Whatever happened to Tucker Carlson?: Part I
That’s a question many people have been asking. This post is my answer – or Part I of my answer, because the story is long and there’s a Part II.
However, at the outset I want to say that, although a lot of people give the answer “It’s the money, stupid,” I don’t think that’s correct. Or, rather, although that may be part of the reason Carlson says and does what he presently says and does, it is not the main reason, IMHO. Tucker not only has quite a bit of other money, but I think he did not sell himself (to Qatar, for example) and do some sort of reversal for pecuniary reasons because it isn’t all that hard to trace the evolution of his thoughts in a rather straight and consistent line over the last twenty years or more and arrive at where he is today.
Commenter “chazzand” wonders:
The fall of Tucker Carlson has been so disheartening and surprising. And in such a short time. … It’s like someone who was a great friend who then went off the deep end. You can’t bring yourself to rip into him but you let it be known that a wide chasm has formed and puzzling things have to be answered before (if ever) it goes back to normal. I wonder what caused it?
Actually, I don’t think Carlson’s descent was especially sudden, although it may appear that way. I was never a big Tucker fan nor was I a big TV news watcher, network or cable, but I used to watch TV news more than I do now – which is just about never. So, over the years, I’ve watched Tucker Carlson many times in all. For years I considered him okay on many domestic issues, although he always had a smirky snarky quality that seemed juvenile to me, accentuated by the fact that he has consistently looked young for his age (he’s 56 at present).
However, I never thought Carlson was particularly good on foreign affairs; he started reminding me of Pat Buchanan a long time ago on those issues. But I didn’t think too much of it. I considered him a paleocon and an isolationist, but really didn’t think about him all that often for a long long time.
Carlson was still on Fox News in early 2022 when Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and from the start his stance was isolationist. That would not have surprised me; it was in keeping with the general approach he’d had to these things for many years. But that’s not all he was. He was a noticeable Putin apologist and perhaps even admirer, and seemed to hate Zelensky with an intense venom right from the start, which seemed strange considering that Russia had done the invading. At the time, I was only tuning in to Carlson every now and then, but I saw several examples of Carlson’s hatred of Zelensky; I no longer remember the exact quotes, and I didn’t witness this particular episode, but it’s a good example of the genre:
“Now you see [Zelensky] on television, and it’s true you might form a different impression. Sweaty and rat-like, a comedian turned oligarch, a persecutor of Christians, a friend of BlackRock.”
There’s a big clue there. But to explain it, I’ll need to go back in time.
I think I first saw Carlson on CNN’s Crossfire, which he co-hosted from 2001 to 2005. Those were the bowtie years for Tucker, if I’m not mistaken. He seemed a fairly typical conservative at first, and one of the things I recall fairly vividly was that he supported the invasion of Iraq during the Bush administration, but then changed his mind. He felt he’d been duped into supporting it, and he was both angry and embarrassed about that. Not a good combination.
Please take a look at this from 2004, when he said the following [emphasis mine]:
I think it’s [that is, the Iraq War is] a total nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it,” he said. “It’s something I’ll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who’s smarter than I am, and I shouldn’t have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I’m enraged by it, actually.”
Obviously that was a huge regret of his, and a source of anger towards those he believes talked him into it. It’s become customary to use the word “neocon” to refer to the people who urged Bush to undertake that war, and although many of them were not the least bit Jewish (nor were they “newly conservative,” one of the original meanings of the term), the phrase “neocon” rather quickly became a kind of code word for “Jew” and even “warmongering Jew.” I believe that in Carlson’s mind, the term “neocon” came to stand for all the people he was angry at because he believed (and continues to believe) that they had led him astray into what he considers his major error of judgment on Iraq, and he thought many of them were Jews and were working on behalf of Israel’s interests.
I’m not going to re-argue the reasons for the Iraq War here; I’ve got plenty of posts on the subject already and the subject is well-aired. But the reason I am bringing it up now is that it seems clear to me that for Tucker, it was an intensely painful turning point. I date his reaction to that war as the start of his more extreme stance of isolationism, and his distrust of anyone with even a hint of advocacy of American entry into wars or even financial or political support of wars. These people were automatically suspect, and he also identified a great many of them with Jews, or with non-Jews sympathetic to Jewish and especially Israeli interests.
Recently Carlson had Jeffrey Sachs on his program and showcased Sachs’ point of view, which is that Israel – and Netanyahu – has pushed the US into many wars, including the Iraq War. Sachs – an economics professor at, yes, Columbia – is a Jew himself but primarily a leftist, and as such he falls into the category of those who detest Netanyahu with a passion, thinks Israel is committing genocide, is a China admirer, and is one of Soros’ allies. However, while it is true that Netanyahu did indeed initially support the Iraq War, so did much of the Western world (including Carlson), and Netanyahu was speaking as a private citizen at the time he spoke in the US Congress on the topic. However, people in the Bush administration who were involved in talks with Israeli government officials in the buildup to the war (Sharon was prime minister at the time) claim that the Israelis warned against attacking Iraq. You certainly won’t hear that from Carlson, who focuses on Netanyahu’s statements prior to the war.
I don’t think it’s possible to overemphasize how important the Iraq war was in forming Carlson’s point of view toward “neocons,” Israel, Netanyahu, and even American Jews whom he believes have “dual loyalties.” But when he was still hosting his show at Fox News, for a while he kept those things somewhat under wraps for the most part. To the best of my recollection, he focused more on domestic issues, and Israel didn’t come up all that often. That may have been mostly because his bosses at Fox kept him in line in that regard – or he himself felt he had to keep in line – and not get too rabidly anti-Israel. Plus, things were relatively quiet in that region compared to now, post 10/7.
In a quick search, the only relevant article I found about Carlson’s isolationist views in those Fox News days but prior to the Ukraine War in 2022 was this one from 2018, when Tucker interviewed Colonel Macgregor (a man who later became a pro-Russian “expert” on the invasion of Ukraine; see this). In 2018, during Trump’s first term, Carlson’s interview with Macgregor was about the idea (incorrect) that the US was about to go to war against Iran. Much later that became a big theme of Tucker’s, who said (incorrectly) prior to the more recent US strike on Iran’s nuclear facility that it would cause a huge and costly war that would kill many Americans. But he was already singing that tune in 2018, interestingly enough:
On 1 May, Tucker Carlson of Fox News Channel interviewed retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor on Fox News about Iran’s relations with the U.S.
Macgregor endorsed the horribly flawed Iran nuclear deal and essentially implied that the U.S. is but a puppet for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Disappointingly, Carlson made no effort to challenge Macgregor’s statements and contributed with some straw man arguments of his own that appeared to back up what Macgregor was saying.
The straw men start to appear at the :45 mark of the 5 minute video below when Carlson asks the question of Macgregor, “Is it in our strategic interests to have a conflict with Iran?” …
Carlson then essentially accuses U.S. U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley of calling for war with Iran, something that she never said. Carlson goes on with this line of reasoning by claiming that “many Republicans in Congress and a lot of Democrats believe that it is essential that the United States goes to war with Iran.”
Carlson is either profoundly confused or he is dishonest. No one in Congress has said or written anything close to approaching that it is essential that we go to war with Iran.
The template was certainly set already for Carlson’s present point of view.
The next turning point for Carlson was Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, when some of these same themes came together and intensified in Carlson’s coverage. Unlike previously, he focused on Ukraine and made many of his shows revolve around the topic of that war, and that’s when most viewers probably first noticed his extreme isolationism. But it had already been well-established.
That’s it for Part I, but there’s much more. To be continued in Part II …
[ADDENDUM: Part II can be found here.
Part III can be found here.]
Unfortunately, the assessment of Tucker now is that he is a deep state plant. He pretended to be interested in uncovering the truth, then morphed into a purveyor of lies and half-truths.
I am impressed you have had concerns about Tucker for a long time. Because for years I was a fan. I considered him the top reason for watching Fox. There were two things that I didn’t care for.
–the way he sometimes had a “what’s that horrible smell” look on his face when someone said something awful
–the way he sometimes broke into maniacal laughter
When he left Fox I thought “there goes the neighborhood”. Since then I have been repelled by his anti-Israel obsession, the way he interviews people with views beyond the pale of acceptable discourse, and of course cozying up to groypers like Nick Fuentes. Unlike you I never noticed the problems when he was at Fox. I was disgusted by what he said during the Charlie Kirk memorial.
A couple weeks ago I saw someone argue that Tucker and Fuentes should be viewed as left wing. If they walk like a duck and quack like a duck they are probably water fowl and always have been.
Yes!:
He definitely is a purveyor of lies – especially anti-Israel lies but other lies as well. But my strong opinion is that he is his own agent, not a plant, as I’ve explained here. He believes – as so many liars do – that he is serving “a higher truth.” Or perhaps he even believes his own lies; that wouldn’t be so very unusual.
It’s highly possible that he gains money (Qatari or otherwise) from all this; he certainly gains plenty of clicks (which lead to more money as well). But I think he is mostly sincere in the beliefs he holds, although quite wrong and quite the liar.
Rick67:
I have long been repelled by Tucker’s foreign policy views. Can’t say exactly when that started for me, but it was even before the Ukraine War started, although that’s when it became very bad.
As far as the left wing versus right wing question for Carlson, I think he is “far-right” (granted, a very poor term and not especially descriptive) – but that’s a place where the circle starts to be complete and far right and far left meet on so many issues that it becomes difficult to distinguish. He hates Trump at this point. Hates Jews and Israel. Hates much of what the US has done. Admires some despots, it seems. But – unlike much of the left – I don’t think he wants Big Government, or increases in welfare, or more illegal immigration. In much the same way, Fuentes exists in that gray area between far left and far right, but he’s really in a class of his own because he may be doing it almost solely for the clicks. He may just be a sociopath who wants the attention.
Tucker was originally more on the libertarian side of things.
I’m still trying to figure out what happened to Drudge, or to Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs.
Tucker has long fancied himself as the smartest guy in the room but it’s difficult to nail down his actual views as they are constantly moving with the tide. For example here’s Tucker on CSPAN in 1999 criticizing Pat Buchanan for saying the kind of things Tucker is saying today. Now that he’s his own boss maybe this is the real Tucker but I suspect he’ll continue to reflect the opinion of the well-healed elites he enjoys spending time with.
https://x.com/HanShawnity/status/1780058488837734901?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1780058488837734901%7Ctwgr%5E34cbdededf4235688620e4b377360bb320bb4e90%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaite.com%2Fopinion%2Fwatch-young-tucker-carlson-deliver-stunning-takedown-of-anti-semitic-pat-buchanan-over-rhetoric-hes-using-now%2F
I won’t comment on Tucker – I used to watch him; I don’t now.
But Russia/Ukraine? With NATO violating its pledge to not push onto Russia’s borders and the likes of Biden, Pelosi, etc using Ukraine as a laundromat and the (alleged) evidence of US-supported biolabs in country and whatever else we don’t know about, I tend to lean towards Russia’s point of view. If Biden and Pelosi (and Kerry and Romney I believe) were for it, I’m against it.
Based entirely on information coming from our oh-so-neutral MSM.
@IrishOtter49
Drudge I think was simply bought out and gave up ownership of it. He was iirc always kind of a centrist contrarian who wanted independent news but was not doing it out of a deep ideological commitment beyond hostility to Clinton, so when he got a good deal he took it.
Charles Johnson I think is more of a case of someone who was never one of “us” but more of an independent center-leftist who was leery at a lot of the more social conservative parts of the Right, but who went deep into TDS and off the deep end.
Turtler; IrishOtter:
Agree with Turtler in both cases. However, Johnson veered back to the left long before Trump came on the scene. Early on, his sole position on the right was to be against Islamic jihadists. But then he became leery of people on his side who seemed to be bigots. He turned totally on the whole thing, as a result.
DT:
We’ve had many MANY discussions of those issues here. In summary, I disagree. Also, I come to decisions independently; I would not agree or disagree with something based on who holds or who oppses that position. I think shortcuts like that can lead people to poor decisions.
crasey:
But if you see the repudiation of the Iraq War as a huge turning point for Carlson, he is quite consistent after that, actually.
@DT
Name a time and date when “NATO” ever gave such a pledge, and if possible link to the document. Or documents.
Because as far as I can tell this basically never happened. Indeed, close reading of the documents often offered to try and prove this often pokes giant holes in to the claims, with many of the core members of “Old NATO” being leery about expansion and in broad agreement with Moscow about it, but being unable and unwilling to commit (and telling Moscow that) because they could not guarantee the policy of their elected successors and acknowledged that the neighboring countries would have a say (neighboring countries I might add that rapidly rushed to try and join NATO to the shock of both sides).
But moreover *even if such a pledge EVER WAS MADE* (and I do not think it ever was ), it would be COMPLETELY SUPERCEDED by the Helsinki Final Act and the Astana Accords pledging to equality and mutual independence in foreign affairs, along with COMPLETE freedom of alignment or nonalignment.
https://www.csce.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Helsinki-Final-Act.pdf
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/6/74985.pdf
Please note that these explicitly avow the right of nations to join any alliance – including NATO – that they wish, and was signed on to by the Russian government. This would supersede and nullify any hypothetical and probably mythical “NATO pledge” as you describe.
Yeah yes yes, Ukraine is corrupt and has been a playground for kleptocrats of every shade and origin, including our own globalists and the Kremlin’s goons. What does this have to do with the basic criminality of the Kremlin sponsoring terrorist groups (including literal jihadists) to try and illegally invade and dismember Ukraine?
Those existed, I will have to find the date of the agreement. But it was an ugly bargain from the likes of Fauci and co to offshore research into biological research laboratories in Ukraine for legal civilian gains (not “bioweapons” like some idiots have claimed) but playing fast and loose to avoid Congressional oversight. They were signed under the term of “Orange” generally pro-Western and Pro-EU President Yushenko (who nearly was killed by poisoning that devastated his face but beat an attempt by pro-Russian candidate Yanukovych to rig the election).
But what the people emphasizing this tend to ignore is this agreement continued STRAIGHT THROUGH Yuschenko’s term and all of Yanukovych’s after his political comeback. Meaning Yanukovych and Putin knew full well what these labs were doing by that point at the latest (and realistically far earlier unless you think every Ukrainian scientist and lab technician is impervious to being bribed and never consulted with their colleagues over the border in Russia). Nor did they complain about this after Euromaidan removed Yanukovych in 2014, and new elections were called prompting a Russian invasion and sponsorship of armed separatists.
And they did not mention these things as a problem until after the invasion in 2022, when they went falling around for some kind of excuse to justify the war, hoping people like me wouldn’t notice the timeline or how selective they were asking us to be.
So what happened was probably unethical and meant to get around US legal oversight at home, and is a real issue, but not “bioweapons” (which btw the Kremlin did not march with troops in any way like what we’d expect from the Russian military if they DID expect to face WMD or biological risks, indeed they did not even take adequate precautions against radiation in Chernobyl). It should be an issue of US and Ukrainian medical ethics and the law, and attempts to dodge oversight, not a justification for an illegal war.
You don’t know what you don’t know.
No, no you don’t. You may lean towards what the Kremlin CLAIMS are its point of view and much of he messaging it broadcasts for international consumption, especially that targeting Western isolationists like Tucker, but you almost certainly do not know what the Kremlin’s actual point of view is or what it thinks. For instance, the fact that it knew full well of the biological lab deals and had no problem with them for more than a decade until it suddenly needed to try and explain the decision to escalate the war in 2022, and was counting on this being a seemingly compelling reason that low information pacifists or isolationists might accept without knowing the information.
So if they believe Daesh is bad, you think it is good?
Brilliant logic. Totally not suicidally irrational or kneejerk at all.
See the problem?
Let’s leave aside the fact that outside Romney every single one of those is on the record appeasing Putin’s dictatorship for decades.
I still remember how Obama mocked Romney and Bush and blamed Bush and Georgia for the latter being invaded in 2008, hence Clinton’s “reset.” Which is why I came to oppose the Kremlin far before the Left or the MSM did.
Yeah farq that. I barely watch the MSM any more, and as a history and politics nerd I do my own research. Which is why I am able to humiliate the “look Shiny Biolabs!” Stuff far better than Nuland andKagan and co, who were so focused on covering up what was ultimately probably petty corruption that they lied obviously and got humiliated, getting too distracted covering their own butts rather than flipping the script and shouting at Putin “if you say this was to make an anti-Slavic bioweapon, why did you let Yanukovych and Russian scientists cooperate with us at these biolabs?!?”
History is my passion. And one of my parents is a lawyer and the other a nurse. So doing deep dives into research, regional history, treaties, and so on is kind of one of my things. Which is why Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and so on were on my radar long before most people. So while I do not claim to be an expert, I am in comparison to most people.
And especially Tucker and a lot of those whose grasp on the matter and the region began yesterday and is overwhelmingly dependent on Kremlin bullshit (and selective sourcing of said bullshit too, because Medvedev Putin’s supposed second in command – who the MSM once lauded as a progressive reformer and softer hand – talking about nuking Poland or invading Moldova on Russian TV would not help Tucker’s claims).
Yes Ukraine is corrupt, has been a laundromat for plenty of bad people including our own left, and so on. The Biolabs thing is easily misunderstood but happened. But people bringing these points up seem to ignore Russian corruption, Russian violation of the treaty terms like the Budapest Memorandum and Astana, and both Russia and Yanukovych agreeing to the Biolab research deal. Which they probably wouldn’t if this was for biological weapons or “anti-Slavic weapons”.
Isn’t Tucker Carson a second generation media baby? I seem to remember he comes from an east-coast family with big broadcaster connections, which helps explain his access to those circles, as he started to gain notoriety.
He had a very successful niche on Fox, the size of which audience has granted him the huge benefit of legitimacy, which has obscured his character. I think Neo is very insightful with her assessment. When Carlson started up his backwoods broadcasting sessions, some of his early guests were worth listening to. But I think his character has asserted itself, and I’ve pretty much tuned him out since he’s started drawing more extreme characters to his broadcast, some of them pretty distasteful types. Life is too short, and they have too little to offer.
And normally a good professional interviewer will leave you guessing what his opinions are – the primary focus is the interviewee. Carlson gives himself away on the choices for his list of guests alone.
I’m kinda comforted seeing Tucker’s weird anti-Jew thing joining his brand new embrace of chemtrails. Once you see the crazy branching out it’s easier to dismiss.
The US invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with Israel and everything to do with first; sending a message to the terrorist networks and to the terrorist enabling nations that America was ‘taking off the gloves’ and would no longer put up with the prior status quo. That, “There’s a New Sheriff in Town”!
Secondly, use a pacified Iraq to ‘graft’ democracy onto then secular Iraqi society. On the theory that, once exposed to Western liberal values, Iraqi citizens would embrace them. Then, (since everyone yearns for freedom) democracy would spread like an infectious agent throughout the M.E.
Watch Tucker’s interview with Putin and you will see a terrible interviewer. He was consumed with the points he wanted to make and did not dialog with Putin at all. That was the first thing of his that I watched after he moved to independence. I have not watched him since.
On the necessity of dealing with corrupt allies:
It is of the essence of geopolitics to be able to distinguish between
different degrees of evil.
Paul Johnson, Modern Times
Examples: World War II, the Soviet Union and China. The Republic of China was one of the most dysfunctional polities in human history . . . and yet the Chinese tied down over 2 million Japanese troops in what became a quagmire from which Japan could not extricate itself.
Neo, that’s what I also think that’s what happened to Tucker. Went from being a neocon to a neo-isolationist America only guy.
He’d have MacGregor on a lot. Which was disappointing but no one is perfect. Though now dabbling in ant-Semitism is too far.
rbj:
I think he’s doing more than dabbling in anti-Semitism. He’s fully into conspiracy theories (based on lies) about Israel and Zionists, even Christian Zionists.
I agree that Tucker’s isolationist foreign policy views have a long history but until fairly recently he was also not clearly unbalanced. His claims about being attacked by demons in his sleep, his belief that UFOs are spiritual beings residing under the ocean, and his intense Jew hatred are new phenomena. I’m disappointed that people like Megyn Kelly just nod along at this nonsense.
I don’t think Tucker is doing this for money. As you mentioned, he is very wealthy and has never had to work. I think his recent turn to crazy world has to do with his moving to Maine in relative isolation and probably his friendship with Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists. I’ve seen Tucker speak a couple of times and he seemed like a reasonable person. I didn’t agree with everything he said but he was humble and self-deprecating.
Something has changed to turn him into the menace that I believe he now is. It is very disheartening to see people I once respected not call him out for his disgusting ideas.
Gregory Harper:
I think I understand what you mean, but I don’t see it as a break with Tucker’s former self. I see it as a long, slow continuum.
“His claims about being attacked by demons in his sleep, his belief that UFOs are spiritual beings residing under the ocean, and his intense Jew hatred are new phenomena.” – Gregory Harper
Tucker has held the belief about UFO’s being a manifestation of spiritual phenomenon isn’t particularly unique and not germane to his stand on Israel. It’s becoming more evident there is something that we can’t explain happening. We call it UAP’s because we don’t know how to otherwise characterize it.
As to demon oppression, that also isn’t a new phenomenon and something happened to Carlson that he can’t explain from a physical framework.
If you’ve ever experienced demonic presence/oppression/possession or heard testimonies of it, you might be more inclined to accept the reality of the existence of something causing the evil in the world. Equally unexplainable from a purely physical framework as we understand the laws of physics are UFO/UAP.
But to Carlson’s isolationism– that can be explained from the debacle in Iraq. As Neo said, along with others like D’Souza and Victor Davis Hansen, we didn’t go into Iraq at the behest of Israel– and their government thought it was a distraction.
We could make the claim we did it because Hussein tried to assassinate a former US president, Iraq was tacitly involved in the first WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing and had Hussein turned power over to his psychotic sons, the consequences might have been catastrophic. But it shouldn’t have been because of claims of the current, ongoing WMD/chemical weapons. We broke the balance/tension between the Sunni/Shia struggle and gave Iran the ability to actively export terrorism throughout the ME. It got a lot of American soldiers killed/wounded.
IMO, it was the final break where citizens completely lost trust in their government, which began in the Vietnam era.
My impression of Carlson during those faux debate shows was he didn’t sincerely hold the positions he espoused– it was just theater, evidenced by that annoying laugh.
As to his calling 50 million evangelical Christians “heretics”, that’s a theological debate. Carlson is a Episcopalian and most of the old main line denominations accept replacement theology. They are wrong from a plain reading of the Bible– relying instead on “tradition”.
His unnecessary attack on the position held by 70% of Evangelicals, according to polls will cost him support– but it’s where replacement theology leads to that represents the danger to the relationship between Israel and the United States.
Here’s a clear explanation of what’s going on there:
Tucker Carlson Apologizes for Calling Christian Zionism a ‘Brain Virus’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0y12RaQ3Co
Whoops. I let my 10 minutes pass– I have no idea what’s going on the the phenomenon of UAP’s and whether or not they are a manifestation of entities that move outside (and inside) the dimensions we are privy to (which we might call spiritual).
There is something we don’t understand going on.
Brian E:
“As to demon oppression, that also isn’t a new phenomenon and something happened to Carlson that he can’t explain from a physical framework.”
I’d bet the something that happened might have to do with alcohol and four dogs in the bed. But who knows? If I thought I had been attacked by demons that had left claw marks on my back, I think that would be all I’d think about. Why worry about such petty things as foreign policy when there are demons in your bed?
I think Tucker’s views about spirits and demons have everything to do with his foreign policy views. He thinks we’re in a battle against demonic forces which he believes were behind the world wars and are currently pushing us into a war with Iran. He hasn’t gone as far as Candace in explicitly saying that the Jews are being controlled by demonic forces but that’s clearly what he actually believes.
Tucker has long been an isolationist but his descent into conspiratorial madness is something new.
“He thinks we’re in a battle against demonic forces which he believes were behind the world wars and are currently pushing us into a war with Iran.”
That’s not controversial according to the Bible (except the part that demons are pushing us into a war with Iran). Obviously a failed prophecy– since that didn’t happen.
“He hasn’t gone as far as Candace in explicitly saying that the Jews are being controlled by demonic forces but that’s clearly what he actually believes.”
I’m not sure why you would make that connection. Have you read/heard anything by Carlson that indicates he believes the “Jews are being controlled by demonic forces”?
I know very little about Candace Owens. I’d be interested in a link were she said Jews are controlled by demonic forces in so many words.
I think there’s plenty of things Carlson has said about the government of Israel that are problematic/wrong without going there, unless he’s actually said that.
As to his experience with demonic spirits, I have no opinion, but I have no reason to discount it.
Brian E:
Carlson’s m. o. isn’t saying things outright. It’s showcasing people who say such things, nodding along, and not challenging them. So no, I very much doubt he’s called Jews demons. Nor do I know whether he’s showcased anyone who literally calls Jews demonic, although he’s showcased many people who lie and lie and lie about Israel.
As for Owens, perhaps you didn’t see my post on her this past August. Here are a few of her tweets:
Is “Synagogue of Satan” close enough?
If not, perhaps this will suffice (from 11/7/2025):
Brian E–I want to make sure you are not including the Catholic Church with regard to “replacement theology”. A simple Google search will clarify–it is not doctrine.
From Dreher’s email today:
“Dietrich Bonhoeffer was stripped naked and hanged in 1945 in a Nazi prison for his involvement in a plot to kill Hitler. Eberhard Bethge, Bonhoeffer’s friend, quoted a witness to the murder:
‘I saw Pastor Bonhoeffer… kneeling on the floor praying fervently to God. I was most deeply moved by the way this lovable man prayed, so devout and so certain that God heard his prayer. At the place of execution, he again said a short prayer and then climbed the few steps to the gallows, brave and composed. His death ensued after a few seconds. In the almost fifty years that I worked as a doctor, I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God.’
Tucker Carlson calling this man a bad Christian for attempting to kill Hitler was not something I expected to wake up to today. But we live in interesting times.”
Here is the Carlson link at 35 minutes. He also refers to Israel as ” a small, totally irrelevant country.” I’m glad I never listened to him or Owens. God help them off the limb.
https://youtu.be/nxxg3HSlH7c?si=_JUiA7RbyJProIMm
Along with Neo, I thought there was something “off” about Carlson in his Fox days. At first, he got leftists to come on the show and then made them look ridiculous. That was fun, but when he began to run out of those, he veered off into things that made me wonder what his principles really were. I stopped watching. I’m glad I did.
Actually, along with Carlson, I think demonic forces are hard at work these days, but I certainly don’t identify them where Carlson does. Somewhere recently, maybe on Steve Hayward’s site, I saw a quotation to the effect that there are two words that should never be used together: “the,” and “Jews.”
Brian E.:
“I’m not sure why you would make that connection. Have you read/heard anything by Carlson that indicates he believes the “Jews are being controlled by demonic forces”?
I know very little about Candace Owens. I’d be interested in a link were she said Jews are controlled by demonic forces in so many words.
I think there’s plenty of things Carlson has said about the government of Israel that are problematic/wrong without going there, unless he’s actually said that. ”
Tucker still denies that he has anything against Jews. Unlike Candace and Nick Fuentes, Tucker doesn’t say a lot of what he really believes. He hides behind his “just asking questions” schtick, but you don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to discern his real beliefs. Just look at who he chooses to interview and how he responds or doesn’t respond to outrageous claims made by his guests.
Tucker is now a proponent of old conspiracy theories about a secret cabal of Jews who control the world. He is absolutely toxic and it’s disgraceful that more people have not called him out.
Thanks for the summary on Tucker Carlson. The only exposure I had to him was from short clips taken from Fox, so I was never that familiar with him.
When he went off the rails after he left Fox, I just rolled my eyes.
In a way, Tucker Carlson is the architect of his own misfortune, even if he hasn’t realized it yet.
He spent several years on CNN’s debate show Crossfire. Crossfire had already existed for years before Carlson showed up, with pundits like Tom Braden, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, and others. There were a lot of shows like it. The McLaughlin Group was one, so popular that Dana Carvey parodied it on Saturday Night Live. But two events took Crossfire from an obscure debate show to…something else: the impeachment of Bill Clinton and 9/11 and the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
People forget how polarizing Clinton’s impeachment was. In my mind, it’s the most important unforced error the Republicans have ever committed, and Newt Gingrich is wholly to blame. That’s the moment when the Democrats realized the gloves were off and they really began to talk in Manichean terms. Then the close election of George W. Bush which went all the way to the Supreme Court, then 9/11 and the wars.
By the time Tucker Carlson showed up on Crossfire, a different kind of debate show was proliferating. It was less collegial and a bit more like a nightly skirmish in a war. Hannity and Colmes comes to mind. Tucker was on the set when Jon Stewart showed up and scolded the hosts for ruining the country by being so divisive. Then, as now, nobody listened to Stewart, and gradually the news itself began to resemble the debate shows.
CNN used to have a sister network called Headline News, which was just an anchor giving you news stories for half an hour, over and over again. That’s how everybody of a certain age remembers network or cable news. What is it now, though? It’s an anchor who is nothing more than a talk show host, interviewing multiple guests, usually a couple from each side, spouting talking points, always at odds with each other. News stations no longer tell you what’s going on; they merely assume you’re familiar with the news and they suggest to you how you should feel about it.
This new Frankenstein’s monster of television news created Tucker Carlson the talk show host/”journalist.” It will be his undoing, as well as the eventual undoing of all the other talk show hosts masquerading as journalists. I think despite the polarization of the country, there is a yearning for a return to something like Headline News. Until that happens, though, expect constant divisive craziness.
Mitchell Strand:
The Clinton impeachment – with which I disagreed at the time and still disagree, by the way – occurred when extreme polarization had already happened. It increased it somewhat but was not the beginning. I date the extreme polarization from the Bork hearings. Clarence Thomas’ hearings, likewise. I wrote about both in this post and in several others. The Clinton impeachment came after.
This little clip from a Carlson segment that Sharon W linked to demonstrates the skill/danger he represents, not just for Israel but for conservatism.
I would say this is a classic example of a demagogue.
In this he’s talking about Ben Shapiro. It very skillfully trashes Shapiro to the rust belt blue collar worker and the young people finding it difficult to afford many urban centers today.
Emotion, empathy, moral superiority, pandering. I’m sure most folks could find a few more adjectives to describe this logically incoherent monologue as a solution for anything. Grievance mongering masquerading as concern.
What this does demonstrate is the goal of Carlson’s overt shift away from supporting the state of Israel to a complete isolationism.
He’s saying your leaders don’t car about you and your problems. They’re obsessed with the problems of other nations. It’s a salvo to move the MAGA movement to complete isolationism. It’s what they thought they were getting in Donald Trump– but he confounded them as a non-interventionist. He’s used American power first at the bully pulpit and then tactically.
Donald Trump understands that we project power to protect our interests and the interests of allies.
Carlson is a libertarian, not a conservative.
What Shapiro is describing has been the default position in this country for 200 years. We relied on mobility to maintain/grow opportunity. The idea that we have an inherent right to live in a particular place and it’s the government’s obligation to make that affordable flies in the face of history and reality.
What trapped many in the rust belt was the economic decline that happened at the same time their most/only asset– their house was depreciating at the same time. Perfect economic storm that trapped people. But what we’re seeing now is the inability to afford living in many areas. That would seem to be the perfect time to move to an area that was affordable.
Another thing that may be a turning point – Tucker Carlson was embarrassed and later dropped from Crossfire after a Jewish comedian named Jon Stewart humiliated him. And Tucker seems to still have a major animus towards Stewart, to this day.
@ Mitchell Strand > “I think despite the polarization of the country, there is a yearning for a return to something like Headline News. Until that happens, though, expect constant divisive craziness.”
Your outline of the changes in news programs was interesting; I never followed them enough to have a say one way of the other, but it “rings true” as the saying goes. 😉
On the Headline News: we have that at our fingertips with on-line feeds (although many still manage to include “journalist commentary” a lot of the headline stories and videos are pretty straight reporting. However, there is always a filtering of WHAT news to put in the headlines, and the feeder selections for Right and Left are probably highly different.
We don’t even agree on WHAT happened, or when or to whom, much less what it means. Some people protesting for Hamas and Palestine admitted having never even heard of the events of 10/7/2023, much less what actually happened.
Building on what Scott Adams said: we are not just evaluating the same movie differently (like critics always do), we are not watching the same films anymore. And a lot of us are not even in the same theater with the other side.
To all who commented on my comment:
I have no problem with criticism but I reserve the right to be wrong, to have contrary opinions, and to have my mind changed with verifiable facts. But given as I have no say in this matter – nor real interest – I don’t care to dig deeper. I really don’t care if Russia is right or wrong but I think Zelensky is a twit and deserves no US support. Playing piano with his penis was the height of his career.
I do think we’d be better off being “friends” with Russia as opposed to our other “friends” such as Saudi Arabia. Nor will I ever trust any comments spewed by Pelosi, Biden, Obama, Schumer, et al … if they happen to be correct, I can verify by other sources if need be.
🙂
”Carlson is a libertarian, not a conservative.”
Not from that quote he isn’t. Ben Shapiro’s position as quoted in that text is the libertarian one. If you hadn’t told me that quote was from Carlson, I’d have pegged it as coming from AOC or Liz Warren.
”It’s a salvo to move the MAGA movement to complete isolationism.”
I agree with you there.
“I really don’t care if Russia is right or wrong …”
Say no more, facts don’t matter to you.
DT:
Whether Zelensky is a “twit” or not is not the issue. Carlson’s lying about him and about Ukraine policy is the issue. Carlson didn’t say “Zelensky played the piano with his penis back when he was a raunchy comedian.” He said Zelensky unfairly persecuted an entire Christian denomination, among other things
Neo:
I can understand why you disagree with my comment. You usually do.
The difference between the Bork hearings and the Clarence Thomas hearings versus the Clinton impeachment regarding polarization is that the Democrats initiated the earlier ones. It’s not only in recent history the Democrats have been self-righteous and lacking in self-awareness. Also, those earlier instances involved the Supreme Court, and 40 years ago there was less of a “we’ve got to get our guys in there” attitude about the Supreme Court, at least on the Republican side. It shows in that only the Democrats could count on their nominees to vote in lockstep.
But the Clinton impeachment was initiated by the Republicans and it involved the President, which means everybody was involved, not just SCOTUS-watchers. And despite decades of rhetoric against Republicans by Democrats (since Watergate), Democrats’ self-righteousness and lack of awareness kicked in when they felt attacked by Republicans. They didn’t just shrug and say, “Gingrich doesn’t have the votes,” they acted like it was the end of the world, and they’ve never stopped.
In my mind, Democrats cravenly blocking Supreme Court nominations only confirmed to Republicans that Democrats couldn’t be trusted and were generally distasteful. The Clinton Impeachment confirmed to Democrats that politics was now open warfare. I was there. That was the quantum leap.
Feel free to insist I’m wrong again. This is my last comment on your blog.
With NATO violating its pledge to not push onto Russia’s borders
==
The only components of NATO on Russia’s borders were the Baltic States, which joined in 2004. They have a population about 10% larger than Finland’s and a domestic product about 20% smaller than Finland’s. They had a defensible reason for wishing to be a part of an alliance. This is why Russia invaded the Ukraine 18 years later?
Takes his football a goes home.
@DT
Very respectable, and I cannot grudge you that because I reserve the same rights myself. Which is why I try to offer my comments in good faith as I would hope others would do to me.
I have a lot bad to say about Carlson, but he would not be exerting the same effort he does if people like you and I did not have a say in the matter. We have our vote and our voice, and that matters. It is also why you have pro-Kremlin mobilization by advocates on both right and left – with the likes of both Tucker and the DSA’s “Squad” – trying to press the issue.
As for digging further, that is your choice. I understand not everyone – and indeed not most people – have my same interests and fixations. But I think it is important to not speak beyond it.
Unfortunately the Budapest Memorandum we signed for the denuclearization of Ukraine (in which Britain, the US, and Russia vowed to respect Ukrainian independence and afford support to it if it were attacked) means we as a country and government are forced to.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/32106-1-budapest-memorandum
In addition to the obvious issues of it.
You are free to think that, but it is a mistake to talk about “Zelensky” or support for him. Whether or not he personally deserves support is frankly irrelevant on the grand scale of things. This is about Ukraine and its people. The opening moves of this war started under Zelensky’s predecessors (“Yats” of Nuland’s phone call fame, Yatsenyuk, who headed up a caretaker government pending new elections after the Yanukovych cabinet got removed from office after its eponymous leader and much of his cabinet fled the country rather than facing legal questions from the Ukrainian Parliament – dominated by their own party – over “questionably legal” conduct). The underlying issues have very little to do with Zelensky personally. If not dealt with they will continue well past him.
Whether or not he is a “twit” has as much to do with the issue in my opinion as what one thinks of a given Indian Prime Minister when it comes to the issue of Jihadist terrorism in Kashmir. The fundamental problem predates him and will post date him if not solved because it ultimately isn’t his responsibility.
Moreover, I believe that even besides our oath to the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainians that *DID* fight and sometimes died with us in places like Afghanistan and Iraq deserve our support.
https://www.army.mil/article-amp/15056/ukrainians_complete_mission_in_iraq
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6942
As do the civilians caught in the vice. Because fundamentally the Kremlin was never interested in some kind of legalistic divide of “we believe this and that oblast of Ukraine is rightfully Russian in spite of pointedly refusing to make these claims at all – let alone actually stop – for decades before.” They seek to dismember Ukraine as a whole and in doing so humiliate the US while we are low, while selling much of the resources they draw to sworn enemies of us like the Iranian Mullahcracy.
And I’m sorry but I do not see how Zelensky’s comedy shtick or being a twit does anything to outweigh why those things should be stopped.
Like it or not, Zelensky may or may not be a twit, and definitely did play the piano in that unseemly way, but he is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine, and thus represents a lot more than himself.
So do I. But trying to be friends with Russia or even “friends” is impossible so long as the current Russian government is dominated by habitually anti-Western, anti-American authoritarian fossils from the Soviet deep state and their younger protégés.
The dream of being friends with Russia has been a bipartisan madness that has persisted for decades on both major parties. Every single US administration has made overtures to Putin to try and be friends with Russia, and every single one has failed because the Kremlin refuses. What brief interest Putin and his ilk had in joining NATO (another thing the “NATO pledges not to expend” narrative ignores) fell apart when he was told Russia would have to comply with the terms that every single other NATO member had to because it was an alliance of equals. And then we had stuff like them peddling blood libel blaming the Kursk submarine disaster on a collision with a NATO sub.
https://www.navytimes.com/flashpoints/2021/11/22/russian-admiral-kursk-disaster-caused-by-nato-sub/
Mark Steyn is no leftist or uncritical shill for Zelensky or Ukraine, indeed his opinion of Zelensky seems to be similar to yours. However he is also one of the most brutally brilliant and far sighted of analysts who predicted things like creeping Islamicization throughout the West. And he pointedly stated that the Russian government and its military and security organs would instinctively oppose the US. We have seen that play out handily, with Putin and co partnering up with regimes even worse than the Saudis like the PRC and Iran.
Ironically the best hope we would have to befriend Russia would be unironic regime change, or at least something enough to shock the fossils loose.
Which is a very wise approach and I commend you for it.
Mitchell Strand:
Reasonable men – and women – can differ.