How Tucker Carlson Stoked White Fear to Conquer Cable

[jct74]

"Marijuana actually isn't medicine."

What a douche. It's been used as medicine for thousands of years, Tucker.

 

[TheTexan]

"Marijuana actually isn't medicine."

What a douche. It's been used as medicine for thousands of years, Tucker.

Tucker says stupid shit sometimes for sure

 

[Invisible Man]

To the Tucker defenders in this thread, my interpretation of your position, informed largely by having read your posts on related subjects over a long period of time, is that you probably don't disagree with anything that NYT article says as far as how it characterizes either Tucker or his audience. Your problem with the article is its tone that assumes there's anything wrong with people who fit that characterization.

Is that fair to say?

I didn't actually read the whole article. It was pretty long and repetitive. But I think I read enough to get the gist.

 

[TheTexan]

To the Tucker defenders in this thread, my interpretation of your position, informed largely by having read your posts on related subjects over a long period of time, is that you probably don't disagree with anything that NYT article says as far as how it characterizes either Tucker or his audience. Your problem with the article is its tone that assumes there's anything wrong with people who fit that characterization.

Is that fair to say?

I didn't actually read the whole article. It was pretty long and repetitive. But I think I read enough to get the gist.

If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you're saying that we are racist white supremacists, we just don't like the negative tone the NYT takes to those words?

Sure, I'll own that.

#1 racist white supremacist, right here.

Big time super racist.

 

[Invisible Man]

If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you're saying that we are racist white supremacists, we just don't like the negative tone the NYT takes to those words?

Sure, I'll own that.

#1 racist white supremacist, right here.

Big time super racist.

I'm not saying that I call you that. I'm saying that, just as you say in this post, you accept the characterization.

 

[pcosmar]

Tucker says stupid $#@! sometimes for sure

I don't watch MSM,,
I only check them to see what they are or are not saying,, about things I am watching.

There is often a difference in realities.

 

[Anti Federalist]

To the Tucker defenders in this thread, my interpretation of your position, informed largely by having read your posts on related subjects over a long period of time, is that you probably don't disagree with anything that NYT article says as far as how it characterizes either Tucker or his audience. Your problem with the article is its tone that assumes there's anything wrong with people who fit that characterization.

Is that fair to say?

I didn't actually read the whole article. It was pretty long and repetitive. But I think I read enough to get the gist.

The neo-Marxist left scoffs at Carlson's, accurate, observation that anybody who contradicts the neo-Marxist party line is labeled "racist" regardless of whether they are, are not, might be slightly, might not be at all. They'll call a black man a racist, white supremacist, for Christ's sake.

"Tut tut tut, this Carlson fellow is spreading disinformation, the nerve of this man, accusing us of inaccurately and with reckless abandon throwing around the "racist" label as a means to silence opposition thought. Poppycock! Balderdash! Flim Flam! Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph!!!"

While in the very same paragraph, just a few lines above this mock outrage, the New York Times said Carlson was responsible for the most racist cable news show ever broadcast.

That stunning lack of self awareness, of doublethink, is what I was commenting on, not particularly "defending" Carlson, cheerleading or anything else for that matter.

I thought that was pretty clear.

But hell, if you want to score some points somehow or think I being slippery, I'll own it as well.

I do not care who accuses me of being a "racist", I don't give a fuck about trying to explain anything about it to anybody anymore.

The President of the United has declared war on me, and every other white person in this country, open discrimination and negative treatment against white people are endorsed and carried at the highest level including the president's, anti white propaganda is belched forth from the system's media organs non stop.

And you want to pin the racist label on me? Get in line pal, you're about number 17,684,829.

#2 Racist, Nationalist, America First, White Supremacist here, right behind The Texan. Although you can rest assured I'm not running a spoof campaign.

 

[pcosmar]

The Progressives ,or Left,,have a habit of accusing those they oppose of exactly the same crimes they are guilty of.

it has become predictable.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

"Marijuana actually isn't medicine."

What a douche. It's been used as medicine for thousands of years, Tucker.

Tucker says stupid shit sometimes for sure

I don't agree with that statement by Carlson, but in context, he was saying that it is something that is controversial, and could easily be debated. He listed it along with believing in aliens.

His point was that the left doesn't debate him on those issues. Instead, they constantly use the racist smear against him and others, when his professed position is that of Martin Luther King (all men created equal, judged by content of character, etc).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

To the Tucker defenders in this thread, my interpretation of your position, informed largely by having read your posts on related subjects over a long period of time, is that you probably don't disagree with anything that NYT article says as far as how it characterizes either Tucker or his audience. Your problem with the article is its tone that assumes there's anything wrong with people who fit that characterization.

Is that fair to say?

I didn't actually read the whole article. It was pretty long and repetitive. But I think I read enough to get the gist.

No. I don't agree with any characterizations in that article, of Carlson or his audience.

If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you're saying that we are racist white supremacists, we just don't like the negative tone the NYT takes to those words?

Sure, I'll own that.

#1 racist white supremacist, right here.

Big time super racist.

The neo-Marxist left scoffs at Carlson's, accurate, observation that anybody who contradicts the neo-Marxist party line is labeled "racist" regardless of whether they are, are not, might be slightly, might not be at all. They'll call a black man a racist, white supremacist, for Christ's sake.

"Tut tut tut, this Carlson fellow is spreading disinformation, the nerve of this man, accusing us of inaccurately and with reckless abandon throwing around the "racist" label as a means to silence opposition thought. Poppycock! Balderdash! Flim Flam! Harrumph Harrumph Harrumph!!!"

While in the very same paragraph, just a few lines above this mock outrage, the New York Times said Carlson was responsible for the most racist cable news show ever broadcast.

That stunning lack of self awareness, of doublethink, is what I was commenting on, not particularly "defending" Carlson, cheerleading or anything else for that matter.

I thought that was pretty clear.

But hell, if you want to score some points somehow or think I being slippery, I'll own it as well.

I do not care who accuses me of being a "racist", I don't give a fuck about trying to explain anything about it to anybody anymore.

The President of the United has declared war on me, and every other white person in this country, open discrimination and negative treatment against white people are endorsed and carried at the highest level including the president's, anti white propaganda is belched forth from the system's media organs non stop.

And you want to pin the racist label on me? Get in line pal, you're about number 17,684,829.

#2 Racist, Nationalist, America First, White Supremacist here, right behind The Texan. Although you can rest assured I'm not running a spoof campaign.

And what you see here is the result of two decades or more of constant, full establishment push via media, pundits and the education system to smear all straight white males as racist, and everyone else as a victim.

It is what created the alt-right movement. Who is surprised when people respond to this incessant flood of accusations with "f*ck you, say whatever you want, we are the devil incarnate, you can go f*ck yourselves."

Seeing as how this a very predictable response, the question for you is, was this intentional?

 

[Pauls' Revere]

That was equally crazy:

Greatest movie ever made. Everything you need to know about life is in this movie.

 

[jct74]

I don't agree with that statement by Carlson, but in context, he was saying that it is something that is controversial, and could easily be debated. He listed it along with believing in aliens.

His point was that the left doesn't debate him on those issues. Instead, they constantly use the racist smear against him and others, when his professed position is that of Martin Luther King (all men created equal, judged by content of character, etc).

Wasn't the main point he was making but he stated it as his personal opinion, consistent with many other past ignorant statements on the subject.


Here's one of the funnier ones about "resolutely libertarian" Republican leadership that somehow wants to legalize weed.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djv_neI6n_4

 

[Anti Federalist]

The New York Times insinuates that Tucker Carlson is a racist because he reports on the murders of white farmers in South Africa:

“Tucker Carlson Tonight” has featured a string of segments about the gruesome murders of white farmers in South Africa, which Mr. Carlson suggested were part of a concerted campaign by that country’s Black-led government.

The New York Times reports:

Killing of White Farmer Becomes a Flash Point in South Africa

South African Wine Farmer in Land Dispute Is Shot Dead

Rural White South Africa: Afraid, and Armed

 

[Anti Federalist]

No. I don't agree with any characterizations in that article, of Carlson or his audience.





And what you see here is the result of two decades or more of constant, full establishment push via media, pundits and the education system to smear all straight white males as racist, and everyone else as a victim.

It is what created the alt-right movement. Who is surprised when people respond to this incessant flood of accusations with "f*ck you, say whatever you want, we are the devil incarnate, you can go f*ck yourselves."

Seeing as how this a very predictable response, the question for you is, was this intentional?

Intentional on my part or on their part?

If their's then yes, by all means...it's designed to push me and millions like me, to the point of violent revolution.

I wish that was not the case, but it is. Like I've said many times, I was as laissez-faire as could be on the subject of gay marriage, for instance. Until that morphed into 6 year old kids "grinding" on drag queen perverts in school libraries and adoption of full blown Bolshevism by the queer. movement.

The neo-Marxists think they will win that revolution.

I suggest they are wrong.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Intentional on my part or on their part?
...

Sorry, too vague. Definitely "their" part, i.e. the leftist, woke media, pundits and politicians.

And that question is mostly directed at this post:

To the Tucker defenders in this thread, my interpretation of your position, informed largely by having read your posts on related subjects over a long period of time, is that you probably don't disagree with anything that NYT article says as far as how it characterizes either Tucker or his audience. Your problem with the article is its tone that assumes there's anything wrong with people who fit that characterization.

Is that fair to say?

I didn't actually read the whole article. It was pretty long and repetitive. But I think I read enough to get the gist.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The New York Times states that Tucker Carlson is a peddler of racist conspiracy theories about a "Great Replacement", a demographic invasion designed to displace white Americans at all levels of the country.

Last April, Mr. Carlson set off yet another uproar, borrowing from a racist conspiracy theory known as “the great replacement” to argue that Democrats were deliberately importing “more obedient voters from the third world” to “replace” the current electorate and keep themselves in power.

The New York Times reports:

It Was a Terrifying Census for White Nationalists

A Changing Country

Census Shows a Nation That Resembles Its Future More Than Its Past

White Extinction Anxiety

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1520857657258749954

 

[Anti Federalist]

Fact Check: NYT’s ‘Unhinged’ Hit on Tucker Carlson for Claiming White Farmers Targeted in South Africa

https://www.breitbart.com/africa/20...ite-farmers-targeted-in-south-africa-myburgh/

JOEL B. POLLAK 10 May 2022

CLAIM: Tucker Carlson’s claim that white South African farmers are being singled out is a “far-right” conspiracy theory.

VERDICT: MOSTLY FALSE. While Carlson exaggerated, the New York Times‘ attempted debunking is simply wrong.

In 2018, Tucker Carlson devoted a segment of his show on Fox News to reporting on the murders of white farmers in South Africa. Some of his reporting was alarmist, but the underlying problem is a real one, as many South Africans acknowledge.

Carlson’s report provoked then-President Donald Trump to tweet in response, creating one of his customary news cycles, with establishment media outlets accusing Carlson of fanning the flames of racial outrage. But as Breitbart News reported at the time, Julius Malema, the head of South Africa’s radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), responded that Trump was right about his intention, and that of others in South Africa, to expropriate land without compensation from white farmers.

There are essentially two land issues in South Africa. One concerns the restitution of land seized from black South Africans under apartheid. The other concerns the unequal racial distribution of land overall, including land owned by white farmers.

These two issues have been handled separately. While few black South Africans have shown an active interest in becoming commercial farmers, the unequal distribution of land remains a political flashpoint and a reminder of lingering inequalities.

Breitbart News observed:

The South African government, which is run by the African National Congress (ANC), has been at pains to calm the fears of land-owners and investors, while at the same time appeasing populists in its own ranks and in the EFF with promises of redistribution.

While not the “white genocide” claimed by some on the American right, the situation has provoked many South Africans — black and white — to worry that the ANC could soon emulate neighboring Zimbabwe, where farm seizures led to economic collapse.

In its recent series of articles attacking Carlson, the New York Times seized on the South African controversy to claim that Carlson was amplifying “far-right” and even “neo-Nazi” themes from the Internet. The Times went further, denying that farm murders and proposed land seizures were not really a problem:

Legislators in South Africa, where whites still own the majority of private farmland, had begun debating a constitutional amendment to allow uncompensated land seizures, but no such measure had been passed. Though intended to reverse apartheid-era land dispossession, the proposed amendment did not target farmers on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Nor had the government backed a campaign of ethnic violence and murder.

James Myburgh, the editor of South African news website PoliticsWeb, has written a detailed rebuttal of the Times article, written by Nick Confessore. He writes that while Carlson made errors, Confessore’s account is “unhinged from reality”:

There was certainly a lack of precision in Carlson’s framing of the situation in South Africa in his segments, but Confessore manages, in his long-researched response, to lever in a number of far more questionable claims.

…

In his segment, which aired in May 2018, Carlson misstated the point that had been reached in the process – a constitutional amendment [to expropriate land from whites without compensation] had been initiated by a vote of a super-majority in the National Assembly – but it was not yet law. He was not wrong about the intentions behind it.

…

[M]ost apartheid-era dispossessions had already been reversed. The EFF and ANC RET faction’s push for a constitutional amendment had little to do with this process of redressing old apartheid-era wrongs. As documented above it was explicitly aimed at achieving an overtly chauvinistic black nationalist project of dispossessing white South Africans on the basis of their race.

As for farm murders, Myburgh acknowledges the difficult task of documenting the trend. But he notes that “there is little doubt that since 1990 those living on farms and small holdings have been – and continued to be – attacked and murdered in unnaturally high numbers in often brutal and horrifying ways.” He also argues that farm killings are “hugely disproportionate to the murder-to-robbery ratio more generally.”

Myburgh concludes:

Whatever his motives, at this critical moment Carlson was one of the very few leading US journalists using his platform to at least try and throw a wrench into the dispossession process. US elites in the media and state department were, by contrast, neither reporting on it critically, nor seeking to obstruct it. After Trump’s tweet forced the issue into the American public debate however those same elites responded by unleashing a quite extraordinary barrage of highly coordinated racial propaganda.

…

What was evident here was the ongoing and unspoken conspiracy between African nationalists and their Western apologists to see the continent purged of yet another productive immigrant people, even at the price of South Africa’s economic ruination.

…

Tucker Carlson can no doubt be criticised on other matters, but in this debate it is his US critics who really need to take a hard look at themselves in the mirror.

The Times series has been criticized elsewhere for its inaccuracy — and its obsession with Carlson.

 

[TheTexan]

While few black South Africans have shown an active interest in becoming commercial farmers

You don't say

 

[Anti Federalist]

You're a racist conspiracy theorist if you, regardless of color, oppose the migrant invasion and the Great Replacement.

You're a compassionate progressive if you, regardless of color, support the migrant invasion and the Great Replacement.

You're a two bit, mind fucking, Marxist hack, and an enemy of the people, if you get up on national TeeVee and proclaim it isn't real.



MSNBC’s Reid: FNC’s Carlson Injects ‘Racist Conspiracy Theory’ into Veins of GOP Voters

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/202...t-conspiracy-theory-into-veins-of-gop-voters/

PAM KEY 16 May 2022

MSNBC anchor Joy Reid on Monday, during her show “The ReidOut,” accused Fox News host Tucker Carlson of injecting “racist conspiracy theory” into the veins of Republican voters.

Discussing replacement theory, Reid said, “No singular voice in right-wing media has done more to elevate this racist conspiracy theory than Tucker, who, even with a new head writer, spends night after primetime night injecting the rot from the dregs of the internet directly into the veins of Republican voters.”

She continued, “Are Tucker’s writers sourcing his show from 4Chan? These are just questions. As The New York Times analysis, last month found, in, more than 400 episodes, Tuckums has amplified the idea that a cabal of elites want to force demographic change through immigration. That is replacement theory.”

Reid added, “The reality is, Tucker is not some deep thinker. He’s clearly just channeling the gross stuff his viewers could easily find online, then feeding it to Republican voters and Republican politicians as infotainment, and that feedback loop has terrifying reach. That murderous low-life in Buffalo wouldn’t even have to listen to Tucker. He wouldn’t have to watch him at all to get it if they are essentially pulling from the same source material.”