Bye, Bye, Tucker Carlson
Dinesh D'Souza Makes a Take
Update: two organizations take two different sides and the conflict erupts. https://www.meforum.org/mef-online/when-conservative-leaders-lose-their-way
I enjoy speculative discussions, but there is a limit. I love the old Gavin McInnes, where he rambles on about some interesting topic or has some oddball guest. He made a jest of creating a fraternity called Proud Boys, which morphed into reality, and the far left crushed him repeatedly for it. Today, he runs a platform called Censored.TV and still tries to be relevant as well as funny like this shirt (https://censored-tv-shop.mybigcommerce.com/please-be-a-fart-t-shirt/).
Freedom of speech is important, but when doing speculation, you have to have an intellectual core enough to know what you do not know and the limits of your own speculation, and the inevitable reaction. Candace Owens has this but has traded it in to take the money from whatever idea sells. Her interview with a survivor of the USS Liberty garnered 6 million views. Tucker Carlson, who is not as smart as Owens, has already been on this route for money. They both now cater to anti-Semites and anti-Israel sentiments, while most conservatives are paying attention to current events such as the Federal Government shutdown.
Carlson’s recent interview of anti-Semite Nick Fuentes is the latest example of seeing just how far into the desert you can drive a clunker car without it quitting. More damaging is in the interview, Tucker says he does not understand “Christian Zionism”. He lacks introspection and ponders on wonder to gain attention, but in the end, you get no where with it. The car is stuck in the desert and no one is coming to save you.
Recently, Dinesh D’Souza, conservative author and film maker, was interviewed by Triggernometry and gave his take about Owens and Carlson. Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster created Triggernometry, a Youtube, podcast, and news site, which provides interviews and discussions on the current events. In this interview, Dinesh D’Souza explains the limits of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson very well.
However, I also believe the shift of Owens and Carlson is the result of turbulence in the news media. We already know what happened to Chris Baker and Tom Becka from years ago, but now the change is going a different direction. Jeff Bezos changed the editorial stance of the Washington Post, and Bari Weiss, a declared independent, is now at the helm of CBS News
(httphttps://norwalkreflector.com/news/652141/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-bari/ s://norwalkreflector.com/news/652141/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-bari/ and https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/washington-post-owner-bezos-says-opinion-pages-shift-from-broad-focus-to-will-defend-free-market-and-personal-liberties). CNN now has Harry Enten who brings credibility back to polling with his data research which is big shift for even CNN (https://www.leighbureau.com/speakers/henten), but CNN still has too many problems. Ideas, facts, nuance, and perspective are coming back in the public square of discussion.
However, Tim Pool (https://timcast.com/) will be interviewing Nick Fuentes in the future, but I wonder if Pool will be able to measure out Fuentes’ brand of anti-Semitism (https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/a-groyper-war-struggles-to-exert-influence-but-paves-the-way-for-other-bad-actors/ and https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/a-groyper-war-struggles-to-exert-influence-but-paves-the-way-for-other-bad-actors/) as others have.
I doubt Pool will fully fail as Carlson did. Carlson flat out failed for the same way he fell in love with Moscow’s subway system on his way to interview Putin. Carlson is often brainless so he is just going to use more shock to find new avenues for money for his channel. He is the boy who pees in the flower pot and excuses it as “nature calling”. He takes comfort in having relieved himself but does not account for the damage he has done. In the end, Carlson kills the plant, so like a weed, I am plucking Carlson out.
That flower pot metaphor really hits hard. What strikes me most is how you pinpoint the difference between Owens and Carlson, she has the intellectual capacity but chose to trade it for money, while he's just genuinely not that sharp to begin with. The Moscow subway thing was such a perfect example of that. Like, yes Tucker, authoritarian regimes can build nice infrastructure when they dont have to worry about little things like civil liberties or democratic processes. The fact that he doesn't understand Christian Zionism while interviewing someone like Fuentes is almost impressive in its ignorance. Its one thing to be provocative, its another to not even grasp the basics of what you're discussing. Dinesh nailed it when he talked about the limits of their speculation, they've driven that clunker so far into the desert there's no coming back.
Um... I've been surrounded by it all my life, but I can honestly say that I don't understand Christian Zionism either. Or at least, I am having trouble understanding why a country that's 37 TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole somehow thinks it needs to be shelling out money by the billions to a small middle-eastern country so that they can give their own citizens free secondary education and free healthcare, and fund their entire defense budget, while we can't even do that for our own country and citizens.
It makes no sense. I say this as someone who doesn't hate Jewish people, as someone who is reliably informed that they'd be fine with that monetary support going away.
I also appreciate what Candace and Tucker are trying to do here, and I think there's got to be a way to bring this discussion in the public square back into something resembling reasonable balance.
Israelis can be really nice people. I've met some. I liked them. I am NOT a fan of some of what their government does. They do not deserve to be defended in a partisan and very blind manner by random Christians everywhere regardless of what they're doing and why.
And frankly, not even the Israelis themselves believe that. They are quite capable of critiquing and criticizing their own government and pointing out where it could do better. And the ones I've known would be the last to insist that they're perfect people.
Does that mean that HAMAS should be empowered to commit acts of terror against them? Absolutely not. And it doesn't mean that Gaza should be turned over to be tyrannized by evil people intent on wreaking havoc on Israelis and on Palestinians, either.
It just means that there are different points of view, and sometimes, for the sake of reasonable discourse and rationality, you ought to at least hear what they are, even if you fervently disagree with them, so that you can at least know what they are and put together a strong argument as to why or why not.