• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker Carlson's White Supremacist Rant

Yes, I realize the definition was too narrow but it made the quick point that today's liberals are, indeed, not all that liberal. In fact they're the mother of 'cancel culture', censorship, and 'eat the rich'.
...
That's a ridiculous whine without any foundation in reality. Ask the Dixie Chicks about "cancel culture." And, look back at the 2016 election to see who cried the loudest about "elites."

Oh, and did anyone ever locate that pedophile ring in basement of that pizza shop yet?
 
That's a ridiculous whine without any foundation in reality. Ask the Dixie Chicks about "cancel culture." And, look back at the 2016 election to see who cried the loudest about "elites."

Oh, and did anyone ever locate that pedophile ring in basement of that pizza shop yet?
There wasn’t even a basement...
 
Womens suffrage diluted Tucker's vote.
 
The European Whites have done quite well as a group, and of course much or all of that is related to culture and religion. Other cultures have done less well and you can see that immediately as you cross the border from Texas into Mexico, for example. There's really not much room for debate.

Mexico is 80% Catholic. What is the difference in how they worship ve European Catholics?

Also: when you say cultural differences, what would those be?
 
Why is Tucker's brand of racist demagoguery is dangerous? It paints a false reality for those easily led into believing it.
I will not say that Tucker’s brand of demagoguery is not dangerous and I will consider that it is. That is, I must at least be open to considering the possibility that a trend, in this case a trend distributed by a major media company, is dangerous.

But what I want to suggest is that we need to take our eyes off Carlson — just for a minute — and focus our attention on a huge and visible social phenomenon now sweeping through the nation: Woke Social Justicism. Activist postmodernism. Activist critical theory. Postcolonial theory. And of course the various gender-based derivatives of ‘social justice activism’.

All these, acccording to my researches, are branches of Postmodern theory when postmodernism melded with a social justice activism; was reduced to a cluster of *actionable concerns* and spread through social media channels as a sort of ‘hysterical infection’.

Now let me use a phrase that Calamity has used and see how it functions with a different juxtaposition: “These paint a false reality for those easily led into believing them”.

Someone on this thread brought up ‘Classical Liberalism’. The most wonderful teacher on this topic is Isaiah Berlin and a search on YouTube will bring up his wonderful presentations. But with that said allow me to suggest, just to open the conversation to the possibility, that radical and activist postmodern critical theory is by its very nature, and according to its own declarations, extremely anti-liberal! (in this classic sense).

It is radicalism and it openly declares that it must undermine and topple *oppressive structures* and *oppressive relationships*. It does not preach ‘toleration’. It leads people to take vigilante actions such as rioting, pulling down monuments, attacking those it identifies as *enemies*, protesting at talks on universities and disrupting them, and the list goes on. Average people have sat by while watching this hysterical movement wash over the nation. Yes or no?

Anyone can easily see the point I make. This is radical anti-liberalism plain and simple. Though those who engage this way say they are doing it *for a higher purpose*. But wait a second! Carlson constantly says that he is defending not a radical conservatism, or some sort of activist right-wing fascism, but the political center — that is to say something closer to ‘classical liberalism’. This seems to me to be a fact.

There is something really quite wrong, quite ethically wrong, and questionable about these radical forms of activism. They seek out problems, they exacerbate existing problems that should be dealt with through ‘liberal toleration’. They build on differences. They accentuate differences. They are very very hard-headed in their approach. They show tyrannical, dominating characteristics. I think I could go on here and I would not be engaging in unfair rhetoric.

If what I suggest here is true — and to understand my position you’d have to read some of what I have been reading lately: deep criticisms of postmodern/critical theory-based activism — then Tucker Carlson is acting as a classical reactionary: reacting to (if you will allow this turn of phrase) the insanity and also the undermining destructiveness of activist Critical Theory.

And again if this is true, when the Fringe Left — a radically-inclined and activist Left — began marching through culture, as indeed it has and is, it naturally provokes reaction, and that reaction, naturally, will not be ‘liberal’ as classically defined. But reaction rarely is. It is compensatory.
 
Last edited:
Mexico is 80% Catholic. What is the difference in how they worship ve European Catholics?

Also: when you say cultural differences, what would those be?
Mexico is also 90% Christian and well over 50% European. I guess Young doesn’t consider Spain as European in his calculations of who qualifies as “European Whites.”
 
I will not say that Tucker’s brand of demagoguery is not dangerous and I will consider that it is. That is, I must at least be open to considering the possibility that a trend, in this case a trend distributed by a major media company, is dangerous.

But what I want to suggest is that we need to take our eyes off Carlson — just for a minute — and focus our attention on a huge and visible social phenomenon now sweeping through the nation: Woke Social Justicism. Activist postmodernism. Activist critical theory. Postcolonial theory. And of course the various gender-based derivatives of ‘social justice activism’.

All these, acccording to my researches, are branches of Postmodern theory when postmodernism melded with a social justice activism; was reduced to a cluster of *actionable concerns* and spread through social media channels as a sort of ‘hysterical infection’.

Now let me use a phrase that Calamity has used and see how it functions with a different juxtaposition: “These paint a false reality for those easily led into believing them”.

Someone on this thread brought up ‘Classical Liberalism’. The most wonderful teacher on this topic is Isaiah Berlin and a search on YouTube will bring up his wonderful presentations. But with that said allow me to suggest, just to open the conversation to the possibility, that radical and activist postmodern critical theory is by its very nature, and according to its own declarations, extremely anti-liberal! (in this classic sense). It is radicalism and it openly declares that it must undermine and topple *oppressive structures* and *oppressive relationships*. It leads people to take vigilante actions such as rioting, pulling down monuments, attacking those it identifies as *enemies*, protesting at talks on universities and disrupting them.

Anyone can easily see the point I make! This is radical anti-liberalism plain and simple. Though those who engage this way say they are doing it *for a higher purpose*.

There is something really quite wrong, quite ethically wrong, and questionable about these radical forms of activism. They seek out problems, they exacerbate existing problems that should be dealt with through ‘liberal toleration’. They build on differences. They accentuate differences. They are very very hard-headed in their approach. They show tyrannical, dominating characteristics. I think I could go on here and I would not be engaging in unfair rhetoric.

If what I suggest here is true — and to understand my position you’d have to read some of what I have been reading lately: deep criticisms of postmodern/critical theory-based activism — then Tucker Carlson is acting as a classical reactionary: reacting to (if you will allow this turn of phrase) the insanity and also the undermining destructiveness of activist Critical Theory.

And again if this is true when the Fringe Left — a radically-inclined and activist Left — begins marching through culture, as indeed it has and is, it naturally provokes reaction, and that reaction, naturally, will not be ‘liberal’ as classically defined,
The only Radicals are the Right Wingers who tried to overturn an election and purged the GOP of anyone not loyal to their cult leader.
 
The European Whites have done quite well as a group, and of course much or all of that is related to culture and religion. Other cultures have done less well and you can see that immediately as you cross the border from Texas into Mexico, for example. There's really not much room for debate.

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.
 
The only Radicals are the Right Wingers who tried to overturn an election and purged the GOP of anyone not loyal to their cult leader.
This is an example of ‘reduced discourse’. I would also suggest that you work with reduced concepts and with the cluster of reductions I referred to previously.

If ever you did flesh out the actual structure of your ideas I believe, based on what I have read of you so far, is you would quickly reveal your own relationship with ‘critical theory ideology’. But you never write out complete sets of ideas that can be examined and thought-through. You only deal in radically-tinged hot phrases, such as the one I quoted.

All your presentations begin with highly rhetorical and charged ‘statements’. President Trump is not an ‘elected president’ but a ‘cult leader’. And by definition we all know what must be done with a cult leader. But it goes further to a condemnation of millions and millions of people who, I gather, should be purged according to you.

Your phrasing, the concepts you work with, are of themselves radical. They are rhetorically infused and hot-headed.

And this is my argument: the origin of the conflict today can be significantly traced back to the critical theory and critical race and critical gender and critical postcolonial ideology.

You seek conflicts, you create them if necessary, and then you exploit them!

But there is very little *balanced* and remotely *fair* in your entire position, at least what I have read of it.
 
Screenshot 2021-04-11 at 8.42.24 AM.jpeg

So, What I am trying to do -- in my research -- is the follow back the causal chain to discover the origins of the conflict so preponderant today. This is from a recent book called Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose.
 
Oh, and did anyone ever locate that pedophile ring in basement of that pizza shop yet?
I would appear not. But when one examines those strange communications (the emails) they tend to produce suspicion and those *code words* also aroused suspicion.

'Average people' who are concerned about their society and their culture, and who more often than not are Christian in their views, notice that Jeffrey Epstein had an island and very high-end properties in which he carried on related activities for years. And they also notice that he entertained many famous and 'elite' people -- some close to the Halls of Power -- so the idea forms in their head of 'corruption in high places'. And if there is corruption in high places where does it begin and where does it end? Government? Hollywood? 'Global elites'?

People are forced to *interpret their world* and yes some of that hinges into 'conspiracy theory' -- inaccurate or exaggerated portrayals. Kind of like a 'movie version' of reality! It fits really with 'popular imagination'. It must be confronted and corrected of course.
 
The European Whites have done quite well as a group, and of course much or all of that is related to culture and religion. Other cultures have done less well and you can see that immediately as you cross the border from Texas into Mexico, for example. There's really not much room for debate.
your concept of quite well is ... what? Monetary and Material things? Because white people have for centuries committed some of the greatest atrocities in this nation for centuries... for Monetary and Material things and abusively using others to create and build, what they deny and put up oppositional against the usage and participation of the people whose labor and tax resources, ideas and contribution of all types and sorts when into building and creating, always with a delusion that such stuff makes them superior.

Now, right wing republican white people are pissed off, because they can't dictate who can vote.....
They just as well get use to the fact, that Jim Crow White Dominance of Anything and Everything IS NOT going to be the future in America.
 
That's a ridiculous whine without any foundation in reality. Ask the Dixie Chicks about "cancel culture." And, look back at the 2016 election to see who cried the loudest about "elites."

Oh, and did anyone ever locate that pedophile ring in basement of that pizza shop yet?
It appears that Republican Matthew Louis Gaetz II and his counterparts are members of the real pedophile ring. The pizza show spin was nothing more than another Republican led projection to deflect what is within their own ranks, they always use that tactic "as usual" to cover what is within their own ranks.
 
Because white people have for centuries committed some of the greatest atrocities in this nation for centuries...
This is the ‘insinuation of unutterable evil!’ brought out against white people and ‘whiteness’. What possible defense would it or could it allow? No defense.

When these sorts of accusations are employed it is inherent in them that no defense against them is possible!

Tricky, very tricky! :cool:
 
This is the ‘insinuation of unutterable evil!’ brought out against white people and ‘whiteness’. What possible defense would it or could it allow? No defense.

When these sorts of accusations are employed it is inherent in them that no defense against them is possible!

Tricky, very tricky! :cool:
Well, who shipped in the slaves and killed off the Indians? White People.
 
IMO, the only solution to end an asshole's show like Tucker Carlson's is to cut the chord. Fox doesn't care about advertising boycotts because they pull in $2 per month from every cable subscriber in the US. So...drop your cable or demand your cable carrier drop Fox. I suggest the former will lead to instant results while the latter will only result in more frustration.
fox-news-profits-fnl.png

.

Note: you really do not need cable. In fact, you're way better off streaming what you like and forgoing the stupid chord that gives you 99 channels with nothing worth watching on them anyway.
 
Last edited:
This is the ‘insinuation of unutterable evil!’ brought out against white people and ‘whiteness’. What possible defense would it or could it allow? No defense.

When these sorts of accusations are employed it is inherent in them that no defense against them is possible!

Tricky, very tricky! :cool:
There is no defense against "historical facts" that are well documented. It's up to "people, as individuals, to invest themselves not to repeat the past of such atrocious conduct, support of such conduct and not to participate in such conduct.
 
IMO, the only solution to end an asshole's show like Tucker Carlson's is to cut the chord
I like chord in place of cord!

This clearly demonstrates absolute anti-liberalism. This cancellism is no joke. When people with such anti-liberal intolerance get power they do extraordinary things with it.

In contrast, rightwing conservatism has been and still is tolerant. Much more in comparison.
 
Overtly racist or just another thinly veiled dog whistle, you decide.



I say it was pretty overt.



He's actually spot on

What do ya think will happen to America when we're stupid enough to allow 3rd world immigration by a majority?
 
Illegals don't vote. And, they certainly do not get "free stuff."


Loop hole

Their anchor baby kids get it, so the illegal parents gets it

Sigh

Illegal alien kids do get Free healthcare in our largest state, the shithole of Calif
 
I don't see anything racist or white supremacist about what he is saying in that video. He is talking about the mass importation of illegal immigrants at the expense of legal American citizens.
ImmigrationCartoon.jpg
 
Loop hole

Their anchor baby kids get it, so the illegal parents gets it

Sigh

Illegal alien kids do get Free healthcare in our largest state, the shithole of Calif

But if their parents are working and paying taxes, or working illegally and being woefully underpaid, is it really "free?"
 
But if their parents are working and paying taxes, or working illegally and being woefully underpaid, is it really "free?"

But if their parents are working and paying taxes,

Please... Just stop at illegal
or working illegally and being woefully underpaid,

Underpaid?

They make 15X what they make in their country of origin

Why do ya think they come?
 
Loop hole

Their anchor baby kids get it, so the illegal parents gets it

Sigh

Illegal alien kids do get Free healthcare in our largest state, the shithole of Calif
1B112FAC-F548-40DB-ACA2-0371072495D5.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom