By John B. Carpenter
In the school of Tuckerism, I was a prospective PhD. I never missed Tucker’s Fox News monologues. Every night, I imbibed his lively lectures, treating his conservative social critique as a nightly devotional. His cuts into liberalism were scalpel-sharp. I once commented to my wife, after another of Tucker’s surgical vivisections of some liberal propagandist, “I’d hate to be one of his liberal guests.” Though sometimes, looking back, the red flags were there—baseless conspiracy theories punctuated with an emphatic “This is just true, period!”—he still put on a nightly clinic on how to deconstruct the left. But now the scalpel-like critiques are gone, replaced by pernicious conspiracies, reputation laundering, and a bizarre and ironic obsession with Israel. The man I followed devotionally has become a guru of the fringe. So, now Tucker has to go.
The first big red flag was his message—I mean, “interview”—of Andrew Tate. I knew little about Tate except that some Daily Wire-types found him offensive. Like you, I’m not the internet’s dad, to paraphrase Megyn Kelly. I don’t stay on top of every sensation. I assumed my formerly nightly guru was informed for me, and would challenge Tate accordingly. He had sliced and diced his way so effectively through ideological obfuscators on Fox News that the Democrat party reportedly advised its representatives to stay away. Tucker reported, I thought, so I could decide. Tucker flew to Romania—so determined was he to “platform” Tate—to do the promotional video—I mean, “interview.” (“Platforming” is a fine neologism, by the way, because it describes what’s being done, with a lucid verb.) The Tucker-Tate talk was bromantic, less challenging than chummy. I concluded, “Wow. This Tate isn’t such a bad guy.” He was just, apparently, heterosexual. I related my conclusion to one of the rarest people you’ll find on X: a patient, informative friend. He countered my Tucker-induced delusion with facts, like this declaration from Tate about how he manipulated women in prostituting themselves into online porn:
“My job was to meet a girl, go on a few dates, sleep with her, test if she’s quality, get her to fall in love with me to where she’d do anything I say, and then get her on webcam”
Tate was a pimp. That’s just true. Period! I was embarrassed. I realized I had been conned by Tucker’s interview—I mean, reputation-laundering. I wondered why Tucker hadn’t challenged him.
Still, Tucker had built an enormous reservoir of trust from years of nightly skewering the leftist culture. So, I was a little more wary, but I hadn’t given up on Tucker. I overlooked his adamant—“That’s just true!” “Period!”–-verdict that the U.S.’s atomic bombings were immoral. (Spoiler alert: they weren’t, as I argued here.) Then came the Putin-propaganda video he hosted. I knew immediately that was silly: the unchecked revisionist history, the grocery store and subway stunts. I can take you to streets in Ethiopia that appear as prosperous and modern as any in America. Does that mean we should adopt the Ethiopian economic model?
Still, Tucker hadn’t yet bounced his trust-check. I extended him a deep line of credit. Finally came the Darryl Cooper infomercial. Tucker called Cooper “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Unless “popular” in that sentence is meant to mean fictional or pseudo, the statement is nonsensical. I am a historian. I have a Ph.D. in history. I’ve published 16 peer-reviewed articles. Those are articles that scholars with a Ph.D. reviewed anonymously for a journal and approved for publication. That’s what it takes to be considered a “historian.” Cooper, on the other hand, has published zero historical books or academic articles. That’s zero, as in less than one. But Tucker presented him as an expert. This wasn’t ignorance; it was fabulism.
Then it dawned on me that something was seriously wrong. Tucker used to host Victor Davis Hanson, weekly, on his FNC show. If Tucker wanted to interview a real historian, he knew how to reach Professor Hanson. But it wasn’t about history. It was about some other agenda. Something about that revisionist history attracts Tucker now. The one common thread of all Tucker’s new friends, from Tate to Fuentes, is that America and the West generally are bad.
And the hits just keep coming. Between my first draft of this article and its second, Tucker sought to malign Dietrich Bonhoeffer. It’s an attempt to induce cultural revulsion, softening us up for a cultural revolution. George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” (See my “America’s Cultural Revulsion” article on that.)
Finally, with Cooper, I concluded Tucker had crossed the Rubicon into the land of crazies and burned his boats. I dropped him from my podcast rotation. I wasn’t too surprised when he featured Nick Fuentes—after Charlie Kirk is no longer able to decry it—and gave him the Andrew Tate treatment. Fuentes was the bridge too far for many of his erstwhile followers. For me, it was Cooper. For others, it may be his soiling of Bonhoeffer’s reputation. If you haven’t left the Tucker train yet, hold tight: he is coming for a hero or principle you love. Then you will jump off. He’s handing out poisoned red pills to conservatives to turn them against the nation they should love. If you still trust him, beware: he’ll leave you embarrassed when you try to champion his skewed view of the world to a well-informed, and hopefully, patient, friend. That’s just true. Period.
I agree, Tucker has lost the plot with his attempts to stir the right, becoming like any other lefty click bait show. I have not bothered to listen to his podcasts for a while now,
The only part I disagree with is the “Putin propaganda video” comment. I feel that the point was to let Putin explain his rationale – which he did. At length. In that particular encounter, Putin also well and truly had the better of Carlson to the extent it was almost embarrassing to watch.
But yes, Tucker is off my Christmas card list, as is Candace Owens who went cray cray much sooner.
If you stop for a minute and think.
When Tucker did Fox, who controlled the narrative?
eh well Fox and he made that very clear.
As does Kelly.
and many other podcasters
Perhaps there is a middle road between Fox and the Zionists and the Vatican and the Democrats.
Ya think.
Tucker is a person who has very middle-of-the-road views, i.e. he believes in family, Marriage and those values.
“he is Christian,” whatever that means to anyone, as everyone has a different slant on that.
He doesn’t have a corporate boss anymore, so he decides for himself who he chooses to interview.
All that is different to taking money from the man who needs ratings to sell advertising to pay people.
And that’s no different than here.
A point I would emphasise as the MSM is rightly or wrongly castigated every day, and this blog, whereas no one says the same about various podcasters that now appear.
He interviews in a style that is different, as did Parkinson. He interviews people who would be vilified by the MSM, people who have a different view on life but nonetheless people who exist around the world.
IMHO, this is just a smear attempt by someone who was probably paid to write this.
We all know how that works, and in case you have forgotten, you need not look back more than the last few years and today at the continuing paid messages that Pharma and the Govt. send out every minute of every day in this country.
I haven’t watched Tucker for some time, mainly time to do so.
The last ones I can recall were with Putin and Orban.
Stop and think for a minute.
Those anti-Putin and Russia mob will be doing all they can to discredit that, and Tucker has mentioned a few times how the Swamp tried to prevent him from doing those interviews.
Never underestimate the evils of the swamp.
You don’t have to believe everything the paid gabblers publish.
I agree with viking.
I have not seen the Tate nor Urban interview
I actually don’t even like the sound of their voices
(without even touching on whiny shapiro )
notwithstanding I did post something on here about 3 weeks ago with Tate.
5 min or so vid, that I agreed with..
take the 3 religions lots of westerners don’t like
the jews, moozlems and catholic
I don’t like any of them
and yet there are those who despise catholics and moozlems but for some reason feel they have to be protectors of jews .
maybe allah knows why!
There has been a wakening in the US in the last 10 years of the power, influence and corruption that the jews have brought to the USA.
There is growing resentment that middle class Americans are taxed to pay massive sums of money to the jews/Israel
They rightly resent it.
Charlie Kirk woke up to this in recent times
and he died for it .
Carlson is not off my Xmas list, but Candace Owens went way over there a while ago.
Correctly what viking says is
IMHO, this is just a smear attempt by someone who was probably paid to write this.
Remember the $7000
Recent news reports, based on US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings, indicate that the Israeli government has paid U.S. social media influencers an estimated average of $6,000 to $7,000 per pro-Israel post as part of an official influence campaign.
Is this author, dicky bird, one of these
has he declared any bias , self interest or pecuniary gain, himself?
ie the Carpenter geezer.
I have no issue with him interviewing whoever he likes, but it is blatantly obvious that he softballs complete pieces of human excrement like Tate, and for that alone I won’t forgive him.
Agree the Putin interview was fine. Fuentes, Tate, and most recent interviews rubbish.
The role of the Fourth Estate is to hold government to account. Thus when Republicans hold sway the media will be seen as representing Democrat views. This is the position in the USA & in NZ presently.
It turns to custard when the public mood changes the government but the media morph into cheerleaders for the Left instead of holding them to the same standards as the previous administration. This created Jacindamania & turned Labour/Greens into a cult instead of a government. Same in the USA where the biased hacks grilled Trump while ignoring the corruption within the Democrats.
See where Tucker goes before you write him off.