I’m giving my inner Fredo a workout lately, because so, SO many positions that I have emphasized early and often on Ethics Alarms have been proving blazingly accurate. To be fair, it didn’t take an IQ much higher than Fredo’s to figure out that Tucker Carlson was a huckster, a fraud, a hypocrite, a shameless self-promoter, a liar and a weasel, but for some strange reason—maybe it was the hair?—an amazing number of usually smart people couldn’t see it. Glib demagogues and sociopaths are like that, though: they hypnotize people with their verbal facility and shameless audacity
Tucker’s latest grift is that he says he wants to start a new political party, presumably of dim-witted, gullible, anti-Semitic, isolationist Republicans. He even appeared on MSNow right after renouncing the GOP, knowing well what the network is and the America it wants to create, but never mind, Tucker Carlson literally has no integrity. He’s smarter than Marjorie Taylor Greene (who isn’t?), not as obviously bat-house crazy as Candace Owen, not as pathetic as Bill Kristol, but still: the man is not a serious person. He makes Bill Maher seem like Victor Davis Hanson. Carlson is a trust fund rich kid who never had to do a hard day’s work in his life, and is the kind of pseudo-intellectual not very bright people think is brilliant.
I’ve written way too much about this creep, but I’m proud to say that I declared that Fox News needed to fire him in 2013, a full decade before they did. Since then I’ve caught him in conflicts of interest, rigging his debates, promoting anti-vaxxers, leaking to the New York Times, found him to be a race-baiter and a legal ignoramus, a destructive agent of distrust and division like Father Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, General Edwin Walker, Alex Jones, and Robert Welch, openly racist, a hypocrite, a conspiracy theorist and a liar, a toadying suck-up, a publicity whore, and a anti-Semitic Holocaust denier, and more. Other than that, however, he seems to be a great guy.
That’s going to be some party he starts.
Ethics Alarms 
Tucker Carlson is all the things you mentioned, and it is possible that he deliberately modifies his stances so to attract a wide audience. And all of that is disreputable. However, even if all of that is true he has done, and continues to do reporting (commentary really) that is valuable. At the very least he indicates to people, by way of insinuation, that they have an intellectual and civic right to question many different things about the country, its government, and certainly corporations and media-conglomerations.
I reviewed your post about Building 7. Frankly, there is no good and reasonable explanation for its collapse. No explanation has been very convincing. Visually, it has all the characteristics of a controlled demolition.
But it is simultaneously true that trying to describe coherently how such a massive operation could have been engineered and who and why, is an invitation to jump into the well of total conspiratorial imagination.
But Building 7 is unexplainable. And the fact that there is a video of a newswoman reporting that that building collapsed while, in her own background, the building is still standing.
It is curious, there is also a video of sone youths confronting Carlson and saying “What about Building 7?” And Carlson responds by stating that any such ‘theory’ of planned collapse is, to him, nuttery. But what happened is, I guess, is that he reconsidered his “received ideas” in that and many areas.
As to reviews and reconsideration of WWll, you must (in my opinion) understand why it is that the Dissident Right has chosen to reexamine it with eyes quite unalike yours:
Spencer J Quinn wrote this article:
“In order for white Europeans to finally escape the hole they have dug for themselves, they must reevaluate the Second World War. This was the war in which Europe was conquered by the forces of liberal democracy coming from the west, and the forces of communism coming from east—two sides of the same globalist coin. Ultimately, whites were the big loser in that conflict, with over ten million needlessly slaughtered. But this was all for the good, we’ve been taught. This was all to crush a great evil, one we were told we’d do much better without. Only now, we are beginning to realize that we not doing any better without this so-called evil. With Europe and America being invaded by the Third World, and with this catastrophe being funded, enabled, and cheered on by the very inheritors of the victors of the Second World War, we’re beginning to discover an evil greater than the one we eradicated in 1945.”
The full article here
Call me hopelessly optimistic, but if he pulls it off, this might be a good oppurtunity for the Republicans. Instead of the anti-Semitic and otherwise racist, conspiracy-addled “far-right” poisoning the GOP, they now have a place to go where they can let it all hang out, and the GOP can go back to being the moderates. By the same token, I’m hoping the Democratic Socialists of America can pull all the woke crazies away from the Democrats. Then the “Carlson party” and DSA can stay in the fringes with the Libertarians, while the two main parties can get some measure of sanity back.
A nice dream, which will never ever happen. So: hallucination.
He won’t pull it off, but what it will do, is doing, is making it very clear that there is a section of the Right that is completely fed-up with the Republican Party in its present form. You can label it “anti-Semitic” and indeed use all the labeling of the Progressive Left in attempts to cast shade, but that will only work for so much longer.
Yes, that section of the Right is called, as I think I have noted, the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-US as a world power isolationist weenies. Their favorite US President would be Warren G. Harding, and they would have let Hitler and Japan take over the world. They are not worth paying attention to.
Yes, that section of the Right is called, as I think I have noted, the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-US as a world power isolationist weenies.
One, you use labels (as I believe I have pointed out) just like as the Progressive Left: to condemn, isolate, denigrate, dismiss.
2) Personally, I do not disagree with aspects of your assessment, and because I am not here as an open advocate (though I do favor certain portions), I think there is more to be gained by, at least, understanding their position and why they came to it.
There is so much to explore but you shut down the possibility. I do not think that is a very good idea.
Jack wrote: Their favorite US President would be Warren G. Harding, and they would have let Hitler and Japan take over the world. They are not worth paying attention to.
No, I do not think you get what a certain faction (like Spencer Quinn and quite an assortment on the Dissident Right) actually think. They see the consequences (permit me to continue in my bold manner) of what your generation has allowed to occur in Occidental societies and certainly in America. Tomas Sunic coin the term “Liberal rot” to describe what has now resulted everywhere in the West. Now, what is that?
Jonathan Bowden (among others) noted that, no matter the “justice” of going to war against Germany (because it was becoming a significant power and developing a navy) that the end result was: the end of the English Empire. Bowden said “We should have made peace with Germany” (and those in the room when he gave the talk clapped in assent).
And what now of England? It is not hard to see and understand how (for example) a man or woman of England would look at the present sorry state of England and try to discover how such a descent came about.
Richard Weaver in Ideas Have Consequences stated that a definite “nihilism” could be noted in America even as it undertook the immense (business-driven empire-gaining) project of ‘gaining the world’. That is all fine, wondrous and certainly incredible. But look where we are now. Neither you nor your readership has very much to say about any of this. May I be even bolder? (Oh I’d better not …)
Nihilism • loss of value • loss of direction • no ‘metaphysical dream • extremely weakened culture • no real national direction • sexual deviancy going completely nuts • the nation dividing, but each faction wrapped in nihilism • America as a universal Walmart • belligerent militarism which only weakens and worsens the situation
My God, am I the only one here who is looking with eyes of realism!?
What is worth paying attention to?!
Clearly not you. If you want me to read your posts seriously, as I have said before, you need to stop APPEALING TO AUTHORITY rather than stating your own positions and the facts you think support them. That X says Y is not evidence that Y is true. You seem incapable of grasping this. You even appeal to authority to appeal to that authority! (Who cares that the room “clapped”??????)
And appealing to an outlier pro-Hitler fool like Bowden insults my intelligence and everyone here except for Hitler fans. Really—a passge like that comes perilously close to triggering the EA Stupidity Rule.
I do not ‘appeal to authority’ because i am not using any I mention to bolster a particular or decided argument. So, I reference perspectives that, in my view, challenge and question your carved in stone and rather absolutist positions. I am deliberately trying to indicated, at least to suggests, that there are other perspectives.
No, I mentioned that his listeners clapped because, obviously, they do not like that their culture and civilization went down the tube. That was my whole point: Why it is that people are trying to INTERPRET the present by a renewed and revising examination of recent, determining history.
What I think you mean by “triggering the EA stupidity rule” is simply that you will not allow an opinion or perspective that you do not like. Maybe that is why there are only a few people who comment here? Is that what you want?
Nothing I say is stupid, and everything I write I stand behind.
rather than stating your own positions and the facts you think support them
I do plenty of that, in those areas where I have made up my mind.
All that I have done is to very slightly to push back against a few of your assertions in your post. Intolerable! Question: Do you prefer sycophants?