The New York Times just did a big hate report against Tucker Carlson, claiming he is an evil racist hater or whatever. It’s really too long for me to read, frankly.
I read it though – mostly.
Most interestingly to me – the secret source of Tucker’s ideas was finally revealed…!
Carlson's show set off arguments at Fox. When he claimed South Africa’s white farmers were “being targeted in a wave of barbaric and horrifying murders," a senior leader told executives Carlson ripped his story from sites like the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer. https://t.co/ctWFizjEJ9
— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 1, 2022
It’s not that interesting, actually. They would say that.
It’s a hate piece – just entirely a series of insults and attacks.
The article is ostensibly written by someone with a Christian name, but it’s a standard Jewish hitpiece from a standard Jewish hate publication. The backbone of the piece, therefore, is psychoanalysis of Tucker Carlson, personally. Specifically – he has mommy issues that make him love fascism and hate immigrants.
But a few months later, just days after the boys returned from a Hawaii vacation with their mother, Richard began divorce proceedings and sought full custody of the children. In court filings, Lisa Carlson claimed he had blindsided her and left her virtually penniless. The couple separated and began fighting over custody and spousal support. Mr. Carlson alleged that his wife had “repeated difficulties with abuse of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines,” and that he had grown concerned about both her mental state and her treatment of the boys. On at least one occasion, he asserted, the boys had walked off the plane in San Diego without shoes; the mother’s own family members, he said, had urged him not to let her see the children unsupervised. He won custody when Tucker was 8, at a hearing Lisa did not attend: According to court records, she had left the country. She eventually settled in France, never to see her sons again. A few years later, Richard Carlson married Patricia Swanson, an heiress to the frozen-food fortune, who adopted both boys.
For many years, Tucker Carlson was tight-lipped about the rupture. In a New Yorker profile in 2017, not long after his show debuted, he described his mother’s departure as a “totally bizarre situation — which I never talk about, because it was actually not really part of my life at all.” But as controversy and criticism engulfed his show, Mr. Carlson began to describe his early life in darker tones, painting the California of his youth as a countercultural dystopia and his mother as abusive and erratic. In 2019, speaking on a podcast with the right-leaning comedian Adam Carolla, Mr. Carlson said his mother had forced drugs on her children. “She was like, doing real drugs around us when we were little, and getting us to do it, and just like being a nut case,” Mr. Carlson said. By his account, his mother made clear to her two young sons that she had little affection for them. “When you realize your own mother doesn’t like you, when she says that, it’s like, oh gosh,” he told Mr. Carolla, adding that he “felt all kinds of rage about it.”
Mr. Carlson was a heavy drinker until his 30s, something he has attributed in part to his early childhood. But by his own account, his mother’s abandonment also provided him with a kind of pre-emptive defense against the attacks that have rained down on his Fox show. “Criticism from people who hate me doesn’t really mean anything to me,” Mr. Carlson told Megyn Kelly, the former Fox anchor, on her podcast last fall. He went on to say: “I’m not giving those people emotional control over me. I’ve been through that. I lived through that as a child.” One lesson from his youth, Mr. Carlson told one interviewer, was that “you should only care about the opinions of people who care about you.”
The remaining Carlsons placed a high premium on family loyalty, and Mr. Carlson formed an exceptionally tight bond with his brother and father. The elder Mr. Carlson began a political career in San Diego Republican circles — Pete Wilson, the future California governor, was a frequent guest at their dinner table — and eventually moved the family to Washington, where he led Voice of America in the Reagan administration. Tucker, an avid reader but indifferent student, went to boarding school in Rhode Island, where he met his future wife, Susie Andrews, the headmaster’s daughter. They married when he was 22 and had four children. “I wanted a totally happy family, where everyone’s close and everyone’s named after someone else and everyone gets together all the time,” Mr. Carlson has said. After college, he followed his father’s footsteps into journalism.
This is almost like a parody of an anti-Semitic parody of a Jewish hate piece. It’s always so grimy, almost pornographic, the way they attempt to frame all forms of disagreement with Jews as some kind of psychological disease rooted in childhood.
They’ve done this to me too. I have no problem admitting the fact that coming from a broken family is a key driver for other people not to ever have to go through that, which is an underlying reason why I ended up drawn to the right-wing in the first place. But this is completely irrelevant to any argument or idea. Adults do not have a political debate by trying to psychoanalyze their opponent’s childhood. To any normal person, this seems completely unhinged and insane, so it pretty much has to be buried in a six-million-word piece that winds and confuses you. You can walk away from something of this length saying “what was the point of the arguments?” and not really remember but assume there must have been some point buried in there somewhere.
But there is no point. There is no rebuttal to any of the “racist” claims Tucker Carlson has made. There is no explanation of why mass immigration is good for America, why every child should be turned into a homosexual, or why we should fight a war with Russia. You can’t give counterarguments, so at first you point and gawk and say “bad person,” then you start trying to deconstruct someone’s personal psychology.
The Times hate piece cuts off abruptly. I was like “hmm, interesting ending” – and scrolled up to the top to find it was only part 1! I’m just going to be honest with you – I didn’t read part 2. I just didn’t have the energy or interest. I just ctrl+f’d my website, and found that it is indeed mentioned a second time, in relation to the same issue.
Part 3 is some kind of interactive video thing. It’s frankly very tacky and offensive to have the third part of a supposed “investigative news report” be an interactive AV segment. They could have just said it was a two-parter “accompanied by” the embedded video piece.
Anyway, it’s confusing what the goal of this actually is. They don’t have anything new. Even the claim that he copied my talking points is not new. The source is new, but the ADL and other Jews have made this same claim since 2017 – I have always maintained that I have no idea if he or his writers read the site or not, and if they are people who care about the truth, they’re going to reach the same conclusions as me either way. In the end, there are no multiple versions of the truth somehow existing simultaneously – there can only be one truth. Certainly, reading people who care about the truth is helpful and developing your own understanding, but if something is objective truth, you are going to reach it through objective analysis without having to be told by someone else.
The claim of using me as a source was specifically in the context of stories on South African farm murders.
When Carlson claimed South Africa’s white farmers were “being targeted in a wave of barbaric and horrifying murders," the head of Fox Business told executives that Carlson had ripped his story from sites like the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer. He was overruled. Carlson kept going.
— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) May 1, 2022
The South African farm murders are real, and simply saying they are not does not change reality. This article quotes people saying these murders are not happening, but cleverly doesn’t outright say that the stories were false. It would have been ridiculous.
The Times has relatively recently reported on this issue. While trying to say there is no “white genocide,” they admit to regular black-on-white random murders, but say it doesn’t really matter because black people kill a lot more black people than they do white people:
While arguing that more black people dying at the hands of blacks means there is no racism (apparently just claiming that blacks are very violent people and will murder anyone), they don’t mention that whites are less than 9% of the population.
This is from all the way back in 2001:
So, if the South African farm murders are a fact, well-documented by mainstream outlets, including the NY Times itself, then where do I fit in? Why does Tucker Carlson need me?
Some black guy at Fox saying “he done been did read dat white folk, dem rassis interrints” is no different from the ADL saying that Tucker says things that sound like things we say here.
If I had to guess, this isn’t really a censorship piece. Most articles like this published are demands for censorship, but at this point it is clear that for whatever reason (mostly money, I would assume), Fox News is dug-in on the Tucker issue, and is not going to fire him. Their whole network would fall apart if they did fire him, and they’re just not willing to do that. Disney has already bought all of the entertainment assets, so the news is all they have left. Short of BlackRock coming in and buying the company, or Nina “Shovelface” Jankowicz declaring his show illegal, Tucker is staying on air.
Therefore, the Times hate piece is more likely geared at trying to dissuade Democrats from watching Tucker’s show.
The “Tucker Carlson Democrat” is a thing.
The Wrap, February 1, 2022:
There is an entire cottage industry within media dedicated to disseminating Tucker Carlson’s nightly Fox News musings to presumably liberal audiences who may not be tuning in to hear what the leading conservative voice is telling his large following. But recent data from Nielsen MRI Fusion suggests those nightly dispatches may not be necessary: In October, the most recent month for which data is available, Carlson’s 9 p.m. ET program was the top cable news show among Democrats in the advertiser-coveted age range of 25-54.
These numbers are no doubt expanding as the leftist media continues to do a Building 7 and collapse into its own footprint without being hit by any plane.
Even if you agreed with hardcore government/establishment identity politics, sitting and listening to these moral lectures every day would simply be emotionally exhausting for any normal person, so people are turning on Tucker just to get the news without being race-shamed and denounced as evil.
This hate article seems to me to be designed to stress the moral depravity of anyone who would watch Tucker, and therefore try to make Democrats feel guilty for watching it, and bring them back to CNN and MSNBC.