Tucker Carlson's White Supremacist Rant

[Carl Young]

If they are legal, they are less likely to be hired more cheaply.

Right. That's why they want illegals and why the borders are more porous. All you need do is check out who Big Biz donated their money to and you'll understand why construction of the wall was stopped.

 

[calamity]

Except he wasn't talking about stimulus

He's talking about NY policy

I am happy to fill in your HOLES anytime

No one cares about “NY policy.”

 

[Carl Young]

Christian Nationalists are people like mashmount and emnofseattle, so yes

So we should be fearful in case their views become more widespread. What would be
the ultimate consequence of that?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So we should be fearful in case their views become more widespread. What would be
the ultimate consequence of that?

the death of the constitution and of self determination

 

[Carl Young]

the death of the constitution and of self determination

Never noticed that. Have you asked them directly if this is their goal?

 

[Carl Young]

No one cares about “NY policy.”

In fact many millions care.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Never noticed that. Have you asked them directly if this is their goal?

they have stated it in their desire for a country run by the catholic church

 

[j brown's body]

Right. That's why they want illegals and why the borders are more porous. All you need do is check out who Big Biz donated their money to and you'll understand why construction of the wall was stopped.

There is also a strong private prison lobby that is closely tied to the GOP. And let's not forget the value the GOP gets out of scaring everyone about all the rapists and criminals, and future "Democrat" voters coming up in caravans. That is political gold for them.

They really have no political motivation to deal with the problem at the board except to criminalize those who come here, the more the better.

 

[Quag]

Apparently Carlson asserted during one of his shows that Karen McDougal had 'extorted' President Trump out of $150,000 if she would keep silent about an affair. McDougal sued for malicious defamation. She did, in popular terms, 'extort' him but not in legal terms. The lawyers for Fox News asserted that the term 'extortion' was hyperbole and, as many of us know, we use hyperbole often in routine discourse, and made efforts to get the charges dismissed.

Such as for example referring to Carlson as a 'lying POS'!

Remember: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

I'm left speechless!

I noticed you totally ignored the bit about no one is forced to provide you with any means to amplify your voice.
Failure to comprehend freedom of speech appears to be a failing common to many people

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

He literally opens up Fox to so many lawsuits and his defence of not being taken serioulsy only shows how increadibly gullible his viewers are as they clearly do.
I reiterate my original question why is this guy getting airtime?He is a liability, legally, financially and in terms of respectability for Fox

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Christian Nationalists are people like mashmount and emnofseattle, so yes

An article in Christianity Today:

"Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a “Christian nation”—not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future. Scholars like Samuel Huntington have made a similar argument: that America is defined by its “Anglo-Protestant” past and that we will lose our identity and our freedom if we do not preserve our cultural inheritance.

"Christian nationalists do not reject the First Amendment and do not advocate for theocracy, but they do believe that Christianity should enjoy a privileged position in the public square. The term “Christian nationalism,” is relatively new, and its advocates generally do not use it of themselves, but it accurately describes American nationalists who believe American identity is inextricable from Christianity."

 

[Slartibartfast]

An article in Christianity Today:

I have seen plenty who do. For example look up emnofseattles various screeds about porn, the implementation of which would run counter to the first amendment.

 

[Nickyjo]

At one time, eastern and southern European immigrants, who were darker-skinned and not Protestant, were described in much the same way Carlson describes today's darker skinned immigrants, by the descendents of northwestern European immigrants, who were whiter and Protestant.

In the1920s, they limited their immigration by putting severe quotas on them based on '"race."

People then said about immigrating Italians, Poles and Hungarians the same thing you are now saying about Latino immigrants.

I read of one theory that the disliked immigrants were from the edges of Europe, therefore slightly non-white: Irish from the northwest, southern Italians from the southern-est part, Jews from the easternmost part.

 

[Carl Young]

they have stated it in their desire for a country run by the catholic church

That unlikely to ever happen and should be of no concern.

 

[Nickyjo]

Okay.

"Classical liberalism is a type of liberalism. It is a belief in economics and a political ideology. It is about civil and economic freedom. Classical liberals believe in a small government, and believe that people will be ruled mostly by natural law".

Does that sound like a modern liberal to you?

No, so what? And conservatives are often against conservation. Does that sound like the classical meaning of "conserve"? Call us progressives if it bothers you.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That unlikely to ever happen andd should be of no concern.

That is what people said about conspiracy theorists and right wing militias, yet the capitol building was overrun

 

[Carl Young]

I read of one theory that the disliked immigrants were from the edges of Europe, therefore slightly non-white: Irish from the northwest, southern Italians from the southern-est part, Jews from the easternmost part.

The Irish of the day were as White as anyone anywhere.

 

[Nickyjo]

Perhaps that's because its's 'brand new' and no Republican has ever even heard of it. In fact, as far as I know, you're the first to claim this.
However America is certainly becoming less White. Whether or not the newcomers will continue with the laws, traditions and cultures established by the White race, which made America great, is difficult to predict.

I thought black people made America great, working for nothing for about 250 years.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Perhaps that's because its's 'brand new' and no Republican has ever even heard of it. In fact, as far as I know, you're the first to claim this.
However America is certainly becoming less White. Whether or not the newcomers will continue with the laws, traditions and cultures established by the White race, which made America great, is difficult to predict.

who knows, maybe they will come up with something better that leads to even more prosperity, happiness, opportunity, and freedom

time will tell

 

[Nickyjo]

The Irish of the day were as White as anyone anywhere.

Of course they were, but some idiot had to construct a unified theory that justified excluding them, along with the undesirable Italians and Jews.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I noticed you totally ignored the bit about no one is forced to provide you with any means to amplify your voice.

No, I did not totally ignore. But I did say to someone who asked:

"Seriously why is this guy still getting air time?"​

Answer: You have not successfully completed your work of undermining, and illegalizing, both free-speech and free-thought.

Give yourself a bit more time! You’ll get there. And what a glorious day that will be!

I do understand that YouTube and nearly all the *spaces* for public discourse are privately owned and thus 'private spaces'. If you listened to the CNN presentation I posted where the ADL director suggested how it could come about that Carlson could be gotten rid of (pressure on advertisers and other machinations) it was clearly expressed there and I did very well understand what is portended. These plans and policies are just now being instituted. We will notice them more and more in the coming months and years.

But if you think these things through you will easily see that what we used to call 'public square' and 'public space' is now wholly owned by private corporations. And they can, technically, refuse to report anything not of their choosing. They can, technically, limit all speech.

This is 'problematic' as we say today. In a definite sense it is unprecedented as well. There are some, I am one, that would advocate for newer and modernized legislation that would extend free speech right into those electronic domains that have replaced or superseded the former 'public square'. The reasons are obvious. But it is a troublesome and problematic area.

When one examines your thought -- the things you say -- one discovers there intolerance, illiberalism and attitudes and proto-policies that have more in common with fascistic regimes (the former USSR, Maoist China and the CCP today) than with 'classic liberal concepts and values'.

You do not come out boldly in defense of a general encouragement of the circulation if ideas in all media, as a matter of accepted and necessary cultural protocol, but you definitely take the side of those who are today actively working to shut it down. This is a curious shift or transvaluation if I take you as a Left-Progressive exponent.

My my how things change!

 

[Tigerace117]

Thinking about MacDonald -- I only read part of the first volume in his trilogy -- I realize that it is too large a topic to write on fairly. But what I will say is that because he takes a 'critical' position and turns a lens of analysis on Jewish culture and also Jewish evolutionary social strategy (his terms, more or less) he does not and cannot gain favor or acceptance. Why? I think the short answer is that no critical and penetrating analysis when brought to bear specifically on Jews or Jewish culture can be allowed. The reasons are complex (and not altogether invalid).

I am uncertain where I would recommend someone to go to get a fair review of his work. The critiques of his work fall into two basic camps: those who debunk it entirely and those who are more or less open to it. There is not much of a middle ground.

This is a short description from GoodReads. There are Amazon reviews. Many who offer reviews do not seem to do so because they are anti-Semites necessarily and more because they look for analytical and interpretive tools to decipher their world, the world we live in.

It is very inaccurate, in my opinion, to label MacDonald a Neo-Nazi. He is anything but a Nazi in fact. But he is definitely a Christian nationalist and someone who advocates for 'white interests', for white Christian interests, and to some degree for or at least toward support of 'white nationalism'.

Here is an interview where MacDonald describes his own work.

He’s a flat out Nazi who literally claims that “Jews have evolved to be hostile to the interests of white people”, and that they are “going to destroy America”. The only way he could get more blatant is if he walked around all day screaming “sieg heil”.

His claims are literally nothing more than the same repacked bullshit that the Nazis used to “justify” their campaigns of mass murder. He also claimed to be “agnostic” as to whether or not the Holocaust happened.

As I said before.....he’s a Nazi, and a blatant one at that.

 

[Tigerace117]

If you’ve read anything I write I hope you will have noticed that one emphasis I have is in giving accurate descriptions of things. To do so I have to both perceive (fairly, judiciously) but also interpret (fairly, judiciously). So *interpretation* — how we see and how we interpret — is a crucial part of my endeavor.

You have immediately jumped to the use of the hottest of hot terms. You play the ultimate race card (“supremacy”) and the ultimate Nazi card, anti-Semitism. So, I would rather simply start from the observation that you do this. That this is done. That it has all the effect it sets out to have. What is that? Controlling and then shutting down all conservations that you (you-plural, ‘they’) do not feel should occur. Again, I simply point out that this is what goes on.

So, we say, we believe, that we have a ‘free country’ and that we have (and value) ‘freedom of speech’ but this is not as true as it is supposed. So what does one draw from this? That we exist within tightly controlled opinion-areas and idea-areas. To borrow from the famous Noam Chomsky we are subject to all sort of controls on what can be thought and that there are zones outside of thinkable thought. And there are, therefore, zones of crimethink.

Now, Jared Taylor may be thus-and-such. And Kevin MacDonald may be thus-and-such. But you would only know if you had read and studied what they write and say. I may be wrong but you are (likely) just repeating opinions. That is, reciting what others say. So to be accurate and fair you have read opinions that are ‘framings’ and, perhaps you will agree, perhaps not, but framing is a crucial activity in our present (‘spin’ is another term and the ‘art of spin’ circles back to Edward Bernays ‘the father of public relations’ and propaganda). How things are initially framed in sophistical discourse, more often determines how the multitude will receive and relate to them.

Today — this is evident — everyone seeks to frame everyone. To slot everyone. But these are all control-tactics are they not? I suggest that we must get beyond this. But what I mean is to see through these framing tactics. But that also means to see through the deceptive art of both public relations and propaganda. And it also necessarily means being able to deal within the ‘world of ideas’ and encounter and work through ideas within all these ‘mediators’ and ‘influencers’.

Now, I have read Jared Taylor and I know why he receives the framing of ‘supremacist’. But I know that he is not what you mean by ‘supremacist’. See, that term is red-hot. It is intensely rhetorical. I assume you have not worked through these ‘dismantlings’ of the terms and the framings of today? You could though, and you should.

Taylor is an white advocate and a white identitarian. That is true. But he does not construct his view, the position he articulates, through classical supremacism. But he does work through the ideas that have been established and set in motion that have become part-and-parcel of anti-whiteness. And anti-whiteness, as can be seen very clearly in this thread, is an entire ideology and also a dogma that got empowered in the post-Sixties and supercharged by extracting and incorporating reductions from postmodern theory, critical race theory, and neo-Marxist praxis into a virulent idea-form that set defines whites and whiteness as ‘evil’.

So what I would suggest to you and to those reading is not to surrender your framings and your definitions, even those ‘received’, but to examine the entire structure of discourse and ideation that surrounds us, that subsumes us. But I do definitely say that the first order of business is in seeing the intensity and the dogmatism in the framings of those who have provided you with your operative definitions.

No, I am calling him a white supremacist because that’s what he is. Unlike you, I don’t see the fall of Jim Crow and African Americans being able to access their constitutional rights as some sort of “plot against whiteness”. When someone declares that “when black people are left alone, any sort of civilization collapses” I don’t dance around trying to make excuses for them.....I point out the numerous idiocies of their white supremacist beliefs.

White supremacism IS evil. That’s just a fact bud.

 

[calamity]

No, I did not totally ignore. But I did say to someone who asked:

"Seriously why is this guy still getting air time?"​

I do understand that YouTube and nearly all the *spaces* for public discourse are privately owned and thus 'private spaces'. If you listened to the CNN presentation I posted where the ADL director suggested how it could come about that Carlson could be gotten rid of (pressure on advertisers and other machinations) it was clearly expressed there and I did very well understand what is portended. These plans and policies are just now being instituted. We will notice them more and more in the coming months and years.

But if you think these things through you will easily see that what we used to call 'public square' and 'public space' is now wholly owned by private corporations. And they can, technically, refuse to report anything not of their choosing. They can, technically, limit all speech.

This is 'problematic' as we say today. In a definite sense it is unprecedented as well. There are some, I am one, that would advocate for newer and modernized legislation that would extend free speech right into those electronic domains that have replaced or superseded the former 'public square'. The reasons are obvious. But it is a troublesome and problematic area.

When one examines your thought -- the things you say -- one discovers there intolerance, illiberalism and attitudes and proto-policies that have more in common with fascistic regimes (the former USSR, Maoist China and the CCP today) than with 'classic liberal concepts and values'.

You do not come out boldly in defense of a general encouragement of the circulation if ideas in all media, as a matter of accepted and necessary cultural protocol, but you definitely take the side of those who are today actively working to shut it down. This is a curious shift or transvaluation if I take you as a Left-Progressive exponent.

My my how things change!

We are supposed to be intolerant of Nazis. How did you miss that part of History Class?

 

[Nickyjo]

So you are a liberal and I am a conservative libertarian. We see things differently.

You probably think Trump was the worst president in history and Sleepy Joe is doing a wonderful job. I think Trump was one of the best if not the best president in my life time and Sleepy Joe is President because he is the only candidate the democrats could find that had a chance against Trump and he would have lost if the election hadn’t been rigged.

You have every right to your option and I have every right to mine. Isn’t it great to live in a nation with freedom of speech.

In passing, some democrats have suggested people like me or my children should be sent to re-education camps. I would never even consider such an idea for those who don’t agree with me. Obviously these liberals don’t agree with the First Amendment. Comments like that only give people like me one more reason to never give up our firearms. That’s the Second Amendment that protects the First. I’ll bet the liberals that want to put me in a re-education camp would love to see the Second Amendment repealed.

Compilation: Leftists Call For “Deprogramming” and “Re-education” of “Brainwashed” Trump Supporters

Breaking News and Information with a strong bias for telling the truth. Censored news and analysis that you won't find anywhere else.

www.newswars.com

PBS lawyer seen on video calling for children of Republicans to be put in reducation camps

www.msn.com

National Democratic Party Official Suggests Re-education for Trump Supporters: ‘How Do You Deprogram 75 Million People?&#8

David Atkins, a newly elected California member of the Democratic National Committee, says that it's time for the Democratic party to

djhjmedia.com

Two stunning news sources. What's next, Pravda? Given that many Trump supporters swallowed his election fraud lie, I can see why some people might make comments like that. Trump himself revealed that he thought his cult followers were a bit off, with his I "could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue" statement.

 

[Nickyjo]

Yes, Ingraham then Tucker superseded Rush as a liberal target several years before his death.

With good reason. Ask Sandra Fluke about Rush. Check out the we're-losing-the-America-I-grew-up-with-boo-hoo-ing of the other two.