questions about his reservations about the election fraud thing too. Then again, no need to be so emotionally invested - or do you really think it would have made any difference if Tucker had spoken out about it? Do you think the deep state would have said, yeah, mea culpa, let's hand it to Trump? And about what should he have spoken out, exactly? The whole dominion/"release the kraken" thing turned out to be a psyop. It was very clever and crafty. Had Tucker joined this particular mob, what would have happened? Would he even be here now? Look at Rudi Giuliani, arguably a more powerful and better-connected figure than Tucker. Heard of him lately?

All I'm saying is criticize as hard as you want, but please don't jump to conclusions too quickly.

 

[Joe]

There might be all kinds of explanations that they don't do that, or a combination. The simplest one is just money, he's Fox' superstar and draws a huge audience. There might also be some influential people who protect him because they agree with him, i.e. they have been redpilled just like he has (no reason that shouldn't happen in elite circles too!), even if they keep it private for the most part. Some others might *think* they can control the conversation if they have him as part of a news organization, but might be deluded in thinking so... Or again a combination. It also might just not be so easy in practice to get rid of him at this point, so...

Well, he's fully onboard with the "evil China" meme, which certainly pleases the CIA etc.

 

[Joe]

That wasn't some thing in the distant past. It's less than 2 and a half years ago. As the Cs said, the result was an immediate slide into totalitarianism. Tucker bears responsibility.

The main point here is, I think, intent, that is based on the nature of the individual and the specific details of the "cover up" and the context in which they may or may not have been a conscious or unconscious party to it.

Was Tucker being consciously deceptive, or was he simply the kind of person who couldn't 'go there', and was therefore more easily convinced that everything was legit with the election?

There's a big difference between people like that, and people who knowingly cover up the facts. Then again, there are different categories of that latter type (and probably the former).

For example, there's the claim that, in Dec. 2020 the US Supreme Court justices were in a room and decided not to investigate the claims of fraud because they were warned that to do so could lead to the overturning of the election which might well result in civil war, and the blood would be on their hands. In that context, (if it happened) can the SC justices be condemned for their part in the coverup? What sentence would you hand down? Could their honest belief that their decision not to investigate would likely avoid massive bloodshed and perhaps the destruction of the country been seen as a mitigating factor in their 'crime'?