Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

So the editorial direction on this topic is that we are very happy with what this presenter says now.

And what he said and did in the past is because maybe he... And surely he... Because his strategy could have been...

I am from another country with another language and nobody knows that man, so I don't have any emotional involvement. He really doesn't care about me.

But if in my work I could excuse people's criminal acts by assumptions, the street would be much more dangerous.

Although of course, my example surely cannot be applied to this matter.
 
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.

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).

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.

I think it is always a good idea to check automatic judgments about people based on assumptions. It is an automatic thing everyone seems to be doing in to one extent or the other. After all, if what the C's is said is true (that all is a big school and that 3D is therefore practically also defined by it in large proportions), then naturally, almost everything is open for change, always, and most especially in regard to people and what they think and do. In that regard I think it is also always a good idea to remind ourselves about our own assumptions, ignorant beliefs and so on in the past, when we are judging others about "what they do or have done" or "believe in and/or promote" now. I for example always try to keep in mind that I believed such nonsensical things as the official story of 9/11 at one time too. Therefore, in most cases (including Tucker Carlson) I think it is generally always a good idea to give people the benefit of a doubt rather than categorically label them as such or such, or invent this or that "out there" conspiracy theory about "who they really are" and "what they really do".

And as a general rule I think it is also always a good idea to try to put ourselves in the shoes of others before even attempting to pass judgments. On a personal note, I find Tuckers reporting in recent years more than just refreshing and entertaining. I like the guy, and I think what he does is good and soothing for the soul.

So, here is a possible attempt of trying to put ourselves in Tuckers shoes and give him the benefit of a doubt:

- By Tuckers own assertions he grew up in a rich family in the heart of the empire; in the high class environment of Washington DC. More than that, he grew up in a privileged environment/position there and was, and might still be, deeply entangled within that "privileged Washington establishment" atmosphere.

- In combination with the above, Tucker was "educated" about "great America" and "the rest of the world" as most Americans are; in a deeply false, ignorant and aloof way.

- If the story about Tucker wanting to join the CIA at the age of around 19 and being rejected is true, it should be noted that it is interesting that the CIA would have rejected him. Why would that be? My bet is that Tucker already displayed some rebellious, and questioning thinking patterns that the CIA doesn't like and tries to filter out from the get-go. In other words; Tucker might have already displayed disobedient attitudes back then. As for "why would Tucker want to join the CIA?". I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out: He was a typical-privileged and ignorant young American male who found the idea "right" and even"cool" to "fight for America" as a "spy". I bet that most males at one point or the other flirted with ideas such as becoming a spy and/or a soldier, especially in America.

- By Tuckers own assertion, he was a drug addict until August 31, 2002, when his fourth child was born (which was apparently one of the things that propelled him to quit drugs). So, we can reasonably assume that Tucker, in addition to the above points, was under the influence of (apparently serious) drugs in the crucial time period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. As everyone knows that had problems with drugs (or even just studied the issue from the outside), it can take many years for the negative effects of those substances on the mind to alleviate. And even then, depending on the severity of the misuse of drugs, there can be lasting negative consequences that never fully go away in a lifetime. So, we can summarize that Tucker became a propaganda mouthpiece for the PTB in Iraq just 7 months after he got sober, in addition to the above background. So, would it be any wonder that Tucker thought, said and did what he did considering that background?

- By Tuckers own assertion it was only about 5 years ago that he really started to "wake up" to the extent of the lies and the way the PTB used him as a tool for their agendas. Tucker made it clear that that fact didn't sit well with him (aka. being used as a puppet/tool for the agendas of the PTB).

- So, with all the above in mind I would say that it is quite an astounding feat to come as far as Tucker has in terms of "waking up". In most cases, I would presume, it is one thing to "wake up" from a normal "middle class" or even "underprivileged" background, but it is quite another feat "to wake up" from a privileged and/or rich background. I would assert that being able to do so is very difficult for most privileged people.
 
Last edited:
Great post, Cosmos. The supposition “I absolutely know” especially when about another person can be a seductive siren. People do learn and change and evolve. If we deny that possibility to others, we deny it to ourselves. (Although it is still OK to watch with Spock’s one eyebrow raised while not judging)

Tucker’s 4 kids do make him vulnerable to offers that can’t be refused. The C’s have mentioned that vector of attack by the forces of STS. So even if Tucker was to turn tail and run in the future, I wouldn’t either condemn him or be surprised.
 
But can you at least understand his perspective?

Yes I understand, as did Philippa with Viscount Darleigh, that poor gentleman!
“I did not at all mind coming here, you know, Lord Darleigh,” she said. “Even though I have been looking forward forever to my first Season in London and do not remember ever being happier than I was on the night of my come-out ball. But I know enough about life to understand that I was taken there not just for enjoyment. Mama and Papa have explained what a wonderful opportunity this invitation is for me, as well as for my sisters and brothers. I did not mind coming, truly. Indeed, I came willingly. I understand, you see, and I will not mind one little bit.”

Yes I understand, like Chris Rock understanding what OJ did.
 
Tucker has the support of the average American. His show saw a significant spike after he showed the J6 footage.


His opening segments are easy to watch on Instagram, one of the latest ones showed how the Chinese use TikTok to educate their own children while essentially sending garbage to children in America, pretty smart.
 
one of the latest ones showed how the Chinese use TikTok to educate their own children while essentially sending garbage to children in America, pretty smart.
If American content creators didn’t push out “garbage” to the entire world on all social media platforms, not just Tik Tok then this situation wouldn’t exist.

China is protecting their children from Western madness and degeneracy.

If the US wants to protect their children then they need to adopt Chinas level of censorship across the board on all social media platforms. Meaning not only the garbage would be censored but anything the PTB don’t want.

Censoring or banning Tik Tok will be the first step to shutdown freedom of speech across the board.

Or maybe Americans and the West should stop blaming China and focus on why their populace is producing so much “garbage” in the first place.

I’ve noticed a massive increase in incidence of Americans blaming China on twitter for all their current ills. Apparently they’re invading through the border to sabotage infrastructure, spying from balloons, now it’s China’s fault that Americans make garbage content.

Is this a classic avoidance of looking in the mirror, so instead blame someone else for what’s reflected in the mirror?

Tucker is great on a lot of topics, I enjoy his videos for the much needed humor during such madness but it appears he lacks some awareness on the China angle or maybe it’s on purpose, not sure. I’ll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt as not everyone has the whole banana and I’m guessing the strength of the anti-China propaganda in the US is pretty deep and strong.
 
So more fake news from Tucker. As if the American social media apps are not sending garbage to American children.
I don’t see that as fake news necessarily, just that China is contributing to the dumbing down of America. Certainly I think we need to clean house here first. It’s not a black and white situation for sure, not sure I’d like to live in the Chinese style police state or the mess that’s coming to America with our degeneracy. It’s like choosing between Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia to me….. really neither one is ideal. There’s very little appetite for the blue collar people to enlist in the military in the US to fight China. Veterans who served in the last 20 years aren’t having it and the US military recruitment is way down, particularly in high skill jobs like Explosive Ordnance Disposal. My buddy works in their recruiting department and they’re in the basement, maybe pulling in 25% of what they’re looking for and as is typical in these situations the answer from the brass is to lower standards across the board. For sure the US is ramping up the China hate on purpose.
 
Well, Tucker must be doing something right in that Monday's show apparently hit a nerve! The specific youtube vid I posted in another thread is now UNAVAILABLE as are other youtube vids of the same show. Gee, what was so threatening - um, the truth? You betcha!

1680055343143.png

1680056864965.png

1680056976883.png

1680057204370.png

1680057551262.png

1680058479207.png


From a post:
I haven't watched Tucker's video but after reading Bill S 6 86 (Restrict Bill or Tik Tok Ban Bill) it becomes evident that goes beyond restricting the use of TikTok. The US government could effectively ban anything they deem inappropriate without warning, from shutting down mass communication methods to reading personal emails, and even using home surveillance cameras to spy on US citizens.

The bill gives the federal government the power to monitor any activity used by suspicious devices with an Internet connection, virtual or otherwise: Modems, routers, home cameras, and even VPNs. The ban and censorship would be extended to technology made or used by "foreign adversaries":

congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text

[...](8) FOREIGN ADVERSARY. (A) means any foreign government or regime, determined by the Secretary, pursuant to sections 3 and 5, to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons; and

(B) includes, unless removed by the Secretary pursuant to section 6—

(i) the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region;
(ii) the Republic of Cuba;
(iii) the Islamic Republic of Iran;
(iv) the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
(v) the Russian Federation; and
(vi) the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros.

(9) HOLDING.—The term “holding”—

(A) means—

(i) an equity interest;
(ii) a stock;
(iii) a security;
(iv) a share;
(v) a partnership interest;
(vi) an interest in a limited liability company;
(vii) a membership interest; or
(viii) any participation, right, or other equivalent, however designated and of any character; and
(B) includes, without limitation, any security convertible into an ownership interest and right, warrant, or option to acquire ownership interests.
For example, using VPNs to bypass banned apps such as TikTok would be considered a criminal act, with penalties ranging from a minimum of 20 years in prison and a minimum fine of $250,000 to $1,000,000 if you knowingly accessed banned content.

Monitoring, censorship, and even criminal charges would apply to US citizens that use this technology to contact and deal with foreign adversaries.

The president would also appoint a communications secretary, who would form a group of his own that could meet behind closed doors and have no obligation to disclose anything. They could ban anything they deemed inappropriate or a security risk at any time, and they could spy on US citizens quite thoroughly.

Crazy. It seems like they are trying to hit many targets (foreign and domestic) with one shot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw some very tingle inducing vid's from TT, that had me wonder if a certain type of information being proliferated among the youngsters needed to be curtailed. Low/ mid level gov employees worldwide rarely know neither share anything interesting. I think the real angle here is something different.
 
The president would also appoint a communications secretary, who would form a group of his own that could meet behind closed doors and have no obligation to disclose anything. They could ban anything they deemed inappropriate or a security risk at any time, and they could spy on US citizens quite thoroughly.
Thank you for sharing.

As always, they want total control of information. They have no intention on curtailing “garbage”, instead that will be proliferated without much intervention, see Pornhub for example.

No what they really want to curtail is truth, critical thinking, questioning authority etc.

Culture war madness isn’t the only subject matter on Tik Tok, the kids are also digging deep into other topics. I don’t use the app but I’ve seen very enlightening topics posted from Tik Tok to twitter about the plandemic, the truth about Ukraine, questions about the train derailments, food shortages etc.

It’s a pity that thread is on the private forum as discussion would be valued by us here on the public forum. Though I guess the reason for keeping such a topic private is because a forum such as this could also be targeted by the US government for “national security” reasons.
 
It’s a pity that thread is on the private forum as discussion would be valued by us here on the public forum.
Sharing has been suggested as of last Sunday:
If I remember well, there is a thread on the public forum about tiktok and the actions about Chinese businesses. Some of the observations posted here can benefit that thread as well.
 
Now perhaps we can better understand how and why twitter was recently "liberated".:-D The citizens of the golden billion garden will be able finally to rest in peace.
 
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.
But the thing with this approach is that you can apply it to anyone technically and you'd be technically correct. You (and me and anyone) pay taxes in the US, therefore you financed the theft, you bear responsibility. Do you see what I mean?

I believe there's a lot more context and nuance to what someone in his position does, no saint.. but not evil part of the gang because of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom