Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

[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'?

 

[fifty_five]

I don't go into specifics because I don't know this guy. And I tend to be very sympathetic towards the common man. Less so toward specialists. i.e., a journalist who is such as far as the specific case is concerned cannot get screwed in this way (unless there are other interests that have nothing to do with the profession itself). Same goes for doctors who have adapted to the covid narrative and countermeasures, even to the point of becoming instruments of depopulation. Not to mention politicians.
I don't say this to be harsh and pure. We all more or less consciously choose daily how much to see, and how much to turn our heads the other way based on our personal ethics. Other kinds of interest certainly affect. As in the case of the contractor who violates project requirements by using materials that cost less "because" he has a company, workers and a business to maintain. "Noble intent", until the house collapses on the heads of its inhabitants, killing them.

 

[Joe]

But luc, you're not CIA, and comparing how you'd do something or think to how they would is like comparing apples to oranges.

You're tendency to extremist beliefs with no regard for context, facts and human nature, and in favor of everything being "controlled" to the finest detail, is rather tiring.

 

[KristinLynne]

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!

Having thought about it from this angle, as well as a few others in this thread, it also reminds me that getting to the truth is like peeling a gigantic onion with all the layers. Some are interested in taking on the task for many different reasons and while each layer represents a deep, hard truth that has to be digested and dissected. The deeper into the onion we go the more obstacles we encounter to even be able to start peeling the next layer. The souls that are looking to find the truth may get hung up on certain topics at certain times but as Laura wrote in the Wave that bone shattering revelations come if persistent pursuit is performed.

People like Tucker, Regan and Musk have been able to continue despite all the others that have been silenced or attempted to silence and it has made me wonder why quite often. I also think about the souls in struggle and because of this, I file them in the wild card category. If what they have to say can help people on the road to finding the truth, then maybe they are the stepping stones to get there.

 

[benkostka]

People like Tucker, Regan and Musk have been able to continue despite all the others that have been silenced or attempted to silence and it has made me wonder why quite often. I also think about the souls in struggle and because of this, I file them in the wild card category.

Yes, and that’s how it’s done. Slowly moving the needle bit by bit. There’s a reason the C’s refer to Laura and her inner circle as the lighthouse all those who wish to can move toward, and it’s very important that that lighthouse stays lit during these dark times. Elon Musk buying twitter and exposing all the back room deals was great and definitely set back the plans of the Deep State and gave average normies some time to learn about the corruption that most of this forum are aware of. Here’s a good quote from Mike Cernovich about Tucker Carlson, who just yesterday mentioned Unit 731 on his twitter feed. How many more people who are curious can now look into yet another program of absolute atrocities? It’s shifting awareness which is very important!

 

[mkrnhr]

There are many reasons for someone (Tucker or anyone else) to tell lies at some time in their lives. Either they are telling lies knowing the truth to mislead, or they have been mislead themselves and end up telling lies thinking they're telling the truth. When a person recognizes that they've made mistakes in the past, that they contributed to the problem, and try to do better, that's a rare quality to be recognized. Nobody's perfect from birth to death, but there's always a way to become better (or worse, depends on the individual). Therefore, all that matters is what Tucker does or says today given the knowledge he has access to. If he's right about something, he's right about it. If he's wrong about something, he's wrong about it.

 

[anartist]

Tucker Carlson: Company Man​

DESCRIPTION:
"In this video I document the numerous connections Tucker Carlson has to the CIA, an agency which allegedly rejected his application when he applied right out of college. We are supposed to believe that and also simultaneously believe he somehow made it to the top of conservative media in a climate infiltrated to the brim with CIA. Follow me as I take you through this incestuous pit of nonsense and try and make sense of it."

GO TO: (Length 23:24 minutes)

Tucker Carlson: Company Man

In this video I document the numerous connections Tucker Carlson has to the CIA, an agency which allegedly rejected his application when he applied right out of college. We are supposed to believe tha...

odysee.com

Understood: Guilt by association.
It is moot really. I think we know that we should investigate as best we can. and whatever the source we should be aware that lies may be mixed with the truth, and this would apply to both Robert Malone and Tucker Carlson. We can not know with certainty that either of them are 'useful idiots',, co-opted, the real deal, or whatever. Nevertheless they are signs of 'exposure', whether planned or not.

 

[A Jay]

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?

It's been a while since I watched the election segments he did so I did a quick search and I found a few things that are worth keeping in mind.

Firstly, he said in late 2020: "At this stage, the fraud that we can confirm does not seem to be enough to alter the election result. We should be honest and tell you that. Of course, that could change."

The "can confirm" is pretty much the key to this statement. We suspect because of what the C's said that investigations into the election fraud were stifled from the onset in order to prevent the results from being audited. Without those investigations Carlson is right that the amount of confirmed election fraud is not enough to overturn the election so far as I'm aware.

So, what could he really say or do if he thinks there's more fraud, can't confirm it because of the lack of evidence and the unwillingness of certain key people to do any investigations, and sees how the Deep State responded to anyone questioning the results? Was he to risk his credibility, career, livelihood, platform, and possibly freedom in order to accomplish nothing? Should we really have expected him to be a martyr for a lost cause?

Which leads to the next statement I found from just over a month ago where in his opening monologue he questions how "senile hermit" Biden got 15 million more votes than "rockstar crowd-surfer" Obama saying the election results "defy physics" and "are miraculous". It's not the only time he's made such statements either if memory serves. Which suggests to me that he can 'go there' but is deliberately choosing not to for one reason or another.

I think he doesn't believe the election results but can't prove it, and because he can't prove it he won't come out and say the results are bogus. He can point to the results as being miraculous and defy belief, but seeing it as not a hill worth dying on and in order to retain his ability to speak truth to power and people to the best of his ability he just avoids 'going there'. Which I can't blame him for.

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'?

Indeed. Hardly anyone is ever truly, wholly, and irredeemably condemnable for their decisions.

 

[benkostka]

It's been a while since I watched the election segments he did so I did a quick search and I found a few things that are worth keeping in mind.

Firstly, he said in late 2020: "At this stage, the fraud that we can confirm does not seem to be enough to alter the election result. We should be honest and tell you that. Of course, that could change."

The "can confirm" is pretty much the key to this statement. We suspect because of what the C's said that investigations into the election fraud were stifled from the onset in order to prevent the results from being audited. Without those investigations Carlson is right that the amount of confirmed election fraud is not enough to overturn the election so far as I'm aware.

So, what could he really say or do if he thinks there's more fraud, can't confirm it because of the lack of evidence and the unwillingness of certain key people to do any investigations, and sees how the Deep State responded to anyone questioning the results? Was he to risk his credibility, career, livelihood, platform, and possibly freedom in order to accomplish nothing? Should we really have expected him to be a martyr for a lost cause?

Which leads to the next statement I found from just over a month ago where in his opening monologue he questions how "senile hermit" Biden got 15 million more votes than "rockstar crowd-surfer" Obama saying the election results "defy physics" and "are miraculous". It's not the only time he's made such statements either if memory serves. Which suggests to me that he can 'go there' but is deliberately choosing not to for one reason or another.

I think he doesn't believe the election results but can't prove it, and because he can't prove it he won't come out and say the results are bogus. He can point to the results as being miraculous and defy belief, but seeing it as not a hill worth dying on and in order to retain his ability to speak truth to power and people to the best of his ability he just avoids 'going there'. Which I can't blame him for.


Indeed. Hardly anyone is ever truly, wholly, and irredeemably condemnable for their decisions.

Trump did consolidate evidence of election fraud according to the C’s, perhaps he’s waiting to release that evidence to the right person much like Putin is waiting to release evidence surrounding 9/11. Energetically we should support any of these potential developments, however they may manifest.

 

[daddycat]

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?

In a word, yes. Yes, the US Supreme Court justices should've done their solemn duty as the highest American judges to uphold the Constitution. They ain't Caesar, crossing the Rubicon.

Q: (Atriedes) So, when you took on the army, was it with the foreknowledge that it was highly probably that you would have to use them in a civil war?

A: No. That is what broke my heart and health. Rome could have been the shining city on the hill, light of the world.

A: I was wrong to think I could change the masses by example. Humans are fickle and self-centered for the most part. Thus, if you wish to really effect changes, it can only be done by early education, and even then it is fragile and will not last. In the end you must be true to your own nature and fear nothing. If you do that you may make a difference after you are gone.

 

[benkostka]

In a word, yes. Yes, the US Supreme Court justices should've done their solemn duty as the highest American judges to uphold the Constitution. They ain't Caesar, crossing the Rubicon.

Seems a bit wishful, after the Warren Commission how can you put any faith in that institution? And it’s had corrupt members long before that, Louis Brandeis being one example, a known Zionist who worked through secret societies while presenting himself as “the people’s lawyer”. I don’t think these people give two craps about the Constitution.

 

[daddycat]

Seems a bit wishful, after the Warren Commission how can you put any faith in that institution? And it’s had corrupt members long before that, Louis Brandeis being one example, a known Zionist who worked through secret societies while presenting himself as “the people’s lawyer”. I don’t think these people give two craps about the Constitution.

I wasn't putting any faith in the Supreme Court. I was addressing Joe's question.

Is Trump toast? [laughter]

A: Aha! An interesting question! He is still president and was overwhelmingly elected. He has the support of the majority of Americans. But does he have the boldness to do what must be done? In any event, a titanic struggle is taking place behind the scenes and at 4th density! Whether or not he saves the rights of Americans to elect their president, the USA is still in the soup thanks to global factors.

Q: (L) In other words, it's still open as to whether...

(Joe) Well, hang on... It's a pretty short time frame.

(L) It's a very short time, but we'll know whether he has the boldness or not. And even if he has the boldness, would he survive bold moves?

(Andromeda) Right.

A: Good question. He is almost damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. One thing is certain, the Biden presidency represents an almost immediate slide into totalitarianism.

Q: (L) So, Trump is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. And the USA is damned if Trump doesn't. So, they're all between a rock and hard place.

Obviously Trump himself didn't do what needed to be done.

Bottom line regarding Tucker in this Tucker thread is that I welcome him looking at all the election fraud knowledge that is freely available to him and telling his millions of viewers that the election was stolen from Trump. Until that happens, I view Tucker the same as I view Snowden.

 

[A Jay]

In a word, yes. Yes, the US Supreme Court justices should've done their solemn duty as the highest American judges to uphold the Constitution. They ain't Caesar, crossing the Rubicon.

If they upheld the Constitution, then it's highly likely the country would've been thrown into a contrived civil war which would've likely resulted in the dissolution of the Union and the nullification of the Constitution. But by not upholding the Constitution they rendered the document null and void anyways. Either way, the result, the rendering of the Constitution a null and void, is the same. At least this way they managed to do it without the chaos and mass death. For now anyways.

So really, they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. You don't have to agree with them. But can you at least understand them?

Obviously Trump himself didn't do what needed to be done.

Trump didn't do what needed to be done, so how can you expect Tucker to stand behind a man who wouldn't even stand up for himself?

Bottom line regarding Tucker in this Tucker thread is that I welcome him looking at all the election fraud knowledge that is freely available to him and telling his millions of viewers that the election was stolen from Trump. Until that happens, I view Tucker the same as I view Snowden.

How do you know Tucker doesn't know the election was rigged? Like I wrote above, it's pretty clear to me that he knows something's rotten about the results and he's alluded to it on more than one occasion. More than that he's not willing to say because he's not an idiot who's willing to throw his life away for nothing.

Again, you don't have to agree with his decision. But can you at least understand his perspective?