Tucker Carlson interviews & ideologies

[thorbiorn]

Tucker Carlson did an interview with Darryl Cooper posted on X.com 7:00 PM · Sep 2, 2024
Here is a screenshot at the time of posting, showing 33 million views:

Copying the content and links gives:

Darryl Cooper may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States. His latest project is the most forbidden of all: trying to understand World War Two. (1:20) History of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (12:39) The Jonestown Cult (32:10) World War Two (45:04) How Would You Assess Winston Churchill? (1:17:17) How History Is Rewritten and Propagandized (1:24:39) Mass Immigration in Europe (1:42:25) The Civil Rights Movement and BLM (1:48:17) Viktor Orban, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump (1:58:30) Christianity (2:10:58) Hate Blinds You

In my opinion, the timing is not that accurate, but you have an idea.

The reactions when searching for Darryl Cooper on YouTube indicate that the topic is difficult, and that it got both Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper into stormy weather. Here are some responses on YouTube:





Darryl Cooper uploaded a comment to the interview with Tucker Carlson: on The Martyr Made Substack | Darryl Cooper | Substack
To the Perplexed (w/audio) My final word on Churchill & Hitler
He begins:

Well, that was interesting. I say “was,” even though it’s still ongoing, because I figure that being officially denounced by the White House must be the peak of an experience like this, but who knows… I’ve been surprised more than once this week. I have been very gratified that all of you have chosen to stick with me through this time, and that many of you have joined us since it happened. Martyr Made has been the #1 ranked podcast in all categories for several days now. We live in a new world. No official White House denunciation, or hit piece in a national newspapers, or rabid Twitter mob, can change the fact that I work for you guys, and only you guys. Today, more than most days, I am very grateful for that. Most of the invective lobbed my way this week has been either uninformed or simply in bad faith, but there are good faith people I respect, including some of you, who have questions, and this message is to you.

This will be my final word on the matter until the first episode of my upcoming series, Enemy: The Germans’ War.

Being denounced by the White House these days, is that a shame or a badge of honor? (Did you see this clip from
the latest NewsReal with Joe & Niall:

That is how the WH representative goes about campaigning to make it modern and contemporary!

Cooper writes later:

My statement - which I said at the time was hyperbolic and intentionally provocative - that Winston Churchill was the chief villain of World War 2 was made in the same spirit. World War 2 was perhaps the greatest catastrophe in human history, and the starting point of any discussion about it must be that, of all the possible outcomes that could have resulted from events leading up to the conflict, the one that ended up happening was the worst of all. Given that the choices made in the 1920s and ‘30s led to the worst possible outcome, it is worthwhile to ask whether different choices might have led to a better one. In recent decades, only one such counter-factual has been permitted in polite discourse, namely, that of the cop who insists that the murder-suicide could have been averted if only the SWAT team had been sent in right away. And he might be right. Once the man inside kills his family, anyone arguing that the police should have been more conciliatory will find few sympathetic ears. But the lessons we take from the last crisis inform our response to the next one, and too often the lessons we take are wrong. The lesson taken from Jonestown, for example, was that the tragedy might have been averted if US authorities had taken harsher and more decisive action, and this lesson shaped the official response to the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas fifteen years later.

World War 2 has cast this spell on us for for eighty years. Virtually every war on which the US has embarked in the years since has been justified by claims that the enemy leader is “the next Hitler,” and that our only two choices are to fight him now, or to fight him later when he’s stronger and more dangerous. It’s clever rhetorical jiu jitsu that frames those advocating for peace as the ones actually advocating for a bigger and more violent war. Bari Weiss called Tulsi Gabbard an “Assad toady” on the Joe Rogan Experience, attacking her moral character and effectively accusing her of treason, simply because Tulsi advocated for a de-escalation of the Syrian civil war. When Dr. Ron Paul pointed out that Osama bin Ladin’s own words confirmed that US military intervention in the Middle East fueled Al Qaeda’s hostility toward us, Rudy Giuliani called Dr. Paul “dangerous,” and accused him of blaming America, rather than the terrorists, for 9/11. These tactics work less and less often, and most of you will have seen through the cynical abuse of language by Weiss and Giuliani in these examples, but, as we’ve seen this week, they remain powerful when it comes to World War 2, the Ur-myth of the American-led global order.

My friend Gray Connolly, a well-read Australian lawyer, and staunch champion of both Churchill and the British Empire, wrote a thread on X to counter my claims about Winston Churchill’s culpability. Elon Musk, who recently recommended my interview with Tucker before deleting it once it became controversial, commented that Gray’s thread was excellent, and I agree. I like and respect Gray very much, so I re-posted and recommended his thread before even reading it, because I knew he would approach the controversy with good will. But what struck me is that Gray’s defense of Churchill did not really dispute my central claims. He pointed out that what I had said in the interview, and in my X thread fleshing it out, is nothing that hadn’t already been said decades ago by British historians like Alan Clark, AJP Taylor, and others who were trying to understand the events that led to the loss of their empire. After listing attempts to avoid a wider war in 1939 and 1940, Gray writes, “Churchill and his government - and the Empire, however - were never going to make peace. There would be no surrender. The formerly allied French fleet was sunk by the Royal Navy at Oran in July 1940 as a sign of British ruthlessness.” The crux of Gray’s argument is what follows:

This was not just Churchill, though - the British Empire was not in as weak a position as made out & regardless, there were no good terms to be obtained in 1940 that made fighting on a worse alternative. Also a united Europe (esp under Nazis) is unacceptable for British security… Winston Churchill was not any villain but simply was Prime Minister, he was the head of a wartime coalition government that was - come what may - committed, as all in the Parliament were, to the see the war through, even at the destruction of our Empire… It is inconceivable in mid 1940 that any British Government could responsibly seek a peace or even armistice with the Germans. Quite apart from the Nazis themselves, British policy aimed at a divided Europe via war & economic subsidy.​

Well, unless I’m missing something, this is not far off from the claim I was making, except that it shifts the blame I attached to Churchill onto British Imperial Policy in general. I admit that making it about Churchill himself engages in the same unfair demonization as pinning total blame for the Iraq War on George W. Bush, rather than on the US security establishment, and I’m happy to concede Gray’s point. However, I’d note that distributing responsibility to larger groups or forces is often a tactic used to absolve the people most responsible of any accountability for their own role. In other contexts, “I was just following orders” is not considered a valid defense. Nevertheless, I am happy to concede the point that it is a mistake to focus too much on one man, and Gray’s thread will be in my mind as I work on the upcoming World War 2 series.

But it leaves open the central question of whether there were off-ramps available that might have resolved the crisis by means other than the most deadly and destructive war in human history. The fact that the man inside might have murdered his family in any case is not an excuse for the police to avoid a conversation about what they might have done differently. No historian disputes the fact that Hitler and his generals genuinely wanted to avoid war with Britain and France. None dispute the fact that Germany made several peace overtures once Hitler’s bluff was called in Poland. Everyone, of course, disputes that these overtures were sincere and the idea that the British government was under any obligation to take them seriously. But that was not universally true at the time.

If WWII was a trial run, then revisiting it for lessons is appropriate.
Beside his own podcast, or site, Darryl Cooper also participates in shows here.

 

[Alejo]

Whenever you touch that one subject, the world goes nuts. How long before they call him an antisemite again?

 

[Andrian]

Just saw the below interview between Tucker, James O Keefe and Roseanne Barr during his national tour. So far he has visited about 10 cities in different states, if i'm not mistaken he still has to visit at least 4 more cities. During the tour he interviewed a lot of interesting people like Russell Brand, Tulsi Gabard, RFK, Dan Bongino, JD Vance, Megyn Kelly etc. The main goal of the tour it seems is to increase the support for Trump nationwide. And Tucker is doing a really good job at it.

In the below interview at a certain point Roseanne Barr mentions that according to her understanding from what she learned reading a lot of books is that the humanity is divided between souls and messengers, describing the souls as someone who is able to grow though life experiences, a messenger instead is being described more or less as an OP under the influence of light or darkness. I found this remark very interesting.

Here's the interview, enjoy the view:

 

[hesperides]

Just saw the below interview between Tucker, James O Keefe and Roseanne Barr during his national tour. So far he has visited about 10 cities in different states, if i'm not mistaken he still has to visit at least 4 more cities. During the tour he interviewed a lot of interesting people like Russell Brand, Tulsi Gabard, RFK, Dan Bongino, JD Vance, Megyn Kelly etc. The main goal of the tour it seems is to increase the support for Trump nationwide. And Tucker is doing a really good job at it.

In the below interview at a certain point Roseanne Barr mentions that according to her understanding from what she learned reading a lot of books is that the humanity is divided between souls and messengers, describing the souls as someone who is able to grow though life experiences, a messenger instead is being described more or less as an OP under the influence of light or darkness. I found this remark very interesting.

Here's the interview, enjoy the view:

I've also been following Tucker through his USA tour because he and his guests are all very eloquently lifting the veil enforced on the population, although from different approaches but with the same goal: raising the awareness that even if Trump wins the election, the toughest part would still be to accomplish, meaning the burden is resting on the shoulders of those people who stop lying to themselves.

After having visited 13 cities, yesterday he had to cancel the one in South Caroline because of Helene huracan alarm. The last two cities should take place in Sunrise and Jacksonville, both in Fl today and tomorrow with donald Trump Jr. and Russel Brand, which may also be cancelled as I'm watching the rapid and very strong progress of Helene. Anyway, it kind of looks like some synchronicity at work.

 

[Mrs. Peel]

I've also been following Tucker through his USA tour because he and his guests are all very eloquently lifting the veil enforced on the population, although from different approaches but with the same goal: raising the awareness that even if Trump wins the election, the toughest part would still be to accomplish, meaning the burden is resting on the shoulders of those people who stop lying to themselves.

My cousin and her husband went to the Tucker tour with special guest Alex Jones, in Reading, PA last weekend . I'm going to see them at a family function on October 6 and want to ask about it.

 

[hesperides]

My cousin and her husband went to the Tucker tour with special guest Alex Jones, in Reading, PA last weekend . I'm going to see them at a family function on October 6 and want to ask about it.

Here the full episode with Alex Jones in PA, as you'll see he took the occasion like a duck to the water, lol.

https://tuckercarlson.com/alex-jones-tour?watchedTime=3103.319663

 

[Cosmos]

As much as I like Tucker, ever since Putin educated Tucker and all sensible listeners (including me) about the enormous amount of assumptions, lack of historical insight and naivety that usual westerners (and especially Americans) are displaying, I've come to look at what Tucker says and does more critically in that respect. I'm actually very grateful that Putin did what he did in that interview because it sort of served as a wake-up call for me as well to assess things in a more nuanced and less childish way. Thanks to Laura on X, I also recently reread some of what Lobaczewski had to say in his book "Political Ponerology", which is also very helpful to better understanding what is actually going on.

So, while I think Tucker is, generally speaking, right on the money, and well-intentioned, about a lot of things, I do think there is also a lot of ignorance fueled nativity and black and white thinking involved in how he assesses reality. If anything was made clear to me in the Putin interview, it is the fact that many people have a rather childish, naive and historical ignorant way of looking at things, especially in the west, including Tucker. And also how easily many people go into childish knee-jerk reactions.

As mentioned earlier on the forum by luc and others, hearing Tucker speak about things not seldomly comes across as rather simplistic and childish. And that also strongly applies in how he personally goes about in assessing people's sincerity and goodness. For example, Tucker often say things like "they obviously hate themselves" and that "our gut instincts" are the best way to judge and/or enable us to judge people, while making comparison to his dogs and how they can "feel/sniff" via "instinct" if people are good or bad.

As we know, in some sense that might be true, but it is also true that human 3D reality is often much more complex and nuanced than this. Seldomly things are that easy. A big puzzle piece to better understand that is psychopathology and/or psychopathy, and somewhat related things like authoritarian follower types within the human species. Also, the understanding that many things exist on a bell curve (or scale) especially in regard to that aspect is something we tend to forget very easily. In other words: Quite often black and white thinking doesn't help us to see things more clearly.

 

[Andrian]

[...] As mentioned earlier on the forum by luc and others, hearing Tucker speak about things not seldomly comes across as rather simplistic and childish. And that also strongly applies in how he personally goes about in assessing people's sincerity and goodness. For example, Tucker often say things like "they obviously hate themselves" and that "our gut instincts" are the best way to judge and/or enable us to judge people, while making comparison to his dogs and how they can "feel/sniff" via "instinct" if people are good or bad.

As we know, in some sense that might be true, but it is also true that human 3D reality is often much more complex and nuanced than this. [...]

When i'm listening to Tucker or Rogan or someone else's show/podcast while doing something else, usually I'm trying to apply the advice I've learned here, that is, "don't throw the baby with the bath water". Many of these guys have a limited perception of our reality, I assume, but I try to keep in mind that they're on their learning path as everyone else and that we've been in their shoes some time ago and still are learning because we don't have yet the bigger picture of our reality as well, it's an ongoing process.

As regarding Tucker, I'm trying to see from a bigger picture perspective what's his "role" in the current STS vs STO worldwide battle, with the US as the epicenter, I hope I'm not exaggerating here. In this scenario, at least for now, I perceive Tucker as a lighthouse of inspiration for a lot of good folks who are finding themselves on the same wavelength as Tucker and many other souls like him. And considering the current state of affairs in the Western hemisphere especially, this is a lot better than nothing.

I remember that the C's once mentioned that Putin was the best candidate that Russia was able to get at present time. The same thing may apply to Trump, Tucker, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK, Rogan and so on. These guys have their blind spots, programs but they're still learning as we're and everyone else. It's up to us to hold together against the darkness. In this " cosmic battle" as the C's mentioned, everyone counts, everyone plays a role.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Cosmos]

Just saw the below interview between Tucker, James O Keefe and Roseanne Barr during his national tour. So far he has visited about 10 cities in different states, if i'm not mistaken he still has to visit at least 4 more cities. During the tour he interviewed a lot of interesting people like Russell Brand, Tulsi Gabard, RFK, Dan Bongino, JD Vance, Megyn Kelly etc. The main goal of the tour it seems is to increase the support for Trump nationwide. And Tucker is doing a really good job at it.

In the below interview at a certain point Roseanne Barr mentions that according to her understanding from what she learned reading a lot of books is that the humanity is divided between souls and messengers, describing the souls as someone who is able to grow though life experiences, a messenger instead is being described more or less as an OP under the influence of light or darkness. I found this remark very interesting.

Here's the interview, enjoy the view:

I‘ve watched that part with Roseanne now. I agree, very interesting. It almost seems like Roseanne might be also a person that came into this world with a mission as quite a number of others might too. She lived a very peculiar and interesting life too. She seems to come from a somewhat jewish religious angle. She also mentioned a vision that she had at the age of 3 and that she has read thousands of books. What we can see actually reminds me quite a bit about the prophets of old who came/emerged during peculiar times to preach “gods wisdom“. Very interesting times.

 

[Evan]

Normally I would (like y’all) insist upon at least some sort of summary or highlights to a video post. But in this particular instance there’s nothing specifically topical to point out. I’m just sharing it because I found it extremely entertaining. I’ve never really listened to Don Jr at length, and I found myself really liking him. He calls out everyone and really displays admirable lucidity over a wide range of things. There’s nothing particularly earth-shattering, but if you have 100 minutes to spare, I think you’ll really enjoy this one.

 

[PopHistorian]

Roseanne Barr mentions that according to her understanding from what she learned reading a lot of books is that the humanity is divided between souls and messengers, describing the souls as someone who is able to grow though life experiences, a messenger instead is being described more or less as an OP under the influence of light or darkness.

She also said, "You know that they say that the cigarettes kill the spike proteins," as she lit up on stage. I recall, a couple of years ago on X, people re-posting articles about the protective effect of smoking against covid as observed in statistics. Every one of the posts I saw was loudly and energetically shouted down in the unshakable belief that there is "no benefit" to smoking, only harm. It's a great example of the effect of sixty years of unrelenting propaganda.

 

[Joe]

She also said, "You know that they say that the cigarettes kill the spike proteins," as she lit up on stage. I recall, a couple of years ago on X, people re-posting articles about the protective effect of smoking against covid as observed in statistics. Every one of the posts I saw was loudly and energetically shouted down in the unshakable belief that there is "no benefit" to smoking, only harm. It's a great example of the effect of sixty years of unrelenting propaganda.

In France, if you go to a pharmacy to get something for covid, they'll suggest you take nicotine patches too, because they're "protective against covid"

 

[Alejo]

She also said, "You know that they say that the cigarettes kill the spike proteins," as she lit up on stage. I recall, a couple of years ago on X, people re-posting articles about the protective effect of smoking against covid as observed in statistics. Every one of the posts I saw was loudly and energetically shouted down in the unshakable belief that there is "no benefit" to smoking, only harm. It's a great example of the effect of sixty years of unrelenting propaganda.

and it is tobbaco, I've had people tell me that I should stop smoking (tobacco) because it's bad for my lungs, cancer, yada yada yada, while eagerly and almost encouragingly asking me if I smoke (weed) because it's so fun, in the same sentence.

 

[Alana]

and it is tobbaco, I've had people tell me that I should stop smoking (tobacco) because it's bad for my lungs, cancer, yada yada yada, while eagerly and almost encouragingly asking me if I smoke (weed) because it's so fun, in the same sentence.

That's also part of the plan: replace tobacco with cannabis. The former enhances your cognitive abilities while the latter slowly enhances the symptoms you started smoking it for, like anxiety, paranoia, depression, irritability, etc, making you mentally unfit to cope with the exigencies of our current reality.

About ten years ago I was in Vancouver for a few-day visit and there were barely any public places you could smoke tobacco, including parks and beaches. But the air smelled like cannabis everywhere. I was extremely surprised and could not understand it. Vancouver is now the California of Canada in its wokeness, vegetarianism, loss of tradition and values, so, since the plan worked, they legalized cannabis all over Canada eventually. Unfortunately, there are many who smoke cannabis thinking they are giving the finger to "The Man", but they are actually following "his" bidding.

 

[Ricardo]

" but they are actually following "his" bidding. " ( @ Alana ) always was , under the impression that the whole lsd "movement" in the 60's was more of this , complete with paid shills and whatnot , a strategy of contention /gladio if you will.